Thoughts on the Market

Stephen Grambling explains how changes in booking habits could redirect billions in travel industry spending.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Stephen Grambling, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Gaming, Lodging, and Leisure analyst.Today: how AI could transform hotel bookings and reshape the economics of the travel industry.It's Monday, November 2nd, at 10am in New York.So, we all love dreaming about and going on vacations, right? But you know what we don’t love as much? Scrolling through dozens of hotel listings, comparing prices across websites, contemplating where and how much we can use our rewards or maximize points or wondering if we’re getting the best deal for the right experience.So, imagine the relief of having an AI assistant understand you and your families’ preferences, all of your status and loyalty points, aggregated details and reviews of all the hotels you’ve ever travelled to and might want to travel to – and all you need to do is evaluate locations? Then it finds the right hotel and books it for you.That future is coming into focus, and it could reshape the economics associated with the marketing and distribution behind the $640 billion global hotel industry.We estimate that every year the lodging industry spends between $22 to $55 billion on marketing. Add roughly $30 billion in fees collected by online travel agencies, or OTAs, and we're talking about $55 to $85 billion in spending that AI could influence.Today, when you book through a third-party travel website, hotels typically pay commissions of 10 to 20 percent if it’s a branded hotel, or 20 to 30 percent if it’s independent. Booking directly through a hotel's website costs the brand closer to only 5 percent. That difference can have a meaningful impact on profitability for their owners.As AI agents increasingly help travelers find hotels, compare options, and potentially book on their behalf we could see a major pivot in brand preference and booking channel. In our analysis of hotel searches across eight U.S. destinations, traditional search engines directed travelers to official hotel websites just 13 percent of the time. With AI-powered searches, that jumped to 97 percent.But perhaps the most interesting finding involves loyalty programs. When we told the AI agent that a traveler belonged to a hotel loyalty program, 100 percent of the resulting links pointed to official hotel websites. When we specified a membership in an online travel agency's loyalty program, the results shifted entirely to that third-party booking platform. That means the AI agent is already factoring in your rewards, memberships and loyalty preferences into travel recommendations.We saw similar effects in Europe.For major hotel brands, this creates a significant opportunity. Their large loyalty programs and established customer relationships could help drive more direct bookings at a lower cost. And even small shifts add up. We estimate that moving just 1 percent of bookings from third-party platforms to hotel websites could boost hotel owners' EBITDA by roughly 0.1 percent to 0.5 percent.Looking ahead, we expect hotel margins to start benefiting from these savings in the second half of 2027, with further gains in 2028.Independent and boutique hotels could also profit as AI gets better at matching travelers with unique properties that fit their preferences. Meanwhile, online travel agencies aren't going away. Their extensive hotel inventories, loyalty programs, and scale in payments and fulfillment remain important competitive advantages.For now, AI-driven referrals still account for only a small fraction of travel website traffic. But as AI platforms develop their own advertising and commission models, the economics could change.So, what does this mean for the travel industry?AI could help hotels attract guests at a lower cost while making it easier for travelers to find the right stay. Hotel brands have an edge with their loyalty programs; whereas online travel agencies can leverage unique inventory, boosting independent hotels. It's too early to declare an outright winner but expect more from us as this battle evolves.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.

It appears that credit investors have gotten most of what they’ve wished for over the last decade. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets considers whether there could be unintended consequences.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----  Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, how spooked should we be about the credit markets?It's Friday, October 30th, at 2pm in London.I grew up watching The Simpsons, and I've always had a soft spot for their Halloween episodes. One in particular that's burrowed pretty deep in my memory involves a cursed monkey's paw. It technically granted wishes to whoever held it, but with unintended consequences. For example, Lisa wishes for world peace, the entire planet disarms; and then aliens invade and take over. That sort of thing. Keep that monkey's paw in mind.   Credit markets are going through their own jittery episode. After a long period of support, central banks are raising rates and shrinking their balance sheets. Thanks in part to this shift, global yields have risen. And since bond prices move inversely to yields, they've driven negative total returns. Then there's the AI boom, maybe the defining economic story of 2026. Morgan Stanley estimates that close to $900 billion of CapEx will happen this year, roughly double what we saw last year and triple the levels of 2024. And we think this growth continues, with hyperscaler capital expenditures reaching about $1.5 trillion next year – almost the size of the entire U.S. defense budget. All that spending requires financing, and credit markets have been a key source of it. Heavy supply from this relatively new sector – technology – has pushed up both yields and spreads, especially because these issuers have often been willing to price their debt pretty cheaply, relative to the rating. These higher yields haven't slowed down the largest tech companies, given their considerable financial resources. But it has caused ripples further down the chain. Lower-rated credits with more leverage and slower growth are being more impacted by these higher borrowing costs. And the presence of these new technologies has increased fears of disruption to existing business models, especially in sectors like telecom. And as a result, the dispersion between credits has increased. Scary stuff. Or is it? If you'd spoken to a credit investor over the last 10 to 15 years, you would have heard a litany of wishes. If only central banks stopped intervening in markets, compressing credit risk premiums. If only yields weren't so low. If only the growth backdrop was better. These investors wish that the technology sector would finally issue bonds, given its extremely low weight in credit markets, which are heavily skewed towards slower-growing sectors like banks, utilities, and telecom. They wished for new bonds that were highly rated, yet also would have high spreads. They wished for a new issue premium, which had compressed sharply. And maybe, just maybe, in their wildest dreams, they hoped they could get it all. New bonds that were highly rated in a fast-growing sector issued at a large new issue premium. And hopefully a lot of it. They also from a business sense wanted dispersion. The case for active credit management relies on the idea that there are differences in credit performance that a skilled analyst can capture. If everything just moves together, well, just buy the index. We got our wish. Yields are high, with investment-grade credit yielding close to 6 percent in the U.S. and over 4 percent in Europe. Spreads have widened, and there's no central bank intervention to distort this. The AI boom is resulting in record levels of highly rated bond supply in a new sector, often at a significant discount for the rating. And all of this, and more, is driving significant dispersion.Granted, like the monkey's paw, the reality of this wish may feel different from what investors imagined. But unlike it, we don't think this is a Halloween tale. The fact that current conditions check so many boxes of what investors were looking for and address so many underlying needs is a good, healthy thing in our view. The path is hardly straightforward.But for now, we're less frightened of this story. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today. And of course, Happy Halloween.

Our Head of Digital Asset Strategy Amy Oldenburg joins Global Digital Asset Strategist Felix Stratmann discuss how tokenization, regulation, and the convergence of traditional and digital finance could reshape global markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----  Felix Stratmann: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Felix Stratmann, Global Digital Asset Strategist with Morgan Stanley Research. Amy Oldenburg: And I'm Amy Oldenburg, Head of Digital Asset Strategy. Felix Stratmann: Today, we're looking beyond crypto prices to explore how digital assets could transform the way financial markets operate. It's Thursday, October 29th at 2pm in London. Amy Oldenburg: And 10am in New York. Felix Stratmann: So, we're used to being able to send money, shop, and access information anytime, anywhere online, right? But much of the financial system still operates on infrastructure built decades ago, with limited trading hours and transactions that can take days to settle. Digital assets could fundamentally change that. Amy, your work focuses on how financial institutions put digital asset technology to use. When people hear digital assets, they still mainly think of Bitcoin. But what bigger shift in financial infrastructure are they missing? Amy Oldenburg: One thing I would focus on is – while Bitcoin may have showcased the technology for us, there's a much bigger innovation story here that we need to focus on, and this is really what's going to create the future of efficiencies and new products for our clients. We've seen many other industries get disrupted by innovation and technology. And now it's coming for financial services. And we're really dealing with this in many different ways today. Felix Stratmann: Yeah, and I guess as that infrastructure changes so could the competitive landscape, right? So which parts of the existing financial systems stand to benefit the most, and which could face the greatest disruption from your perspective? Amy Oldenburg: Yeah, I think it's good to look at some of the different points we've seen in history. Even if we think about some of the parallels to the internet era. While many of those early activities were simpler in terms of what happened, just digitizing company information for the first time. We're also seeing that simpler product design happening within digital assets. We're tokenizing equities and we're tokenizing treasuries. And that's simply to get them in digital form. It's really the future of programmability, really embedded in some of these products that will be the powerful force that we'll see in the future. So I think areas where you have high friction and even a heavier administrative burden, that's areas where we may see some of the biggest transformations happen in this space. So Felix, I'm looking at this sector from the strategy side. Curious from your research perspective, where are you seeing the clearest signs of tokenization moving from concept to real market activity today? Felix Stratmann: So I mean, look, we are early in the tokenization game. You know tokenized real world assets are about [$] 30 to 40 billion today. But they're growing quickly. That number was essentially nothing just a couple of years ago. And recently we put out a forecast saying we expect them to reach [$] 2.3 trillion by 2030. What’s driving that? A couple things I would say. Really it comes down to where traditional financial infrastructure has the most friction. One of those areas being collateral management. Getting your collateral where it needs to go, whether that be 24/7 or internationally, this is a big opportunity for tokenized assets. And we're seeing growing interest in and demand for related products like tokenized money market funds or government securities, which are one of the fastest growing areas of tokenization. And again, these can potentially move more easily between institutions or be used as collateral. And this is especially important, I would say, as markets move towards 24/7, right? One thing related to that where we're seeing increasing activity is tokenized stocks. You know, I would say they're not necessarily representing a more efficient state of the equity market yet, but they're an important step towards testing and demonstrating, you know, the benefits of tokenized assets in global distribution and also enhanced utility, right? And then elsewhere, I think, we need to look at digital money as well. So, we've talked about the assets, but the cash side of the equation is equally as important. And that's also starting to operate at a larger scale. Still largely crypto focused, but stable coins are increasingly being used in real payment activity, right? So, we see that growing, and approaching [$] 100 billion or so a month right now. And yeah, maybe changing gears here just a bit. This progress we've been discussing is happening against a backdrop of a bit of regulatory uncertainty, right? The CLARITY Act hasn't advanced as proponents had hoped. How do institutions balance that uncertainty against the need to keep investing in new infrastructure? Amy Oldenburg: Felix, I have to say regulatory topics have been just the theme of 2026 this year. It's not only [the] CLARITY Act. You had highlighted digital money, which is also wrapped up in the Genius Act, which will go in force in January of 2027. And then we've seen innovation exemptions also come to market in the last few weeks. You know, the future requires new tech, and how we're focused on this. We're not picking blockchain winners or even standards at this stage. We're really focused on building out the core infrastructures, because beyond regulation, there are certain non-negotiables that we just have to be ready for a future of 24/7 trading, real-time data, and the world ahead of us, which all of the regulations are really pointing towards a future of. And Felix, I'll turn it back on you as we talk about regulatory uncertainty. It doesn't necessarily affect every part of the market the same way. Where do you think it could hold back adoption? And where do you see progress that may continue even under the existing frameworks?Felix Stratmann: Yeah, so look, CLARITY specifically was primarily a crypto market infrastructure build, right. And it could have provided a framework for how crypto trading is regulated. And also what regulations are relevant to decentralized financial applications. But, really that’s only one part of this digital assets theme, right. Tokenization, for example, you know, that could continue to progress because tokenizing existing security – that does not fundamentally change what that security is, right. Stock remains a stock; security is a security. Unit ownership is recorded in the blockchain. So, there’s already scope to develop, you know, things like tokenized funds, payment infrastructure, and institutional settlement under existing legal frameworks. I would say that, you know, firms are still looking for clarification from regulators. But that’s rather than wholesale new regulation being necessary. And look, to that point, we've already seen the SEC and CFTC very engaged in proposing rules and guidance post CLARITY. And then you also have the Genius Act, and the associated rulemaking from the relevant regulators. And that's paving a path for stablecoin usage and adoption. So look, yes, progress can definitely continue, particularly for the financial use cases of digital asset technology, even without comprehensive legislation. But you know, maybe let's think about what that means in practice, right? Even with the regulatory uncertainty, firms are still making decisions about when to modernize. So Amy, from your perspective, what can previous shifts in financial technology, like electronic trading, maybe, teach us about the risks of waiting too long to invest? Amy Oldenburg: Felix, I love your example of electronic trading, and there's so many periods in history where we lived through some of these transformations and impacts to financial services. Where we can take some of the lessons learned and really make sure we keep those in mind. But I think there's another one that we really need to also keep in mind, and that's really on the execution and managing the internal culture and workforce shifts that we'll also see with some of this innovation that takes place. These are critical because, you know, with many of these eras of transformation, you don't just flip a light switch to turn much of this on. We're living through many years of transformation, and I see digital assets being a multi-year transformation, just as we saw some of those other periods in history take many years to actually deploy over time. Felix Stratmann: Yeah that modernization, kind of, brings us to another important theme. The convergence of traditional finance and digital assets. What does that actually mean in practice? Are we heading towards two financial systems operating side by side? Or one increasingly integrated system? Amy Oldenburg: Oh, yeah. That's a really tough question, and I think one of the things we always love to try to determine a black-and-white outcome. But I think that one of the things that's pretty clear to us today is that for a number of years, we'll be living in and supporting a hybrid world as we work through the transformation that I even just talked about earlier. There's definitely operational efficiencies and, and strong product design that we really need to stay focused on. And that will be hard for our clients and even our firms to ignore going forward. So I think just like, AI is gonna impact our future, we have to think about how this integration comes together. And I think we may see not only integration or a unified system going forward. But we may even see financial services products distributed in different ways. And Felix, I'm going to turn it back over to you. What is your research show in terms of the clearest evidence for traditional and digital finance coming together? Do you see established financial institutions adopting blockchain faster than maybe many people realize? Felix Stratmann: Yeah absolutely, I mean we are early in the adoption of this technology. But the momentum is very much real, right. I looked through press releases from global financial companies and I found that roughly quarter by count, and some 60 percent by market cap, you know, had announced, piloted or launched digital assets initiatives. So, institutions are seriously behind this. And then you also see opportunity in 24x7 follow-the-sun type of Treasury management, you know, that digital money enables. And that could be highly relevant, you know, for corporate treasuries. So, yeah, I think absolutely firms are adopting this technology. And I think convergence is increasingly what we're seeing because these products are being issued on public blockchains. And firms are experimenting how to incorporate them into decentralized financial protocols. And yeah, I mean, it's very much a case of financial institutions using the technology while crypto native platforms are trying to figure out how to better cater towards regulatory compliance and privacy needs, right? And while it's early, look, it’s not like the early days of crypto, entirely, right, which was very much trying to replace the financial system. Now I think we're increasingly seeing this convergence with the existing system to make it more efficient. But maybe let's look ahead now. What needs to happen before digital assets become an everyday part of how financial markets operate? Amy Oldenburg: To your point that you brought up earlier on building out blockchains, the entire industry right now is really trying to invest and build this infrastructure. But it's not only the infrastructure, it's redesigning workflows, it's upgrading policies, looking at the governance impacts of this future. And that is a lot of work for many of our firms to take on, especially with so many competing innovation topics in the news right now. It may slow some of that adoption in the near term, I think what we'll see is suddenly – as much of this work is done and it starts to come to market, slowly, we will transition from not talking about the future of finance. But really that this will just become finance. And that's a path that we feel we're clearly on at this stage. Felix Stratmann: Well, look Amy, I know we could sit here talking about this for hours. But I think that'll wrap us up for today. Amy, thanks very much for joining me. Amy Oldenburg: Thanks, Felix. Felix Stratmann: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.Amy Oldenburg is a member of Morgan Stanley Firm Management. She is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are a digital representation of a value that function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, but generally do not have legal tender status. Digital assets have no intrinsic value and there is no investment underlying digital assets. The value of digital assets is derived by market forces of supply and demand, and is therefore more volatile than traditional currencies’ value. Investing in digital assets is risky, and transacting in digital assets carries various risks, including but not limited to fraud, theft, market volatility, market manipulation, and cybersecurity failures—such as the risk of hacking, theft, programming bugs, and accidental loss. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any entity that currently accepts digital assets as payment will do so in the future. The volatility and unpredictability of the price of digital assets may lead to significant and immediate losses. It may not be possible to liquidate a digital assets position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.Regulation of digital assets continues to develop globally and, as such, federal, state, or foreign governments may restrict the use and exchange of any or all digital assets, further contributing to their volatility. Digital assets stored online are not insured and do not have the same protections or safeguards of bank deposits in the US or other jurisdictions. Digital assets can be exchanged for US dollars or other currencies, but are not generally backed nor supported by any government or central bank.Before purchasing, investors should note that risks applicable to one digital asset may not be the same risks applicable to other forms of digital assets. Markets and exchanges for digital assets are not currently regulated in the same manner and do not provide the customer protections available in equities, fixed income, options, futures, commodities or foreign exchange markets. Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do business that may relate to some of the digital assets or other related products discussed in Morgan Stanley Research. These could include market making, providing liquidity, fund management, commercial banking, extension of credit, investment services and investment banking.

With Election Day a week away, our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Wealth Management's Monica Guerra explain why the aftermath of the midterms may matter more to markets than who wins.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley.Monica Guerra: And I'm Monica Guerra, Head of Policy and Geopolitical Strategy for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Ariana Salvatore: Today we're going to be talking about the upcoming midterm elections and what investors should be watching from both an institutional and individual investor perspective.It's Wednesday, October 28th, at 10am in New York.Well, Election Day is just about a week away. Investors are obviously increasingly focused on what a potential change in congressional control could mean for markets. And Monica, you and I are kind of grappling with this question through slightly different lenses. And that's why I thought it'd make sense to bring you in today.We both agree that what happens after the election is probably more important than the outcome itself. But let's start with the election backdrop. Your team has developed a Midterm Signal Monitor. What are the indicators telling us?Monica Guerra: Well, Ariana, affordability has really emerged as the defining issue for voters this cycle. Our monitor tracks four indicators positively correlated with midterm election outcomes: the generic congressional ballot, presidential approval, consumer sentiment, and gasoline prices.Democrats lead the generic ballot by about eight points, and presidential approval is 38.8 percent, just below the 40 percent historical reference point when the opposition political party tends to gain momentum.Now, consumer sentiment in October is the lowest of any October before a midterm election in the University of Michigan survey's entire history. And gasoline prices in September were up 37.6 percent from a year ago.So taken together, these signals point to a challenging environment for the incumbent party, really driven by affordability. Persistent inflation, elevated borrowing costs, and renewed energy price pressures tied to the conflict with Iran are all weighing on household purchasing power. But importantly, these are directional indicators, not necessarily a forecast of the election outcome itself.Now, Ariana, when you're looking at the potential outcomes from your perspective, how much do you actually expect to change?Ariana Salvatore: Well, I think that's the key question, right? Because our view has been that the midterms are unlikely to fundamentally change the direction of U.S. policy. And that's because a lot of the uncertainty that markets have dealt with since the beginning of 2025 has come from the executive branch rather than Congress.So, regardless of the outcome, we think things like tariffs, deregulation, immigration, geopolitics, export controls – all of those variables will remain important sources of policy uncertainty. Where congressional control matters more is on fiscal policy.So, a divided government would make new legislation harder to pass, and that could mean more contentious negotiations over things like government funding, the debt limit, and defense spending.So, for institutional investors, it's a little bit less about which party wins and more about what the composition of Congress means for the policy agenda going forward. As well as leadership's ability to really organize and corral different members of the caucus to effectively use their leverage around some of these negotiations.So, Monica, I imagine the questions that you're getting from individual investors may be a little bit different. Talk us through some of those.Monica Guerra: Yeah, they are. I think the biggest question is what the election can mean for an individual's portfolio. And history does offer us some interesting perspective here.So, the S&P 500 has averaged about a 14 percent return in the calendar year following a midterm election, compared with roughly just 3 percent in the midterm year itself. And this year, as we all know, the index has already outperformed that typical second-year trajectory, which could heighten risks and opportunities for sectors sensitive to policy decisions.For example, recent strength in technology and energy combined with the narrow market breadth could amplify policy-related volatility, particularly in industries facing heightened scrutiny under the new Congress.Of course, that's not a forecast, and we caution against making portfolio decisions based on historical election patterns or political headlines alone; as the business cycle, corporate earnings, inflation, interest rates, and the AI investment cycle are likely to matter much, much more over the long run.But one area where I do think our perspectives really intersect is the growing focus on electricity costs and data centers.Ariana Salvatore: That's right, and it's actually one of the policy themes that we've been highlighting the most into the election. Our view is that the AI infrastructure build-out is unlikely to face broad federal prohibition, and that's regardless of who controls Congress.There's a bipartisan recognition right now in D.C. – of AI as a strategic priority, particularly given competition with China. But at the same time, we are seeing growing political resistance at the state and local levels, where concerns around electricity prices, water usage, and infrastructure costs are becoming increasingly important.So, where that all nets out, what we've been describing is a base case of a conditional build-out. The investment cycle continues, but both the pace and the geographic distribution of new projects could become more dependent on local policy decisions. And that distinction matters for investors exposed to utilities, power generation, and the broader AI infrastructure supply chain.So, Monica, how are you thinking about that issue specifically for wealth management clients?Monica Guerra: I think it's a really good example of how a national political issue can have very local investment implications. For individuals, the concern often begins at home with the electricity bill. But it can also have implications for local issuers and the municipal bond market – dependent on whether a community and local government captures the benefits of new investment or absorbs the infrastructure costs.And that's why we've been emphasizing the importance of following what state and local governments are actually doing rather than just reacting to every move out of Washington. The same applies for taxes, which is another area where we're getting a lot of questions.Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, let's talk about that because taxes are probably the clearest example of how the near-term and longer-term implications can differ. [Of] course, at the federal level, we don't expect a change in congressional composition to meaningfully reverse the tax policies enacted last year through the OBBA.The president will remain in the Oval Office for the next two years. That means that he retains veto authority, which from a mechanical perspective just creates a significant hurdle to major legislative changes. But at the same time, the midterms could start to lay the groundwork for a different tax debate heading into 2028 and [20]29, specifically around AI and the build-out.For markets, expectations can start changing well before legislation actually arrives.Monica Guerra: Exactly. And for individual investors, there's also a very important state level dimension. We're watching proposals involving wealth taxes, property taxes, and state income taxes, all of which could have implications for household financial planning and the muni[cipal] bond market.So even if federal tax policy remains relatively stable – which we think it will – investors still need to be attentive to potential changes that are closer to home.And I want to come back to that broader market implications for a moment and really dig into that with you, Ariana. Are there particular areas where you think investors could be underestimating the impact of the election?Ariana Salvatore: I think the biggest risk is actually assuming that [a] divided government automatically means less policy volatility. Typically, the blueprint here is divided government means gridlock. That constraint is actually clarity for markets, which can be a good thing. But in this case, of course, even if a change in congressional control occurs, you might see additional oversight investigations and political scrutiny – but executive action can continue.And that could matter at the margin for sectors like technology and energy, which we've highlighted in terms of both the antitrust angle and deregulation more broadly. But I'd also distinguish between headline risk and actual changes to earnings or the macro-outlook.Not every political development is going to translate to a meaningful market impact, which is why we see this election as more of a micro than a macro catalyst.Monica Guerra: I agree, and from the wealth management perspective, that's why we really emphasize discipline. And lean into the idea that negative policy headlines often doesn't equal negative fundamentals.Election outcomes can change the policy backdrop and create sector-specific opportunities or risks. That individual investors should be careful about allowing short-term political developments to drive long-term asset allocation decisions.Ariana Salvatore: So maybe to wrap up, Monica, what's one thing that you'd encourage individual investors to watch after November 3rd?Monica Guerra: Yeah. I'd focus on the policy decisions that actually affect households and portfolios, especially energy costs and state and local developments. And I'd encourage investors to work with their advisors distinguishing meaningful policy change from that political noise.How about you?Ariana Salvatore: Well, from my perspective, I think there's a lot to watch in this lame duck period. Of course, the fiscal calendar, so government funding, potentially addressing the debt limit. We've got the NDAA, that's the bill that funds the Pentagon, coming due in December. You've got potential U.S.-China meetings.So, plenty to watch, I'd say, between now and the end of the year.But maybe just to kind of put a through line through all this, our broader takeaway is that the midterms probably won't alter fundamentally the direction of U.S. policy. But they could change where risks emerge and how quickly certain priorities can move forward.So, for investors, the important question isn't just who wins in November, it's actually what changes as a result.Monica, thanks for joining me.Monica Guerra: Thanks, Ariana. Great speaking with you.Ariana Salvatore: And 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.Monica Guerra is a member of Morgan Stanley’s Wealth Management Division. She is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen look at what could speed up tightening, what’s next for Treasury yields, and how the Fed can skip a hike now while signaling that more are coming.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today, the challenge facing the Fed: to not hike rates while still convincing investors that you think rate hikes are coming.It's Tuesday, October 27th at 11am in New York.So Mike, how do you think the Fed and Chairman Warsh in particular is going to deal with this challenge?Michael Gapen: Well, I think the way that he can do it is to say, ‘Obviously we already did hike. So, we've started a process. You know we're serious about bringing inflation down in a timelier fashion. So essentially the question is: Do we want to raise rates at every meeting or do we want to take an action, assess incoming data and take a different action?’So I do think the message here can be balanced in a way that says, ‘We didn't hike rates today. We didn't feel a tremendous sense of urgency to raise rates today. But we think more work is needed.’ So I'm not sure that there's urgency to raise rates every meeting. But you can still suggest that rates are going to go higher.You can see I'm having trouble articulating the story as well. Warsh may have some of the same difficulty, but I think that's the basic message is – taking an action, assessing its effect, deciding to take another action.Matthew Hornbach: At the Jackson Hole Symposium in August, Chairman Warsh gave a speech, and in the speech, he invoked this imagery of going on a hike around the mountains of Jackson Hole.And he told us that there were, in essence, two types of hikes that one could go on around Jackson Hole. A more leisurely hike and a more aggressive hike around the mountains. Presumably because we don't think the Fed will hike rates at this meeting. Presumably the idea that he has in his head today is to go on a leisurely hike.But if that's the case, how long does a leisurely hike last? How…Michael Gapen: They can both be the same.Matthew Hornbach: … long will the hike be.Michael Gapen: Yes. So I think that I would interpret the leisurely hike also as the difference between, I think, what economists euphemistically call a recalibration of the policy stance – as opposed to a more aggressive tightening cycle.So one's kind of leaning against the wind while the other one is trying to change the course of the economy. So I think you're right. And he called the leisurely hike the Ben Bernanke hike and as opposed to the Don Kohn aggressive hike. That's inside Fed speak if you know your former Fed staff.And I think what the data is telling the Fed, on one hand growth is certainly resilient, and inflation is sticky. But the labor market doesn't look like it's overheating. We're only adding about 50,000 jobs a month. The unemployment rate is low, that's true. But wage growth is actually decelerating.So from my perspective, and I think their perspective, even with the AI investment boom, there's not a lot of evidence the broader economy is overheating. And that's where I think the urgency story fits in. Are they behind? Do they need to get on top of something?I think the answer to that is no. So you end up with this measured recalibration: Hey, we cut 75 basis points last year to support the labor market, should probably reverse those. That's what we should be thinking. We're not thinking we need to go all the way back to 2023 highs, which would be the more aggressive tightening cycle.That's the way I split it out.Matthew Hornbach: So what would have to happen with the weather in Jackson Hole to change the mind of the committee to go on a more aggressive hike? Maybe to get back into the lodge before the weather really turns inclement? What would have to happen in the economic data, do you think, to change their mind?Michael Gapen: Well, I think that the most likely story there. I mean, what macro data would make them do that sooner than later would just be inflation has a lot more momentum than they think. Rather than being flat or decelerating slowly, it actually starts to firm.So, the actual data that they have in hand, they wouldn't even have to decide where it's coming from. But if inflation's firming, they have to get on top of it. That could certainly shift them to hikes every meeting. So, I'll put that down as the most likely.The other would be just what I said about the labor market. You would need evidence that says, "Wow, look at that labor market. Employment growth is picking up, the unemployment rate's moving lower, and wage growth is turning and starting to firm."So that would tell you what was kind of a narrow business spending story is now a broad-based overheating story. That's likely to be a much-more-slower-moving train. But certainly that could get the Fed to more rate hikes in 2027 than we're thinking.Matthew Hornbach: On the inflation point that you're raising here. One of the statistical quirks in how the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis put together the inflation data is that in the first month or two of the year, you typically have seen the seasonally adjusted inflation data come in much stronger. And then in the final couple of months of the year, you've tended to see inflation data come in lower than what you might otherwise expect – because these statistical agencies have had difficulty properly seasonally adjusting the data.So presumably, because this has been going on for a couple of decades, we'll see this “residual seasonality" again in 2027. Of course, we may not. But if we do, how do you think the Fed will deal with that? Because that could very well show us that inflation is picking back up…Michael Gapen: That residual seasonality, you're correct, it's still present in the data. There are many firms in different industries that raise their prices once a year. It varies over time. That's why the seasonal adjustment process doesn't capture it.So we get big, kind of, one-off annual increases in January and February. The Fed knows this, you know this, I know this. But the point is to decide either to stop raising rates, or maybe even at some point to cut rates, you have to ascertain where the underlying trend is. So this makes it harder for them to know what the underlying trend is.So in our view, it actually means you still get one additional rate hike in March, then after that, it only starts to become clear that inflation is decelerating and the Fed stops hiking.So in my view, I think the way that they deal with it is they have to wait and get more data to decide that inflation's either going in the direction they want or it's not going in the direction they want.So Matt, I'd like to turn it back to you if I can. We've seen a lot of volatility in the Treasury market. As you know, for many months yields were backing up. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked above 5.25. It's now back down to about 5 percent. How do you read what's happening in the Treasury market today?Matthew Hornbach: So the biggest explanatory factor in the sell-off in the Treasury market since, really since the beginning of March, has been a combination of what has happened with energy prices. Both outside of the country and within the country. And then, how the central bank ended up shifting its perspective on rate policy as a result of the effects of these higher energy prices on underlying inflation.And so, as the Fed transitioned from easing monetary policy in 2025 to now tightening monetary policy in 2026, and on your forecasts into 2027, the bond market had to reprice. And this is a typical behavioral response to a big change in monetary policy expectations.The more recent price action in the Treasury market, where the 10-year yield went from 5 percent up to 5.25 percent, we think was driven much more by technical flows related to a very large fixed income marketplace that includes more than just U.S. Treasury securities.Of course, we have agency mortgage-backed securities. There's a huge corporate bond market as well. And so, we see the last 25 basis points as more of a technical dynamic that was driving yields to those peak levels. And once those technical flows stopped, then we saw yields settle back down to a level that was more aligned with fair value, given how the Fed is expected to behave with monetary policy.But what that means, though, is that as the data come in over the course of the next several quarters, how the market thinks about the path of Fed policy over the course of 2027 will become an increasingly important factor in the Treasury market once again.So if the investor base decides that maybe the Fed, after having delivered these rate hikes that you're expecting, is comfortable keeping rate policy where it is. And as the disinflationary process resumes, might even consider reversing some of these rate hikes that they have put into place, I would expect 10-year Treasury yields to fall alongside – of those expectations for monetary policy.So ultimately, we have had a big move in the U.S. Treasury market this year. It has been very much aligned with how investors have thought about the changing narrative around Fed policy. And so 2027 will likely hold more of the same.As we make our mind up about where the Fed is heading with monetary policy, we will very likely see the bond market move in sympathy with that. And I guess we'll keep an eye on inflation, the labor market, as well as the Treasury market as we look forward towards the next FOMC meeting in early December. And considering the question again: hike or no hike?Thanks for this, Mike.Michael Gapen: Thanks for having me on, Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Is the end of the correction in sight? Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at what could bring this pullback to an end.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. Is the end of this equity market correction in sight? Today on the podcast, I’ll share what I think could turn the tide.It's Monday, October 26th at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after itThe correction that began in June is now well advanced beneath the surface. But I believe the high-quality S&P 500 index may still have some unfinished business. Until that plays out, I don’t think we can say the adjustment is complete.The real question to ask: how bad does it have to get before it gets better?We have described this correction as a classic mid-cycle transition. The peak rate of change in earnings revisions arrived right on schedule, about a year after the recession troughed. And the market responded the way that it usually does: early-cycle leaders with more operating and financial leverage started to underperform, while higher-quality, asset-light, services-oriented businesses moved to the front.This quality rotation is now well understood though, and positioning has followed it. Ironically, the final step is usually a convergence between the resilient high quality S&P 500 index and the weaker breadth beneath. We may already be seeing the beginning of that meeting in the middle. If the index does move lower, I believe 7100-7200 on the S&P 500 is where the correction should find material support.The reason I believe we will ultimately have a positive resolution to this transition is that a lot of damage has already occurred. Roughly 60 percent of Russell 3000 stocks are down more than 20 percent since June. And the hit has been even more severe in early-cycle areas like Semiconductors, Autos, Consumer Cyclicals, and Capital Goods.At the same time, hedge-fund positioning has come down meaningfully leaving us near the lows for the past 12 months. That is encouraging, but sentiment overall is not yet at the kind of extreme that typically marks a durable low. I think we are close but we’re not quite there.So, what gets us there? I see three clearing events ahead.The first is AI. Investors are questioning the eventual return on capital, the cost of capital, and whether credit markets can fund all the spending that has been promised. Over the next few weeks, the market will need to absorb more supply, and lower-quality players may continue to see wider spreads and even lower stock prices.I view the supply as the event itself. Once it clears, the risk should begin to fade. Semiconductors remain at the center of this concern, and may offer a good benchmark to monitor for the broader market correction. Specifically, I see another 10 to 15 percent lower for the Semiconductor index into mid-November.The second clearing event is the midterm elections. Markets dislike uncertainty, and this election has plenty. A blue wave is not a surprise anymore though. The larger overhang is what may happen after the vote, including the possibility of a renewed military escalation in Iran.I have no special edge in forecasting geopolitics. But I do know that these kinds of shocks often create very good buying opportunities. Historically, post-midterm returns have been very strong, so I would be ready to embrace a sharp downdraft in stocks in the days and weeks around election day.The third, and most important, clearing event is liquidity. Financial conditions have tightened sharply through a combination of higher rates, slower balance-sheet growth, stronger demand for capital, and higher energy prices.The tightening is beginning to resemble 2018, and it is not far from what we experienced in 2022 despite very modest tightening from the Fed so far. In fact, the market may be doing the Fed’s tightening for it; and if that tightening begins to create funding stress or destabilizes credit markets, the Fed and Treasury have tools to respond. The question is whether conditions need to deteriorate further before they act.Bottom line, I think the correction in equity markets that began in June is in the final stages, but the final stage can be very uncomfortable. We may still need one more index-level drawdown and bout of volatility. Or one more moment when investors conclude that something has broken. That may be exactly what clears the path for the Fed to pivot and the next leg higher for stocks.For now, I want to stay with quality stocks that have already corrected more than the index in areas like capital goods. More importantly, if these clearing events create a sharp downdraft, I would view it less as a reason to run from risk and more as the opportunity we have been waiting for to buy. So be ready.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

The energy shock is global, but the policy response isn’t uniform. In the second of our two-part roundtable, our economists unpack the forces shaping interest rates across the U.S., Europe and Asia. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research.  Michael Gapen: I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist.  Jens Eisenschmidt: I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe Economist. Chetan Ahya: And I’m Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.  Seth Carpenter: Yesterday, we talked about why global growth is continuing to power on, why investment is playing a larger role, and how that investment cycle is spreading across regions. Today, we're going to take a deeper dive and think about monetary policy and what's going on. It's Friday, October 23rd, at 10am New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: When I look around the world and think about especially developed market central banks, well, they're kind of all tightening at the same time – but maybe for somewhat different reasons.  Let's start with just a really broad policy question. Why are the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Japan all tightening policy when their economies look so different?  Mike, I'm going to start with you back here in the U.S. with the Fed. How are you thinking about what the Fed is doing right now? Are they just recalibrating the stance of policy? Or is this a fundamental change where they're trying to rein in growth in the economy?  Michael Gapen: The way I look at it is this is a story about persistent inflation, and I would look at it as a recalibration of policy. I think the majority of participants on the FOMC know the Fed can't pump more oil or get, you know, oil through the Strait of Hormuz. So, it's about leaning against second-round effects. Inflation is gradually moving lower. They've characterized this as dissatisfaction with the speed of convergence to the target.  So, I think the Fed is tightening based on persistent inflation, and it appears to me to be more about a recalibration than it is about meaningfully tightening policy and leaning into demand.  Seth Carpenter: All right, Jens. Same question coming to you, and I have to say the energy shock is a global shock. So how do you think about what's going on with the tightening of the ECB and the Bank of England?  Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah. No, I mean, first of all, if you sort of talk about both central banks – and here again, I guess the Fed comparison also matters. The starting point is important. The ECB was the only central bank that got inflation back to target, and so was already well advanced in its sort of rate normalization cycle, had cut back rates to 2 percent – which by most measures is sort of neutral, maybe leaning a little bit towards expansionary side of things.  And so, it was probably easiest for that central bank, when the supply shock came to tighten again, simply by getting a little bit towards the restrictive end of the neutral range, say. I think that is probably what has happened here, more than anything else. And for the Bank of England, of course, the discussion is a different one. They were running for a long time a relatively restrictive monetary policy. And so there was more scope to wait it out, essentially. A little bit like the Fed, essentially. This is where the similarities come in.  Now, if you look ahead, essentially, it becomes a question of how strong is your economy holding up? And, you know, the strength of that holding up in the face of a certain given energy shock will determine how much of the inflation that you experience today will be inflation of tomorrow, carried to the next period through stronger wage agreements.  I think that's basically the policy problem facing both central banks here. And I guess that in the end results in essentially a resolve to at least gradually further tighten the stance. I think that has to be the expectation. And so, from that perspective, this is where we arrive at essentially a current positioning that is not super hawkish, if you think about it. So, it's not like we have to gung ho every sequential meeting increase rates. But we see a gradual increase in rates. And so, for instance, for the ECB, we have a meeting around the corner next week. We don't think there will be an increase. But the risks have sort of stacked up and are really to the upside for inflation. So, it will be very hard to avoid a tightening for the ECB in the December meeting. So that's the gradual pace I was just referring to.  Seth Carpenter: Got it. Ok, Chetan, the developed market central bank in Asia that most people are staring at is the Bank of Japan. So big change there. 25 years of essentially stagnant nominal in GDP growth to now we're on a clear hiking path.  How far do you think the Bank of Japan is likely to go? What's driving it? And how important is this global energy shock to the Bank of Japan's plans? Chetan Ahya: We expect the BOJ to hike its policy rate twice, first in December and then again in March next year. This compares with market pricing of three more rate hikes. So, what explains our dovish forecast? Well, we think that Japan's inflation has been largely driven by FX weakness and higher commodity prices and not due to demand-side pressures. To elaborate, Japan's real consumption is still one percent below pre-COVID levels. Hence, we think BoJ will avoid taking up more aggressive policy tightening.  Seth Carpenter: So, Mike, let me come back to you for the U.S. We have seen globally a rise in interest rates. The long end of the curve has sold off everywhere. Some of that is being driven by energy prices. We've seen credit spreads in the U.S. start to widen.  Some of that's being driven by hyperscaler debt issuance, among other factors. But I guess what's important is when Chair Warsh first took over the helm of the Fed, his characterization of how restrictive monetary policy and financial conditions were – was not particularly forceful, right? He said it's hard-pressed to say that it's uniformly restrictive. But the world feels a little bit different now than it did when Chair Warsh took over. So how does the Fed need to react to the fact that longer-term interest rates have sold off and that credit spreads are starting to widen?  Michael Gapen: Financial conditions have tightened. We would characterize financial conditions as, let's call it moderately restrictive.  So, I think the Fed needs to look at that and then ask itself essentially, "Where is this inflation coming from? What inflation are we trying to stop?" I don't think there's a tremendous amount of evidence that points to an overheating labor market. Rates have risen, but long-run inflation expectations remain stable.So, I still think the right answer is to lean against potential second-round effects from the energy price shock. And here, I think that would show up in airfares, apparel, new and used cars, motor vehicles and parts.  We got some evidence in the September inflation report that these other goods prices were firm. We'll see if that continues, and this is an early sign of energy pass-through into other parts of core. But with financial conditions already moderately restrictive, it doesn't suggest they have a tremendous amount of work to do unless there's evidence that AI spending is broadening out to greater labor demand and higher wages. Then it would be a different story.  For now, I think a few more rate hikes – we have two more rate hikes penciled in, and 75 basis points of rate hikes in total – is probably where we think the Fed will be going by March of next year.  Seth Carpenter: Jens, let me turn that to you as well because rates in Europe have also gone up. And importantly, we've seen spreads for French sovereign debt over German debt widen a lot. So, OAT spreads are pretty high. How much has the tightening in financial conditions done the work of the ECB for it?And as a result, is that a reason to maybe expect less in the way of rate hiking than what the market has priced in? Jens Eisenschmidt: I think that's exactly the debate that I would expect to be raging in the governing council next week. We have already seen indications in the accounts in September that it was brought up.Since then, it hasn't gotten better. So, there is tightening. We had seen Philip Lane coming out essentially saying in very simplistic ways, ‘Well, this is AI. This is good for the U.S. It's not so clear it's as good for Europe. But, you know, rates have increased here too, and so we need to be super careful.’ That this is not representing us with much more tightening than we actually can stomach. So, to your point, indeed, I think the market is pricing too many rate hikes. We have one more at this stage in December, and that's it.  We have to acknowledge that since we made that change in call, we have seen more inflation and probably also more resiliency than we had thought. So that would push us at the margin to maybe one more in March.But then again, we have seen the tightening at the long end. If that continues, we may very well end up being right with that call without any need to change it. Again, that has to be closely watched. It will very likely depend on the growth outlook in the end.  But yeah, long story short, the market currently prices 3/25. I still think this is too much from the ECB here. Seth Carpenter: So, Chetan, maybe I’ll wrap up with you because we focused on some of the bigger central banks of the bigger economies. But there are different outcomes across different central banks. Here in the Americas, for example, down south, the Brazilian Central Bank, the BCB, is still easing, albeit gradually. Banxico in Mexico is holding rates, not hiking.  So, when you think about other central banks, across Asia, like say maybe Korea and India, where we're still seeing some strong domestic growth. Are they conforming to the same stories we've talked about for these major DM central banks?  Chetan Ahya: Yeah, the situation in Asia is somewhat different. They don't have a big inflation problem, but we are seeing strength in growth coming in because of exports. And so, for most central banks, we are expecting them to take up rate hikes. But those will be more countercyclical in nature. As such, core inflation, except for Australia and Korea is pretty much in the central bank's comfort zone. And so, we don't expect them to react to higher inflation. But to the extent to which, you know, U.S. rates are going up, growth is strong, most central banks will take up countercyclical rate hikes in the coming quarters. Seth Carpenter: That's super helpful, and that helps make, I guess, a key observation or theme about what's going on. Inflation is a global phenomenon. We are seeing somewhat resilient growth, and major central banks generally are tightening. But it is not a uniform story in every single place. And so, there are some interesting nuances in all of the details here.  That point also means that the endpoint for hiking cycles at different central banks might not be fully synchronized either. And it will depend, I suspect, in different jurisdictions on the specific evidence that each central bank is looking at – be it inflation itself, wage dynamics, what's going on in labor markets, domestic demand, foreign demand, external demand for exports, depending on the economy. And of course, as we touched on a bit, what's going on in financial conditions. Well, Mike, Jens, Chetan, thank you so much for helping us connect all of those dots. And to the listener, thank you for listening. And if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

In the first of a two-part discussion, our roundtable explores how AI investment, trade and consumer spending are sustaining global growth, and what could put that resilience at risk.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Michael Gapen: I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Jens Eisenschmidt: I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe Economist. Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist. Seth Carpenter: And today, our fourth quarterly economic roundtable discussion is going to try to take a wide-angle view on the global economy – and it has held up despite higher interest rates, higher energy prices, geopolitical uncertainty, you name it. It's Thursday, October 22nd at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10 pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: All right then. Let me start with that big question Why has global growth held up better than maybe would have been expected given everything that we've seen ? Mike, maybe I'll start from the U.S. perspective with you. What do you think has mattered most? What is driving – if I dare use an overused word – the resilience of the economy? Michael Gapen: Most of us believe AI-related spending is interest rate insensitive and geopolitically insensitive. And certainly, I think the data has borne that out. And in the direct translation of AI hypercaler Capex spending to growth, we find that AI is accounting for 4/10 to 6/10 contribution to growth in any given quarter. You could nudge that a little higher if you think it’s creating productivity, which we do. And that spending is underpinning asset market appreciation – or certainly has for the past several years. And that is underpinning resilient spending by upper income households. So, I think in the U.S. the clear answer is AI-related spending, but also its linkage to asset markets and upper-income households. Seth Carpenter: Jens, let me come to you for the European view. I mean the AI story has been a little bit different in Europe. I think consumer behavior sometimes can differ in Europe than in the United States. What would you say is the story behind the resilience of economic growth there in Europe? Jens Eisenschmidt:  It’s similar in the sense that there is a clear element of also of AI-related external demand.  That even in Europe now the phones are ringing, given that we are more typically seen as on the more higher cost end of the spectrum. So, I think there was clearly in the second quarter data, export-led growth elements related to AI or delivery into that. There was also an element of geopolitical tensions helping some of those producers – say, chemical industry in Germany comes to mind – that would deliver products that would previously be delivered out of the Strait [of Hormuz]. So, that is another element. And then, yeah, the consumer held up better than had expected. Or that you could have expected given the rise in energy prices. So all in all, that got us a relatively solid second quarter print. And we expect this to be more or less repeated also in the third. Seth Carpenter: Chetan, the export story is pretty important. You've been writing about a big CapEx cycle and big industrial cycle in Asia. So, when you think about the Asia story and why the economic growth held up in spite of the global shocks, how would you characterize that? Chetan Ahya: Yeah. So, Asia is benefiting from a strong pickup in CapEx, which initially was led by the tech sector, but is now broadening out to energy, defense, and broader industrial investments. Exports are strong, and showing some signs of broadening out from tech to non-tech goods too. This has meant that the region has faced positive terms of trade situation despite higher oil prices. Higher export prices have boosted corporate profits and in turn government tax revenues, offsetting the fiscal pressures from higher fuel subsidies. And when you're thinking about higher interest rates that you are seeing globally and also in Asia, what is different in this cycle is that the macro stability indicators are in a good place. Current account surpluses in the region have widened quite significantly. In fact, it is $1.6 trillion or 4.2 percent of GDP. Also what we have is the private sector balance sheets outside of China are quite healthy. So, all in all, both higher oil prices and interest rates have not disturbed the CapEx and growth cycle in the region. Seth Carpenter: Is there a lot of dispersion across sectors, across countries for this cycle that you’re talking about? Can you go a little deeper there? Chetan Ahya: Yeah. So let me start first with the story on investment versus consumption So initially, the growth story in the region started with a pickup in exports and CapEx. But what we have seen is that this has now broadened out into a dynamic where we see an improvement in the labor market and therefore consumption growth.So, we have this recovery broadening out from exports to CapEx to consumption. And within the region, when you're thinking about different economies. Initially, we saw very strong growth in Korea and Taiwan. But now we have seen growth being strong in all parts of the region, especially in economies like India, Japan, and also some of the Southeast Asian economies like Malaysia and Singapore.  Seth Carpenter: I want to stay on this broadening theme, Michael. Is all of the CapEx spending, all the investment spending, by business in the United States, is it just an AI story? Are we seeing any broadening of the investment story in the U.S. beyond AI? Or should we just resign ourselves that the rest of the economy is going to stagnant? Michael Gapen: No, I do think we are seeing evidence of some broadening out. It is most clear in manufacturing. So, I do think it points to some broadening out in the AI story beyond the narrow AI story into something that is broader that both Chetan and Jens have referenced about in a multipolar world needing to build out redundancies in supply chain. Maybe there's some incentive to do some reshoring. So, whether it's a spillover effect from AI or a spillover effect from geopolitics writ large, I do think there's some evidence that we're seeing the broadening out. I would just caution and say, just remember, manufacturing in the U.S. is relatively small. It's only about 10 percent of output and maybe 10 percent of employment. But nonetheless, it's there. So, it's not just an AI story. I think you can characterize it as a bit broader. Seth Carpenter: Let me come to you, Jens, on this. We've seen an investment story play out for a while in Europe. There was a lot of discussion about defense especially in Germany –infrastructure especially in Germany. Is that still an important part of spending in Europe, the investment side of things? And how important is investment relative to household? Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah. No, I mean, I think in, in terms of the shares; and GDP shares in spending, you're talking about 50 percent versus 20 percent. So, consumption is the more important one…If you talk about relative expectations, so I think there your question really points at a key component of the forecast. If anything, you could expect maybe some more dampening from here, given that energy prices have increased further, and at some point the consumer will just capitulate. Or at least, need to show some signs of retracement. While investment has so far, in the aggregate at least, not shown any signs of a big revival. And if anything, this is what we would expect more investment from here – be it related to, you know, a progressive AI build out. Or be it because we anyway expect some more positive investment dynamics given where we are in the cycle and given that the ECB has decreased rates last year. And at some point, this typically shows up in investment demand. So, long story short, the relative importance as a growth driver should increase of investments, vis-a-vis consumption. I think that is that is relatively clear. The question is just the magnitude here. Seth Carpenter: How much do you worry then that not only is investment going to become bigger share of growth? That consumption could weaken even more because energy prices chip away at purchasing power of households? Is that a relevant factor for Europe? Jens Eisenschmidt: I think that has to be the number one growth worry going forward So essentially, you come down in terms of wage increases from very high level that were reflective of past inflation. So, the European wage setting process always lags inflation, and so basically today's wage agreements are reflective of yesterday's inflation. But now we are going above 4 percent, very likely on our forecast. Not an awful lot above 4 percent, but still above. Then it becomes a question of how long this is going to persist. If you just believe the future curves in energy markets – not long. But then if you look at more details in terms of, for instance, where diesel prices are likely heading, you can become more pessimistic, and ultimately, this is what matters for the consumer. So long story short, big risks here, of course. Seth Carpenter: All right. So, a consumer that's not exactly pulling its weight leads me back to China. Key economy in the world, one of the biggest economies going. But when it comes to demand, aggregate demand, China has been in this deflationary cycle for a while. The household sector has been pretty soft in terms of its demand. What are we looking at there in terms of the consumer in China, the demand side of things in China? is that likely to change anytime soon? And can the global economy look to China as a source of extra demand to keep this expansion going? Chetan Ahya: Unfortunately, I think the short answer to your question is no. We are still very cautious on China's consumption outlook. And what we have been characterizing the China growth story as it's going through a K-shaped recovery. On one side, you have the strength in exports and AI CapEx. And on the other hand, we have a very weak consumer. Now, why is the consumption growth weak in China? So firstly, the property sector has still not completed the adjustment cycle. So, from consumer standpoint, they have still a weak labor market and wage income growth. On top of that, they have seen this massive decline in asset prices. And, so they are actually, de-leveraging at a very rapid pace. The outstanding debt for consumers is contracting at the rate of 1.5 percent. 1.5 percent is not a big number, but just to see that contraction is quite surprising. And so therefore, all in all, China's consumption growth continues to remain weak. We do think that there is a possibility that the policymakers respond to this weak growth and provide some support. But we're not expecting that support to be big fiscal expansion in a way that you get a major surprise on the consumption outlook for China. Seth Carpenter: But as we started off saying, things are holding up, and so that fact brings up a question in my mind. Where are the risks? Where are the downside risks? And so, Mike, maybe I'll start with you. What do you think would lead to a downturn in the U.S.? Where's the biggest vulnerability? What do we have to look out for? Michael Gapen: Well, I think in the, the near term, I do think higher rates pose a vulnerability. So, I would say if the central bank has to shift to a much more dramatic tightening cycle and interest rates go a lot higher, that would be a near-term vulnerability. But I think if we look further out, if the resiliency of the economy is driven by the AI investment cycle, then I think a potential over-investment cycle is the greater risk. Seth Carpenter: Alright. Jens, what about in, in Europe? Jens Eisenschmidt: Clearly we have a discussion among European, in particular monetary policymakers, as evidenced by the latest accounts of the ECB about the degree to which long rates have increased. Maybe, too much and, you know, present a significant tightening of financial conditions. And juggling that in a good way will certainly be a risk and reason to be cautious. So, I would say, here the three risks. Again, consumption because of energy prices, interest rates, or a too tight monetary policy stance. And of course, the investment cycle overall. Seth Carpenter: Chetan, you get the last word in Asia Chetan Ahya: So, I would say, Seth, two risks. One is higher oil prices and the second one is, if you see a contraction in AI investments in the U.S. and therefore in Asia as well.So, on oil prices, I would say a threshold of $130 to $150 of oil would be a problem for the region. It would make the governments finally do resort to higher oil prices for the consumers.  And if you get a combination of higher oil prices and lower AI investments, that would be quite a big shock to the region's growth outlook. Seth Carpenter: Super helpful. And I think that's probably a good place for us to stop for today. We talked about global growth. It's been holding up really well. Sources of that resilience probably differ a bit across regions, but investment is important and becoming probably more important over time. And that investment boom is spreading through trade. Domestic demand in parts for Asia. Europe has got its own story going on. And obviously, the consumer around the world matters a lot. That current outlook though, of a reasonably strong economy with this shock from energy that's driving up inflation, means that the policy side of things, especially monetary policy, is now becoming kind of complicated. So, what should a central bank do? When we come back tomorrow, we're going to ask questions about the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan. How they're thinking about what's going on, the tightening that needs to be done, whether or not this is going to be a fully synchronized hiking cycle. And I guess most of all, what's going to tell us when the policy hiking has gone far? Mike, Jens, Chetan, thanks so much for joining today. And to the listener, thank you for listening, and be sure to tune in tomorrow for part two of our conversation. And if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Can markets absorb this much new debt? Our panel examines strong demand for investment-grade bonds, stress in high-yield debt and the macro risks that could shape the next six to twelve months in credit markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Anish Shah: I'm Anish Shah, Global Head of Debt Capital Markets. Rehan Latif: I am Rehan Latif, Global Head of Credit Trading. Samer Oweida: And I'm Samer Oweida, Global Head of Foreign Exchange and Emerging Markets. Andrew Sheets: Today, a discussion of historical levels of bond issuance and how it could affect the broader markets. It's Wednesday, October 21st at 9am in New York. Gentlemen, it's great to talk with you. I think what we're talking about is an issue that really cuts across all parts of Morgan Stanley's businesses, from issuance to credit trading to macro markets and beyond. And I'd like to get into it, but just quickly to kind of frame where we are. Anish, we are in the midst of a historic investment cycle in AI CapEx. We're in the midst of a very large pickup in M&A activity that I also want to make sure we get into. But you sit at the intersection of our capital markets businesses. Talk a little bit about what we're seeing in the bond issuance space. Anish Shah: Sure, Andrew. I look after all of our new issue capital markets business in credit, and that's across the credit spectrum and across geographies. And I'm constantly looking to Rehan for the latest in investor sentiment and how we can deliver the right product for our issuing clients. And to Samer on macro views that impact our clients every day. We are in the midst of a significant decommoditization of new issue credit markets and a decompression in credit. It's really driven by four important factors. One is, as you note, unprecedented levels of issuance. Investment grade debt volumes are up almost 25 percent on the year. That's driven by the AI CapEx theme and a resurgence in M&A. Number two is the rate backdrop has been, to date, pretty constructive for credit. We've seen $100 billion of new cash come into investment grade credit. We've seen new pools of investors drive tremendous new capacity into credit markets, whether it be insurance, capital fueled by annuity investments or other private credit. We're also seeing an increase in complexity, and that's driven by the AI CapEx cycle and the interconnectedness between hyperscalers, the chip makers, the neo clouds, the data centers, and that's requiring an unprecedented level of innovation in structuring new solutions for issuers. And the last is the market is grappling with supply-demand dynamics and winners and losers in the AI thematic. Andrew Sheets: Rehan, that's actually a great place to turn to you because you're on the other side of this. You're focused on can markets absorb all of this supply? And I often kind of hear two narratives. You know, one is everything is great. You've got record issuance and record supply into the credit markets. And the other is cracks are forming. You're seeing widening of CCC spreads. You're seeing some headlines around some issuers running into more trouble. From your perch, how do you see things? Rehan Latif: So, Andrew, instead of two, I'll give you three narratives within public credit trading. One, I agree with Anish. I think first of all, I've got to thank Anish because it's never been busier on the public credit side because of the amount of issuance coming through. But there are, really, three different themes coming through. One, investment grade has been incredibly strong. The higher quality part of the credit market is benefiting from all this new investor money coming through at these higher rate levels. For the longest period of my 20-year career, 20-plus year career, we were in a zero-rate environment. At current yield levels, investment grade has never looked like a more attractive proposition. You add in growth in the U.S. and across the rest of the world, the reality is that investment grade looks like a very interesting investment thesis. And I think spreads continue to be appropriately priced for the risk. On the CCC side of the market, that's where we're seeing real dispersion. Where we're seeing investors from the distressed community, from the high yield community, really have to figure out how to refinance some of these names. And that's been where the real challenge has been from a credit perspective. And then obviously, you've got the hyperscalers that have come through in significant wave across many different parts of the capital market. So, one thing Anish mentioned was the number of different financings that are available to the hyperscalers. So, I do think that given the cash flows that these hyperscalers actually have, you've managed to be able to attract a new investor base to our market as well. Andrew Sheets: Samar, we just heard that, you know, Anish has never been busier. Rehan has never been busier. There's clearly a very credit-specific story here. But, you know, this is something that I imagine is also top of mind in the macro markets. You've got all of this supply. You've got AI that's kind of driving the market, but you've also got all these other broader issues around energy and deficits. How do you see the historic wave of credit supply fitting into the macro piece? Samer Oweida: Well, maybe I'll start by also thanking Anish because our corporate derivative business, where we hedge exposure, whether it's on a deal basis or on a normal course basis for these issuers, has never been busier. And part of that is because of the historic issuance that's been discussed. But part of that, Andrew, is also about the uncertainty that you mentioned in these markets. And so, this epic wave that we're seeing around hyperscalers and AI is happening at a time where energy prices are high, inflation is sticky, fiscal concerns abound, and there's a lot of uncertainty in the forward. And so, what we've seen from a behavioral standpoint is clients having much more appetite to engage on these discussions because of the uncertainty and hedge that exposure. What we've also seen is a lot of re-racking of traditional macro models and how do we think about what is the rate level that the economy can handle? What does that rate level mean for winners and losers by jurisdiction or by sector, as Rehan mentioned earlier? And we've seen that manifest itself in a lot of the invested decisions that our clients have made over the course of the year, where we've seen capital and engagement go up with names both corporate and sovereign. Where there's a positive commodity story and there's a positive AI hyperscaler story. And we've seen less investment around the jurisdictions and the names where that story is not the case. And so we're seeing some amount of divergence, but I think also given that the economic background globally, and particularly in the U.S., continues to be strong. We've just seen very high levels of activity coming out of our corporate and sponsors-based businesses. Andrew Sheets: So, Anish, that brings me to a question I wanted to ask you about – which is, you know, Samer, you mentioned this, really important macro question is: at what point do higher rates slow down activity? And yet, so far, activity's still been very solid, and it's not just AI. We've also seen a lot of strategic activity, a lot of M&A activity. I would love for you to take us inside the conversations that you're having with these companies – and how they're thinking about the environment. How much these current levels of interest rates are impacting their decision-making? Anish Shah: Andrew, you could probably break that question down into two pieces.One is in the AI ecosystem, where, you know, certainly there's a lot of optimism on the return on these investments. And so, sitting in the shoes of a hyperscaler or a data center developer or a chip maker, there's a lot of optimism that – notwithstanding the current higher rate environment, that the long-term return on these investments is going to be very, very attractive. And so, we're seeing a relative level of insensitivity on rates from the issuer's perspective in accessing capital. The first wave of all of the AI CapEx has predominantly been in the investment-grade bond market. That's the deepest, most liquid, fastest way to raise capital and speed. Now you're seeing some of these companies diversify into different currencies and different products, and that's been a really healthy technical for the markets. From an M&A context, I think a lot of the resurgence in activity is driven by the fact that there's a meeting of the minds in terms of valuation. So, for the first time in many years, we're seeing large-scaled sponsor private equity-owned assets come to market and be acquired by an investment-grade corporate strategic. Yes, they are borrowing at higher rates than they would have a few years ago. But the view is that they're able to acquire these assets at an appropriate valuation, and it makes long-term strategic sense, and we're seeing just a big pickup in that activity. I think that also has another implication for credit markets, which is some of these assets that have been long held by private equity sponsors had multi-billion dollar debt complexes that are going to be repaid as part of these transactions. That's a recycling of credit. That's going to free up some capacity in the leverage finance markets as well.Andrew Sheets: And yeah, Rehan, how do you think about that? Because, you know, again, we have these big macro forces of AI CapEx, and then these very micro company-specific stories around M&A. How do you see that impacting your backdrop? Rehan Latif: Within credit, the biggest driver is always growth. You pay the rate that you pay simply because there's an expectation towards growth. When Anish talks about some of these developments that are happening within the market, these are all, you know, big paradigm shift in growth. And, AI investment the reality is that we are at the forefront of creating the capital for that. And the reality is that the yield that is being paid; or the coupon that is being paid is essentially the price for that investment. Investors are seeing that across all these different markets. I think we have to be very deliberate about the difference between investment-grade, investments in newer sectors, and what is actually happening within the more distressed part of the credit market. Simply because that market has been challenged for a long time. That market was held together to a certain degree by a zero-rate environment. And that has changed quite dramatically as rates went higher and as the global economy has evolved as well.So, from my perspective, this is all very healthy. Rehan Latif: Samar, I'll let you have the last word here. You know, Anish and Rehan have talked about these historic waves of credit issuance. Part of that's coming from AI, but part of it's coming from M&A and strategic transactions. You know, we're sitting here on the eve of our Morgan Stanley Credit Symposium in New York. It's tomorrow. We have over 1,000 investors attending. I think that indicates just the amount of interest and focus on this space. And yet, as you hear Anish talk about kind of the almost insensitivity of rates for some of these key borrowers, how does this impact how you're thinking about macro markets and how they could trade over the next six to twelve months? Samer Oweida: I think it speaks to what both Anish and Rehan said in that between the growth and the higher level of rates, there are going to be winners and losers. And what we can't predict is what energy markets or political developments or fiscal developments might have in store. But generally speaking, macro markets are responsive to underlying growth, inflation, and policy discipline. And I think as we go into the depths of what is one of the most consequential CapEx cycles in post-Industrial Revolution history, the governments, the jurisdictions, and the corporates that have discipline and capacity around this growth will be the winners. We think so. We see that as on the go forward. And those that don't have a clear policy will suffer the consequences. I think that is still a very early innings discussion to be had. Lots of data still has to come through. I think what we know is what is on the docket for the next year or two in terms of how much capital needs to be raised and debt issued. But what we don't know is how does that affect underlying economic activity. And I think as that data manifests in conjunction with policy initiatives globally, there's a lot to be excited about. And there's a lot to be quite concerned about. And looking at how policy mistakes one way or the other might affect a lot of the behavioral patterns in credit markets and from an issuer standpoint. Andrew Sheets: Gentlemen, thank you for taking the time to talk, and see you tomorrow at the conference. And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and tell a friend or colleague about us today.Anish Shah is a member of Morgan Stanley’s Global Capital Markets Division. Rehan Latif and Samer Oweida are members of Morgan Stanley’s Fixed Income Division. They are not members of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, their views are their own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

With AI startups scaling at record speed, our analysts Sabrina Hao, Adam Wood and Brian Nowak share takeaways from Morgan Stanley's Spark Conference on AI returns, competitive moats and implications for public markets. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----  Sabrina Hao: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sabrina Hao, Morgan Stanley's AI and Tech Thematic Equity Strategist. Adam Wood: And I'm Adam Wood, Head of U.S. Software Research at Morgan Stanley. Brian Nowak: And I'm Brian Nowak, Head of U.S. Internet Research. Sabrina Hao: Today, what private companies are telling us about the AI opportunity and what it means for public markets. It's Tuesday, October 20th, at 10am in New York. Last week, we were at our Spark Private Company conference in California, bringing together more than a hundred startups across software, robotics, AI infrastructure, and beyond. There was even a company helping to manufacture pharmaceuticals in space. It was a really interesting week to be at the conference given everything that was happening in the market. But really, we came away feeling even more positive about the AI cycle. While public market investors are waiting for returns to justify trillions of dollars in AI spending, we're already seeing that pay off in private markets. AI demand is real, companies are delivering tangible returns for customers, and startups are scaling faster than ever. Adam, let's start with growth. We heard from startups scaling at extraordinary speeds. One was approaching [$] 4 billion in annual recurring revenue in two years, another reaching a billion in under a year. What really stood out to you about the pace of AI adoption, and why aren't we necessarily seeing that same growth at established software companies? Adam Wood: So yeah, absolutely, the pace was remarkable. And clearly one of the standouts from the conference when we used to discuss how quickly a company could get to a $1 billion so-called unicorn valuation. And now we're discussing how quickly they can get to a unicorn revenue run rate of a billion dollars, which for me is quite incredible. But I think I wouldn't make the debate simply about private versus public companies. I'd make the distinction between two different types of software. I think we have to make a distinction between largely coding and inference tools. There were a number of coding and inference software companies at the conference, and application software. And I think there's a big difference in terms of time and complexity to bring these products to market. I think the coding and inference, which tends to be the building blocks, as I would call them, underneath the application layer, they can be constructed much more quickly. And I think because we can adopt when we're still building bespoke, which I think is a lot of the phase we're in today, we're still building bespoke software rather than buying off the shelf. They can be adopted earlier as well. So, we've got faster time to build and faster time to adopt by companies. So, I think it's natural you can see very fast growth in those types of businesses very quickly. I think in the application landscape, it's a little bit different because those applications have to deliver complete business solutions for customers. In finance and customer service, that means integrating data, understanding workflows, and putting controls in place. There's much more to build and much more to implement, and generally, the adoption of those tools takes place a little bit later. After we've gone from the bespoke phase where companies are building themselves, we go to a phase where companies see that there are off-the-shelf packages that are available, that companies have built out. So, I think it's both a complexity of build debate and also, a time in terms of where we are in the software adoption cycle. The second thing I'd say is, you know, in public software companies that have a big incumbent existing business, sometimes there can be that big incumbent business that's not growing very quickly. And a very fast-growing AI business in there as well. And that very fast AI growth business can be hidden a little bit by that large public software company that exists. So, I don't think it's as straightforward as just saying, you know, private's growing very quickly, public not. I think there's a couple of layers of complexity in there in terms of what type of software you're dealing with. And then how big the existing kind of business is in a software company and what is kind of existing software growing a little bit less quickly. And then the AI bit that could potentially be growing very fast. Sabrina Hao: Absolutely. It makes a ton of sense. Maybe on this theme of full stack solutions, you know, Brian, we heard about the shift from AI assistants to agents that can actually execute work. You've done a lot of work on this, both across consumer and enterprise. What did you learn about how quickly agents are advancing? And how does it shape the outlook for the internet names that you cover? Brian Nowak: This is a very exciting time for agentic adoption on both the consumer side and the enterprise side. You know, we've sized potential addressable markets of $30 to $40 trillion of spend on both the consumer side and the enterprise side that we think can be addressed by agentic tools. On the consumer side, people are shopping, they are planning their travel, they're planning their holiday shopping. On the enterprise side, we're seeing both vertical specific agents start to emerge. So, agents within the legal area or agents within the healthcare area. And then we're also seeing broad-based agents from some of the larger private companies also start to bud through. So, there is a smattering of agents that are popping through. On the consumer side, Muse is your early leader, and we do expect more to come in 2027. And then I think on the enterprise side, they're both vertical specific as well as broader based agents expected to grow. Sabrina Hao: Agents really raise an important question around disruption. Maybe for Adam, you've written about the moat and the journey in software. It's not just about if a company has a competitive advantage, but how it navigates that transition to an AI-driven world. Did Spark change your thinking about which software incumbents are best positioned to defend their businesses or capture new growth? Adam Wood: So, I think Spark really confirmed a lot of our views on that moat and journey framework that we've put forward. The moat protecting the existing business that you have and the journey turning AI into new growth opportunities. And in some ways, the deeper the moat for businesses, the longer that journey can be. An incumbent embedded in complex mission-critical workflows is hard to replace because of the data integrations and customer trust it has by definition. But those same requirements can make introducing AI into its platform more demanding. You can't compromise the reliability of that work. So that's why we've separated the durability of the business from the speed of its AI transition. For some of the coding inference businesses we heard from – again, these incredibly fast run rate, fast growth businesses, the monetization has obviously moved very, very quickly. And I think there the investor debate's going to be a little bit the opposite way around. How durable and how big a competitive advantage have these companies built on that very fast-growing revenue base? And that's not to say these businesses can't have moats. They can. You know, performance, model customization, and integration can create real differentiation. But I think there is a big difference to be made between rapid growth and defensibility. And, you know, to give a couple of examples here in terms of the moat that some of these AI native vertical and business software companies are leveraging. You know, there's a legal AI company that's hiring former lawyers to become forward deployed lawyers. We had forward deployed engineers, now we've got forward deployed lawyers. But the reason there is they bring that understanding of legal workflows to the product and its implementation. So, the value isn't just access to the model. It's making the model and the technology work in the customer's business and understanding in depth those business workflows. Sabrina Hao: And we've talked about this theme of AI adopters, and really what we need to get this trade to work are those quantifiable benefits from AI. So open weights are a key part of that. Maybe to pull on another thread, and you, kind of, alluded to this, the models themselves are increasingly becoming table stakes rather than moats. And the value is shifting to everything around the model – whether that's your data, your workflows, the tools that make AI useful. So where did you see this most clearly at Spark? And does it change your view on where durable value will accrue in software? Adam Wood: So again, I mean, I think I'd come back to the growing importance of open weight models. I mean, it was a recurring theme at the conference. Almost every company spoke to us and spoke to, you know, the implementation. And again, it reinforces that view of a multi-model world. You’ve got the inference companies talking about bringing down the costs of using the models. Again, that diffusion concept we talk about. At the application layer, a legal software company said it benchmarks 18 models across 200 criteria to decide which model should run the task. So, you know, you're getting incredible gains in efficiency. I think there are two implications for public software vendors. I think, you know, first of all, there's an opportunity here for software companies to help their customers with orchestration. So, there's going to be a layer around how do we get the right task to the right model at the right price. And I think a lot of the public software companies, you know, at the hyperscaler level, they can help at a broader enterprise adoption level. And then down at the application layer, whether we're talking about CRM, ERP, HR, there's an opportunity for software companies to help with orchestration at that layer as well. I think the second thing, which is probably a little bit less talked about, is maybe there is a gross margin opportunity here. I think in software, all we've discussed so far is the pressure that's going to come on gross margins from having to include the cost of running tokens in a software business model and offer that to customers as part of the package. If we can bring down inference costs dramatically, and you can hold on to some of the pricing as a software company – maybe there could be a little talked about bull case in the medium term. That maybe software margins are not going to be as pressured as people think. And we can maybe see gross margins hold in a lot better than people think. Sabrina Hao: Brian, I want to end with something that may seem counterintuitive. In a world where software's becoming easier to build, some of the strongest competitive advantages may actually be in the physical world. The conference had many companies, whether that was logistics, manufacturing, real-world operations. You know, why is that intersection of the digital and physical world so defensible? And how does it influence your view of who ultimately wins in an agentic world? Brian Nowak: I think it's important for people to remember that AI is not just software. AI is going to get physical through new types of robots that impact the entire globe. We're seeing it in multiple industries already. We're seeing it on the defense side with drones and other types of mechanisms that are going to change the way that we build out our overall defense tools. We're seeing it on the industrial side, in warehouses, on delivery. We're seeing it on the agriculture side, the way that we're going to the future of farming. And so over the long term, while I think we will have humanoids and we will have robots in our homes, I think it's important for people to keep in mind there are going to be a lot of physical and robotic implementations of AI over the next two, three, five years that are going to really change the way we do a lot of business. Sabrina Hao: Absolutely. Lots of exciting things happening. Adam, Brian, thanks for joining me. And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Higher rates can take time to filter through the economy, making their full impact difficult to judge. Arunima Sinha from our U.S. and Global Economics teams considers where the pressure may emerge next and how policymakers could navigate the competing risks.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha, from the Morgan Stanley’s U.S. and Global Economics teams. Today, I'll talk about what rising rates mean for economic activity, inflation, and the policy path.  It’s Monday, October 19th, at 10am in New York. The FOMC raised rates in September. But expectations for future hikes remain volatile. Within hours of the latest CPI print, markets round-tripped, pushing the probability to even for an October hike before retreating. Now, consistent with our baseline forecast, the market assigns December the highest likelihood for the next hike. But moves further along the U.S. curve matter even more; notably the 10-year yield shifted. One question that arises, taking a step back is – how much we should worry that broad-based inflation upside means tighter policy is required to push down inflation and, therefore, growth? Or have financial conditions tightened enough on their own that the central bank has less, not more work to do? The calibration of monetary policy has always been difficult, and now it is becoming urgent.Economists try to put the level of interest rates into the context of where they stand relative to the economy's natural rate. Stronger productivity growth and investment demand should mean a higher natural rate, so a given level of rates is less restrictive.The rise in long-term treasury yields alongside still firm growth and earnings expectations is an indication that the neutral rate may indeed be higher. When yields rise because growth prospects are improving, expected returns rise and the demand for capital strengthens. In that setting, higher rates are not necessarily contractionary.But there is a less benign alternative. Yields have also risen because inflation has been hot, fiscal concerns are intensifying, and investors are demanding more compensation for holding duration. The question that Chair Warsh has posed – are financial conditions restrictive – is starting to get a different answer. Calibration will be key to how the economy evolves. For the U.S. so far, even the most recent upside inflation surprise pointed to resilient demand rather than energy-driven stagflation. The simple explanation is that many firms still see returns well above their cost of capital. Recent work from our U.S. economics team supports such a view. Where there may be a contrast is at the sector level, and that seems to be becoming more apparent. If activity is concentrated in sectors driven by innovation, productivity, and strategic investment, the economy may be less rate sensitive than in past cycles. Calibrating policy amid these opposing forces is no easy task. The fact that we're seeing the biggest spread widening in the lowest quality part of the credit spectrum and the fact that housing activity is at recessionary levels are some tells in the U.S. that policy and financial conditions are restrictive. The signs of tighter financial conditions are somewhat more visible in Europe, in part because the AI CapEx spend is less of a factor. Growth has been resilient, but not sufficiently so to offset rising fiscal concerns from higher rates. The French OAT sell-off shows how quickly the balance of risks shifts. Globally, financial conditions are introducing tougher questions to the macro landscape. Until recently, the economy's message had been clear.Higher rates were restraining some sectors, but without meaningfully altering the expansion's trajectory. As long as expected returns rise alongside borrowing costs, then yields can remain high – without becoming decisively restrictive. But as our rate strategy colleagues have noted, inflationary pressures have pushed up real rates, not break evens. So, the market is telling us that policy is getting tighter to restrain growth and eventually pull-down inflation. The latest inflation print in the U.S. reinforces this debate. Are financial conditions restrictive?With several catalysts ahead, Q3 earnings, hyperscaler CapEx credit spread widening, and U.S. elections, the Fed meeting coming up, markets will need to shift to assessing growth risks as central banks try to recalibrate. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our ABS Strategist Carolyn Campbell explains how rising borrowing costs are slowing the AI data center boom and what could drive a rebound in financing.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----   Carolyn Campbell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Carolyn Campbell, Morgan Stanley's Asset-Backed Securities Strategist.Today, why the AI boom is running into an unexpected obstacle: the cost of borrowing money.It's Friday, October 16th, at 10am in New York.Demand for data center facilities is booming. Yet even as companies race to build more capacity, the financing for them is becoming increasingly expensive. And that tension is creating an interesting story in credit markets.Since January, five-year Treasury rates have climbed more than one percentage point, and spreads for data center assets have also gone wider. At the beginning of 2026, the highest-rated data center bonds offered yields below 5 percent. Today, similar bonds are yielding closer to 7 percent, and that increase matters enormously for companies trying to finance multi-billion-dollar facilities.Many operators turn to the securitized credit markets to raise money. Essentially, they issue bonds backed by the income generated by their data centers. By the time these bonds are issued, construction on the data center is complete, the power is secured, and the rent is already being paid.So, on the one hand, cash flows are stabilized – but there is a catch. These facilities often sign long-term leases well before they seek financing in the securitized credit market.By the time they're ready to issue these bonds, rental income is already locked in. And so, when interest rates rise quickly, as we've seen this year, and these borrowing costs increase, revenues aren't necessarily keeping pace.Our analysis suggests that when borrowing costs approach 8 percent, issuing these bonds becomes significantly more challenging under these current financing terms. And we're already seeing the effects in the market.So far in 2026, data center operators have issued around [$] 15 billion in ABS and another [$] 7 billion in the CMBS markets. That's roughly in line with last year's pace, but it's below what we'd expect given the extraordinary growth in data center demand this year. Still, we believe the slowdown in supply is temporary.Our forecast suggests that U.S. data center power capacity could grow from roughly 60 gigawatts today to 150 gigawatts by 2028; although there are some constraints on power availability that could leave capacity 30 percent to 40 percent below these projections.Regardless, much of the lease capacity that comes online will require debt financing, and these operators have ambitious growth plans. So, they have some options to navigate these higher rate environments.They might borrow less against their properties. They might accept lower investment returns in the near term. Or they can turn to different credit channels that offer more flexible financing structures.So, where does this leave the market? To take into account the higher rate environment, we've lowered our forecast slightly for 2026 and 2027 for securitized credit data center issuance. But the amount of lease capacity that's set to come online in 2028 is so high that we've actually held those numbers steady.All told, we now expect around a [$] 120 to a [$] 150 billion of supply over the next couple of years. That's substantial financing activity, even with the higher interest rates creating near-term challenges.The higher cost of borrowing may slow the pace of data center financing for now, but the scale of the build-out ahead suggests that this market still has plenty of room to grow. And there are pockets within the market that we do like.We've talked a lot about the hyperscaler data centers, which are big campuses leased to one or two hyperscaler tenants, often with 10- or 15-year leases.But the other part of the market, the colocation data center market, is where we see a lot of value today. These campuses have many different types of tenants, many different industries represented, and they often have shorter leases.Given the sharp increase in data center rental rates and vacancy rates around 1 percent, these data center operators are more quickly able to monetize the changes that we're seeing in the industry.That flexibility could prove particularly valuable when borrowing costs remain elevated.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 Latin America Equity Strategist Nikolaj Lippmann explains why Brazil’s election, the cost of capital, AI investment and geopolitics could help unlock a new era of growth across Latin America.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----   Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Nikolaj Lippmann, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin America Equity Strategist. Today – why Brazil could be the missing piece of what we call LatAm Spring, and what AI has to do with it. It’s Thursday, October 15th, at 10am in New York.Brazilian equities rallied sharply last week after a surprising first-round presidential election result. Flávio Bolsonaro finished ahead of President Lula, setting up a runoff later this month. The outcome remains uncertain. But for investors, I think there’s a bigger question. Can Brazil approach a policy shift that unlocks something the country has lacked for years: investment. We've long argued that Latin America is moving from a consumption-led economy towards an investment-led cycle, thanks to: 1. Changing geopolitics; 2. investment-friendly policies; and 3. The potential for lower interest rates. What's more, this fits into the framework of the AI CapEx cycle, driving the global and especially the U.S. economy that has moved from consumption to CapEx, as argued by Mike Gapen, our U.S. economist. We're already seeing signs of this LatAm Spring in Argentina, Chile, Peru and Colombia. Brazil could be the largest missing piece. And there are three reasons why. First, the cost of capital. Brazil remains one of the world's most expensive places to invest. High government debt and elevated interest rates have made fixed income investment more attractive than equities or entrepreneurial risk-taking. But credible fiscal reform could change that equation. Lower government spending could reduce borrowing costs, strengthen the currency, and encourage private investment. Which means capital could shift from sitting in fixed-income assets toward funding growth. Second, AI. AI might seem unrelated to Brazilian politics, but we see an important connection. Our global framework suggests that annual capital spending could rise from roughly $2.5 trillion to about $5 trillion - $6 trillion as companies build out global AI infrastructure. And Latin America has a critical role to play. Data centers need electricity. Electricity requires energy infrastructure. And the infrastructure requires copper, lithium, and other critical minerals. Latin America as a whole supplies roughly 10 percent of the world's energy, holds about 20 percent of global energy reserves, about 30 percent of global copper, and approximately 60 percent of the world's lithium resources. So, we've argued that Brazil and Argentina look increasingly like Texas, with exports of energy and of agriculture. And one other area around politics where Brazilians could perhaps learn or be inspired from peer Latin American countries and gather some inspiration from Texas could be around deregulation.For Brazil, lower interest rates and greater policy credibility could make participating in this investment boom considerably easier. And that brings me to the third factor: geopolitics. Brazil has strengthened its economic ties with the East, while remaining deeply connected to Western capital markets and U.S. technology. A more balanced relationship could improve access to capital markets and support long-term investments. Of course, an election result alone doesn't guarantee change. Fiscal discipline, policy execution, and global financing conditions remain critical. Higher U.S. Treasury yields are an especially important risk for a region carrying substantial debt. But consider what's already happening elsewhere. Mexico contributes hardware to the AI supply chain. Chile is rebuilding its investment pipeline. And Peru is benefiting from mining activity. Argentina is attracting capital after significant policy changes. As Latin America's largest economy, Brazil could have substantial regional implications if it moves in the same direction. That's ultimately our LatAm Spring thesis: a shift away from consumption toward investment, entrepreneurship, and capital formation. There's still a long road ahead, but Brazil could be the most important test of whether that spring truly takes hold.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The UK budget arrives later this month amid competing predictions about growth, inflation and public finances. Andrew Sheets and Bruna Skarica examine how the country’s economy defies expectations. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----  Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's Chief UK Economist. Andrew Sheets: Today, the UK makes a budget. Why it matters? And more generally, what we've gotten right and wrong about the country. It's Wednesday, October 14th, at 2pm in London. Bruna, it's great to be here talking with you, and I'd like to get into a bigger discussion on the UK and what we've gotten right and wrong about the direction of the country this year. But more immediately, it has a very big event coming up. What is the budget, and why is there so much focus on it? Bruna Skarica: The budget is the UK's key fiscal event. It is the time of year when the Chancellor receives a refresh of economic forecasts and decides whether he needs to respond to these, whether there's any spending cuts or increases that are required, and whether there's any tax hikes or potentially tax cuts that are required too. All with the view of ensuring fiscal consolidation and executing on what is a self-imposed fiscal framework. Here in the UK, the main target for the Treasury is to achieve current budget balance in year three of the forecast. The fiscal watchdog forecasts five years of economic variables, and the idea is, by the third year, we ought to be spending outside of investment expenditure as much as we're receiving in tax receipts. So, all of that happens once a year in the budget. Andrew Sheets: Now, I might just stop you there [be]cause in the context of these other budget pictures that we see around the world – the U.S. is running a large budget deficit, France is running a large budget deficit, Japan's increasing its budget deficit. That actually seems like a quite ambitious goal within the next three years; to balance that outside of the interest expenses. Can you just talk maybe a little bit more about that process and the thinking behind it? Bruna Skarica: Yeah, sure. The idea really is to ensure that over the next five years, not only do we get the current budget balanced while allowing for borrowing for investment, which is, of course, a favorable way to borrow because it boosts growth. But also, that within the five-year period, we're able to get debt-to-GDP ratio down. In order for that to happen, we need to be running a primary surplus around 1.5 percent of GDP. Now, very often in UK macro, we tend to look at three-year forecasts, five-year forecasts. We talk about medium-term headrooms. But I think it's important here to take stock of where we are at this moment in time. We think that in this fiscal year, [20]26-[20]27, primary deficit – our entire expenditure outside debt servicing costs minus tax receipts – we see that at just under 1 percent of GDP. The IMF is a little bit above 1 percent of GDP for UK. But for example, the IMF sees French primary deficit at 2.9 percent this year, with the U.S. measure forecast at 4.9 percent. So already, UK has actually made a lot of progress in its consolidation path. Andrew Sheets: And Bruna, talking about this announcement specifically, could you maybe talk about just one or two items that you'd be on the watch for as potential surprises? Or decisions that the market is really focused on? Bruna Skarica: Sure. So, we do know that the Treasury is looking at ways of alleviating some of the pressures stemming from higher inflation, higher energy inflation in particular. So, the scale of support that will be provided to households and the scale of reduction in headline inflation, I do think will be in focus on the day. We're expecting a relatively low-key budget, so the scale of measures at around £10 billion, which is much more moderate than what we saw in October 2024 and in November 2025. However, we do think there is scope for some, let's say, higher level announcements. For example, Prime Minister Burnham is particularly focused on devolution in the UK, decentralization. And there might be a roadmap ahead for how different mayors and different regions in the UK get to keep their portion of income tax revenues and what they might do with it in order to boost regional growth. UK does stand out as the country in G7 space that has the most centralized fiscal system, and this might start to be changed from this fiscal event onwards. Andrew Sheets: Okay, so now I'd like to take a step back and do a little marking to market. You know, you and I on this program, a couple of different times this year, have been talking about the UK, and those conversations have generally been upbeat. I think both of us were of the view that the UK could actually be a bit better of a story than expected. And maybe we start with the good news. What do you think has been going right? Bruna Skarica: So, for one, growth has outperformed in the first half of the year. In line with our long-standing thesis that UK ought to be a beneficiary of the global AI boom, the main driver of the upside surprise has been the tech sector. It's running at 8 percent year-on-year, this year. We have also seen a bit stronger consumer spending growth than anticipated. And again, this reflects, we think, our long-standing thesis on fairly clean household. But also corporate balance sheets, I should mention, that tend to provide a fairly big buffer in one of energy shocks. UK consumers have elevated savings, also elevated savings stocks, and so in energy shocks such as the one we've seen in the first half of the year, perhaps there is some reduction in desired level of savings, which allows consumers to support their spending habits. All of this means that this year we see UK growth at 1.3 percent. Now, our U.S. colleagues are looking for 2.3 percent. Still, U.S. growth looks relatively stronger than any European country, including the UK. However, I would say that 1.3 percent is about 30 basis points higher than where we were a couple of months ago when the energy shock started, so it is important to take that into account. Andrew Sheets: And I'd also note that UK stocks are up about 10 percent this year, and its currency, the pound, is materially outperformed the euro or the Japanese yen. But Bruna, I think it's pretty safe to say that sentiment towards the UK feels pretty downbeat. I think it's probably gotten worse as the year has gone on. So, what's gone wrong and what's been worse than we were expecting? Bruna Skarica: Yeah. So, while I do think that in the U.S. there is a lot of focus on the benefits from the AI boom and the AI build-out, in Europe, we're still waiting to see the sentiment shift towards how much growth and potential growth in particular can benefit from adopting AI. We're more constructive, I would say, than probably the average forecaster here. We're pointing to healthy productivity growth performance in the UK private sector, printing productivity growth at 1.8 percent; whereas in the U.S. this figure is a bit above 2 percent over the second quarter this year. So, not too different, I would say. So, I think the pessimism around potential GDP growth is really what's driving the view that whenever an external energy shock tends to hit, such as the one we've seen this year with higher oil and natural gas prices, it'll be embedded in the economy for a longer period of time. Because ultimately a spare capacity is very tight. And so businesses and consumers will try and preserve their real purchasing power, and inflation will remain elevated for a longer period of time. Again, we tend to be a bit more constructive on this. We think the economy has enough spare capacity for this energy shock to come and go without material adjustments in the bank rate. We're expecting two hikes. But the market is still pricing four hikes. And certainly in conversations with investors, we are more and more talking about the scenarios in which these could be delivered. So that, of course, means higher gilt yields, which means higher debt servicing costs, and that overall, I do think tends to dampen sentiment. Andrew Sheets: Well, Bruna, a lot to watch in the days and weeks ahead. And thank you so much for taking the time. Bruna Skarica: Thank you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And thank you as always for listening. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you hear us. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Head of Asia Credit Strategy Kelvin Pang explains why investors would benefit from a broader fixed income market in Asia, with opportunities across more countries, local-currency credit and dollar-denominated bonds.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kelvin Pang, Head of Asia Credit Strategy [at] Morgan Stanley. Today – why the challenge in Asia fixed income may not be the region at all, but the way investors have traditionally looked at it. It’s Tuesday, October 13th at 8am in Hong Kong.Picture this. You’re shopping in a supermarket. As you walk down the aisles, you notice half of them are off limits. It’s unexpected. Something similar has happened in Asia fixed income. The region’s fundamentals remain supportive, but the traditional investment universe has become increasingly constrained. The pressure began in early 2023, when U.S. policy rates rose above those in much of Asia for the first time since before the Global Financial Crisis. The environment that had supported Asian bond markets for years turned upside down. Consider Asia-dollar credit. Issuers have increasingly turned to cheaper local-currency financing, which is shrinking dollar-bond supply. Asia-dollar credit is now on track for a fifth straight year of negative net supply. At the same time, investment-grade spreads have tightened to 55 basis points. That makes Asia investment-grade credit the most tightly valued major credit market globally. And investors have taken notice of this. Assets in dedicated Asia credit and high-yield funds have fallen 62 percent from their 2021 peak – from roughly $75 billion USD to around $29 billion USD. But we feel Asia itself is not the problem. In fact, Asia Pacific nominal GDP could rise from $41 trillion USD in 2025 to [$]54 trillion by 2031. That would account [for] roughly one-third of global nominal GDP growth over that period. And most importantly investment is also accelerating. Asia’s capital spending could rise from $11 trillion to [$]16 trillion by 2030. That would mark the strongest industrial cycle since the mid-2000s. And we think this extends well beyond AI, with energy, defense, and broader industrial investment all playing major roles. The key issue here is how investors have traditionally looked at Asia. They basically need a bigger map. That broader map is what we call APAC fixed income. Traditional Asia fixed income has largely focused on U.S.-dollar credit and local-currency government bonds across emerging Asia. APAC fixed income adds convertible bonds and local-currency corporate credit. It also brings Japan and Australia into the mix. So, what’s the advantage of this broader map? You see, each of these pieces behaves differently. Convertible bonds let investors participate in regional growth through their equity link. APAC dollar credit plays a more defensive role, with a mostly investment-grade, U.S.-dollar-denominated profile. Local-currency rates provide exposure to interest rates, currencies and the economic cycle. At the same time, local-currency corporate credit broadens credit and sector exposure. Together, they create a more flexible mix of risks across changing economic conditions. For example, when growth and inflation rise together, convertible bonds can benefit from their equity link. In a recession, currency-hedged local bonds can benefit from falling rates while limiting foreign-exchange risk. During stagflation, dollar credit can offer more defensive characteristics. Our portfolio analysis since 2023 suggests a diversified APAC fixed-income portfolio could target a 7.5 percent return with a vol[atility] of roughly 4 percent, depending on allocation constraints. Investors also increasingly need to manage currency exposure as the dollar cycle shifts. For years, investors could navigate Asian bonds with a relatively narrow toolkit. Today’s market demands more flexibility. The opportunity in Asia has not disappeared. The better question may be whether investors are looking at enough of it. 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.

Energy costs are a key election issue and AI data centers are adding to the debate. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore looks at policy discussions in Washington that could determine how the U.S. powers its next technological boom.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----  Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll discuss the growing energy demands of AI and what the government can do in response. It's Monday, October 12th at 10am in New York. Markets and policymakers are preparing for a potentially important debate following the November elections. The future of American energy infrastructure. And at the center of that debate is an increasingly urgent question: How can the U.S. build enough power infrastructure to support the AI investment cycle – without passing the costs on to everyday electricity consumers? Late last month, lawmakers in Congress introduced the bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act. That legislation represents a significant effort to reform federal permitting. But importantly, it also includes provisions that require data centers to cover the transmission costs associated with their projects. We think that's a notable development, particularly as we think about the legislative agenda after the November elections. Of course, the path forward still remains uncertain given substantial policy differences and a limited legislative calendar after the elections. But why might this matter for markets? Well, first, it's worth considering the scale of the energy challenge. My colleague Stephen Byrd and his team recently updated their projections for the U.S. data center power shortfall. They now see a potential 57-gigawatt gap through 2028, and that's before accounting for new solutions that could accelerate access to power. That's up from their previous estimate of 38-gigawatts. And that's why the permitting proposal is so important. There are two elements that I'd highlight. First is the effort to accelerate infrastructure development. The bill would reform federal environmental reviews and provide greater certainty for projects that have already received approvals. We think that can help reduce delays and uncertainty around new energy projects, although permitting reform alone won't resolve constraints involving equipment, labor, or grid capacity. The second element is the growing focus on who pays for the infrastructure, and here the proposal actually builds on an existing policy initiative. Earlier this year, a number of hyperscalers signed on to the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. That's a voluntary agreement under which companies commit to securing the electricity needed for their data centers and pay for associated power infrastructure upgrades rather than passing the costs on to residential consumers. The pledge was subsequently expanded to include a broader group of utilities, developers, and state participants. Now, what's different about the permitting reform bill is its potential shift from voluntary commitments toward federal requirements. In particular, the proposal would require data centers to cover their associated transmission costs. That's an area where we think policymakers from both parties appear to share concerns about electricity affordability, even though they may disagree over the broader approach to energy policy.Looking beyond the elections, we think that creates two related policy catalysts for investors to watch. The first is whether Congress can reach an agreement on permitting reform that helps accelerate the construction of energy infrastructure. And second, whether lawmakers move to establish a more formal cost-sharing requirement for data centers. The eventual policy mix, we think, could influence both the timing and the economics of new projects. Faster approvals could make some investments more attractive. But requiring developers to absorb additional transmission costs could also change where projects are built and which power solutions they pursue. A changing policy framework could also reinforce the importance of alternatives. Of course, legislation is far from guaranteed. The elections will shape the political environment in which these negotiations continue, and any final agreement could differ substantially from the current proposal. But stepping back, I think there's a broader takeaway. For much of the AI investment cycle, the focus has been on the pace of technological innovation and capital spending. Increasingly, though, policy decisions around electricity infrastructure, permitting, and affordability could become just as important in determining how quickly that investment translates into operational capacity. The permitting bill is an early indication of how D.C. may approach those challenges after the elections. And for investors, the central question may be less about how much companies are willing to spend on AI and more about how quickly and at what cost they can secure the power needed to support it. 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.

Markets have remained resilient despite the prospect of higher-for-longer rates. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets considers the risks building beneath the surface.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, exploring further the question that seems to be on everyone's mind: At what point do higher rates become a problem for markets?It's Friday, October 9th, at 2pm in London.We recently hosted Morgan Stanley's ninth annual European Credit Conference here in London. Fifty companies, over a thousand investors, and to some extent, one dominating question.The market has been impressively resilient this year – but as yields rise, at what point does this change?I think a good place to start with this question is whether the current level of interest rates are obviously wrong. And I don't think it's clear that they are. Growth in the U.S., Europe, and Asia remains surprisingly robust and has for a lot of this year. Meanwhile, inflation across regions is still generally above central bank targets.Too high, and a sign that conditions are more likely too hot than too cold. That's the opposite of what the wrong level of rates would imply – as rates that were too high would be curtailing activity and pushing inflation down below target.Thanks in part to the scale of AI spending and how insensitive the spending has been to the level of interest rates; we're just not seeing this.I think the yield curve is also confirming this message that the level of rates for now is okay. In an environment where the market thinks that central banks have raised rates too much, it will often so-call invert the yield curve. Pushing short-term interest rates above longer-term ones on the belief that rates that are too high today will need to be lowered when conditions weaken in the future.We're not seeing that, and that is, I think, a pretty important indicator.At the risk of being pedantic, I think there's also the premise of the question around resilience. At one level, without a doubt, markets have been impressively solid given the large rise in yields this year. U.S. and European stocks have been posting double-digit gains. Credit spreads, a measure of risk premium, sit near multi-decade lows.But under the surface, that resilience isn't so apparent. Spreads on the lowest-rated credits, so-called triple CCCs, have increased significantly this year across both the U.S. and Europe. Publicly traded BDCs, which contain portfolios of lower-rated private credit, have traded at widening discounts to their book value.And even in the mighty U.S. stock market, my colleague Mike Wilson and our U.S. equity strategy team note that over half of the 3000 largest stocks have seen a drawdown of at least 20 percent since June, which happens to be the month that yields started to rise.2026 may be showing that global growth overall is just less sensitive to higher rates than was initially expected. Large government deficits in the U.S., Europe, and Asia, and large spending on AI may be two reasons why. With growth strong and inflation still too high, rates may be simply seeking out a level that they think will keep things in balance.But the interest rate that helps balance – this technology and spending boom – are not the same rates that keep a smaller, weaker, or a more indebted company happy. If higher rates are needed to balance things overall, the weaker tails of the market can still suffer.We've seen this in the past, particularly 2005. Back then, a large U.S. government deficit, booming China CapEx, and significant U.S. housing wealth all helped push up rates. The overall econom y held up for several more years. But weaker parts of the credit market were challenged by those rates more quickly.We think the same may be true today and therefore favor an upper quality bias. We favor high-yield bonds over loans and decompression across credit indices.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

U.S. mortgage rates are hovering around their highest levels in three years. Morgan Stanley Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan examine the forces keeping homeowners locked in and buyers priced out of the housing market.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Jim, [we’re] getting a lot of questions about mortgage rates. We've been flying across the country talking to people. Are your arms tired?James Egan: I'm hoping that all the extra flapping will give them just a little bit more definition so we can show them off as we talk about adjustable-rate mortgages.Jay Bacow: And that is the definition of an ARM. Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan StanleyJay Bacow: Today, we're here to talk about mortgage rates: how quickly they've moved, why they're here, where they might go, and what it means for the mortgage and housing market.It's Thursday, October 8th, at 9am in New York.Jim, as of this recording, the 10-year is over 5.3 percent. Rates haven't closed this high since 2002. The 30-year mortgage rate is around 7.5 percent. It’s about 150 basis points up since the beginning of February.James Egan: Right. There have been quick moves in rates that has led to quick moves in mortgage rates. There are a lot of implications to that – from affordability, the housing market, mortgage market.But when we think about the relationship between mortgage rates and interest rates, Jay, there's also a feedback mechanism there. Convexity hedging is what it's typically called.Can you discuss the role that that might have played in this current episode? And what we should expect going forward?Jay Bacow: Sure. So, the biggest driver of mortgage rates is Treasury rates. And Treasury rates are driven by a number of factors, and right now most people would point to inflation expectations and geopolitical concerns.However, as Treasury rates go higher, homeowners that currently have a mortgage are less likely to move. And because they're less likely to move, that means that the average life of those mortgages that investors own gets longer.And because mortgage investors typically want to keep their duration profile constant – as the average life of those mortgages gets longer, they are then going to need to either sell those mortgages or sell Treasuries, which will cause yields to go even higher.And there's a bit of a feedback loop on that, which can pressure yields and mortgage rates even higher.But what we would say is, at this point, we don't think there's a huge mechanism of that going through at this rate level. The average mortgage rate that homeowners have in America is almost exactly 4.5 percent. Obviously, they're less likely to move as rates go up. But they're 300 basis points out of the money.So, from that point, it matters. But it didn't matter as much as when rates were a little lower. However, Jim, 7.5 percent mortgage rate – what does this do for housing affordability? Can you put that in context?James Egan: Yeah. So, if we just think about this in terms of what a 7.5 percent mortgage rate implies for the monthly payment on the median-priced home, we are now up over $325 dollars if we use that 7.5 percent – assuming home prices are where they are today, incomes are where they are today.That monthly payment's up over $325 from where we are at local lows in February; or where we were at local lows in February. That's a 17 percent increase, in terms of that monthly payment over just a seven-month period.Jay Bacow: Alright, so, 17 percent increase over a seven-month period, that's kind of scary.But as you and I have talked about in the past, given the fixed rate nature of the U.S. mortgage market, it's a tad misleading for the average homeowner in America.So, what does this do to sales? Obviously, it's scary for new homeowners, though.James Egan: Right. Look, you brought up the implications from a duration perspective, a convexity hedging perspective. All of this is just how the lock-in effect continues to have material implications for the housing market, for mortgage markets.But yes, these affordability issues – not that bad for homeowners who have an average rate below 4.5 percent. That's not changing. Over 90 percent of the balance or count of mortgages, depending on how you want to look at it, in the United States remains fixed rate. Their payments aren't changing, right?But the marginal home buyer, things are getting less affordable. I don't like to use the term demand destruction. I think that sounds a little bit too over the top here. But like we are seeing some of our higher frequency or more leading indicator demand metrics show a little bit of softening here.Pending home sales, past two months, 3 to 5 percent down year-over-year. Purchase applications, which had been very strong, in September, they were down about 10 percent year-over-year. So, look, we were seeing a little bit of demand increases this year. We were up about 2 percent year-to-date through July.It's a small increase off of a very, very low base. But we think you're going to see with rates at these levels, if we maintain these levels, is effectively the probability or any real ability of the market to escape to the upside from an activity perspective? That probability keeps coming down. And we're going to be stuck in this turnover, very range-bound, lowest level of sales as a percentage of the housing market in 40 years.Jay Bacow: So really low activity, what does that do to prices? Is there some flow through? Is there relief coming?James Egan: Look, as demand softens, the kind of first-order expectation or the heuristic should be that prices should soften as well. But again, lock-in effect; what we've actually seen is the rate of growth for existing listings at these levels has slowed. And it's slowed pretty materially.That's actually led to home price appreciation accelerating over the past few months. We've gone from just 0.7 or 0.8 percent four months ago to 1.9 percent for the data that we just received. We think that that level is kind of sustainable here, and we're going to be between like roughly 2 percent, give or take, for the remainder of this year.Now, you and I have both been mentioning the lock-in effect throughout the course of this. Yes, an overwhelming majority of the market is fixed rate right now. But the media, our conversations with clients, there's been a lot of discussion of potentially a growing share of adjustable-rate mortgages to kind of help the marginal homeowner with affordability.What are we seeing in ARMs right now?Jay Bacow: Okay. Yeah, so great question, and we are seeing a pickup in ARM issuance. If we look at the percentage of mortgages that were ARMs through the first half of this year and compare them to the percentage of ARMs in the first half of last year, it's increased by about 1 percent on aggregate issuance. It's went from about a little over 15 percent to a little over 16 percent.And so, 1 percent increase is not a huge number by itself, but when we're talking about a little over $2 trillion of expected issuance in the course of the year across the entire mortgage market, this does help on the margin. And we do think, as we said in the past, that more uptake of ARMs would likely be a little bit of a positive solution to some of the affordability challenges.But Jim, if people take out more ARMs, recognizing that most people only have two arms, should we be worrying about a repeat of the financial crisis and lending standards?James Egan: So, this is a question that we get a lot when we start talking about moving away from fixed-rate mortgages. And the point that I want to stress; that we want to stress here, is not all ARMs are created equal…Jay Bacow: Mine are stronger than yours?James Egan: Sure, we'll go with that. But also, if we control for borrower characteristics, right? Credit scores, loan-to-value ratios, debt-to-income ratios, right? And then we compare performance of adjustable-rate mortgages to fixed-rate mortgages, 7-1 ARMs, 10-1 ARMs, they perform very much like fixed-rate mortgages.It's really the short-reset ARMs, what we'll call affordability products. So, they only have 24-month or 36-month fixed periods. Those are what have historically showed a much higher rate of default and something that would get us a little bit more concerned about lending standards if those were the products we're talking about.Thankfully, they're not right now. The ARM growth that we're seeing is in the 5-1, 7-1, 10-1 space. Those have historically, again, controlling for borrower performance, performed like fixed-rate mortgages. And so, we think that you can expand mortgage product into ARMs and do it responsibly.Jay Bacow: All right. Jim, always a pleasure speaking with you.James Egan: And always great speaking to you too, Jay. And to all of our regular listeners out there, thank you for adding us to your playlist. Let us know what you think wherever you get this podcast, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.

The AI investment boom has been a defining force in markets. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore looks at whether the U.S. midterm elections could change the spending and policies behind it.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, what the midterms could mean for the AI investment cycle. It's Wednesday, October 7th at 10am in New York. I've spoken on this podcast before about the broader implications of the midterm elections. This time, I want to go a little deeper on what they could mean specifically for AI sentiment. We think about that through two separate channels. The first is data center opposition, where we do think the elections can be an important catalyst. The second is broader AI safety and regulation, where we think the election outcome matters much less. And that distinction is important. It suggests that the midterms are more likely to influence investor confidence in the pace and the durability of AI infrastructure spending, rather than fundamentally rewriting the rules governing AI. Let's start with data centers. Our base case is still a conditional build-out. We still expect substantial AI infrastructure investment, but increasingly subject to conditions around things like power costs, grid investment, siting, permitting, water use, and community impact. We don't expect a broad federal pause on data center development. AI compute is increasingly being viewed in Washington as strategic infrastructure, particularly when you consider competition with China. So, we think that national security framing should remain supportive of the build-out. But here's the important point for these elections. Many of the policy levers that can actually delay a project sit well below the federal level. Think about things like interconnection approvals, large load electricity tariffs, zoning, water permits, and tax abatements. Those are all generally controlled by states, utility commissions, and local governments. So, when it comes to AI infrastructure, we actually think governors, state legislatures, and public utility commissions may ultimately matter more than control of any one Senate seat in particular.And that brings us to sentiment. At the federal level, we think a Republican sweep would likely be the most constructive outcome for AI infrastructure sentiment. Now, that's because investors would likely expect fewer regulatory constraints ahead. As well as a greater likelihood of active support for permitting reform, additional power generation, and development on federal land. A divided government outcome, we think, looks closer to the status quo. It would preserve questions about the durability of the build-out, but the gridlock in D.C. would also leave many of the substantive decisions at the state and local level. And lastly, we think a Democratic sweep would be the least constructive outcome for sentiment. Now, importantly, that doesn't mean that we expect a nationwide data center moratorium, as I said. Rather, investors could interpret Democratic outperformance as increasing the probability of tighter local restrictions in the near term, and potentially much more federal scrutiny after the next 2028 elections. So that's the infrastructure side. What about AI regulation more broadly? Here, we think the midterms are actually much less consequential. Our expectation remains for incremental and fragmented regulation rather than a sweeping new federal regime. AI safety, data governance, and frontier model oversight, we think can certainly see targeted action. But we just don't think congressional composition by itself is likely to trigger comprehensive legislation – unless there's a sufficiently high-profile safety or security incident. Executive agencies are also likely to remain the more important actors on tech restrictions and model access. And that gets us to the main takeaway for investors. The midterms probably won't determine whether the AI investment cycle continues. We think the strategic case for expanding U.S. compute capacity remains intact. What they can influence, however, is the friction around that build-out. Where the projects get built, how quickly they receive approval? Who bears the cost? And ultimately, how confident investors are in the durability of AI CapEx? So, when we think about what happens in November through an AI lens, we'll be watching D.C. But in many cases, the more important signals can come from governors' races, utility commissions, and local elections – because that's where the politics of AI are increasingly meeting the physical constraints of actually building it. 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 Japan Financials Analyst Mia Nagasaka explains why a once-in-30-year investment cycle could transform corporate financing and open a new chapter for Japanese banks.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mia Nagasaka, Head of Japan Financials Research at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities. Today – a once-in-30-year investment cycle is changing how investors think about Japanese banks.It’s Tuesday, October 6th, at 10am in Tokyo. For decades, Japanese companies had more cash than investment opportunities. But now it's changing. This marks a new chapter for Japanese banks. The first stage of recovery was largely about interest rates. As Japan moved away from negative rates, higher lending yields helped bank margins and earnings.This next stage is about growth in the banking business itself, driven by companies investing more and needing more external capital. In fact, we think Japan is entering its first meaningful capex cycle in nearly three decades. Investment needs are broadening, from labor-saving technology to the replacement of aging equipment. Companies are also becoming more active in reallocating capital toward businesses where they see stronger returns.For banks, the most direct opportunity is lending. We expect Japan’s domestic loan market to grow from about 588 trillion yen, or roughly 3.7 trillion U.S. dollars, in the fiscal year ending March 2026 to roughly 712 trillion yen, or about 4.5 trillion dollars, by March 2031. Loan growth could run at around 5 percent annually early in the investment cycle, then settle at about 3 to 4 percent. And the financing opportunity extends beyond loans. Take Japan’s debt capital markets, where companies raise money by issuing bonds. We expect them to grow from about 52 trillion yen, or roughly 331billion dollars, to 63 trillion yen, or about 401 billion dollars, by March 2031. We also forecast the M&A market to rise from 23 trillion yen, or roughly 146 billion dollars, to 32 trillion yen, or about 204 billion dollars, over the same period. Large projects often need several forms of financing, so lending can open the door to underwriting and advisory fees as well. This gives banks more ways to generate earnings. In the early phase, banks can benefit mainly from lending and project finance. As projects mature, fee-based businesses such as capital markets and M&A can contribute more. This makes the opportunity look less like a short-lived lending boom and more like a multi-stage financing cycle.The key measure to watch is return on equity, which shows how effectively a bank turns shareholder capital into profit. Japan’s megabanks are currently generating ROEs of roughly 10 to 11 percent. We see a path toward around 15 percent over the medium term. Structural growth in corporate financing demand alone could add about 1 to 1.5 percentage points.So, the bigger story is not simply that rates have risen. Japan may be moving from an economy defined by excess savings and underinvestment toward one where companies need capital to grow. If that transition continues, banks could have substantially more productive opportunities to deploy their balance sheets.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.

Recent headlines about Canada have focused on trade uncertainty and weak productivity. But our Global Economist Arunima Sinha explains why the country may be on the cusp of a stronger, investment-led growth cycle.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's Global and U.S. Economics teams. Today, why Canada's economy may be closer to a new growth phase. It's Monday, October 5th at 10am in New York. Canada has been in the news recently. There have been lots of headlines related to trade, around population growth, around weak productivity, years of underinvestment. And those are real constraints, and they have weighed on the near-term outlook. At Morgan Stanley, we are more constructive on the medium-term outlook for Canada. And we recently wrote a report around this along with our strategists titled, “Canada: The Next Acceleration.” And, from our perspective, we think that the near-term uncertainty around trade is actually clouding the opportunity for global investors. There are three points that we make in the report. We estimate that the growth model in Canada over the next three to four years can actually pivot from the export-led growth story that we've seen over the past few years into one that emphasizes capital deepening and greater technological diffusion across the economy. So, it really is about the domestic build-out and the opportunity in shifting away from trade and export-led growth into a more productive economy – that's not just larger over time but can actually grow at a much faster pace as well. And so, by our estimates, we think that potential growth in Canada could feasibly rise from about 1.5 percent to closer to 1.75 percent. The way that we see it, this really doesn't require things to start from scratch. There are already large capital pipelines that are in place. But one of the things that we do note is that a lot of these pipelines are actually concentrated in a few sectors. So, about half of these are in utilities and oil and gas, transportation. These sectors together combine about 13 to 14 percent of the gross value add for the economy. But they actually account for more than half of the announced capital pipelines. And so, for the money that's going into the economy – and a lot of this is going into structures – it's not going as much into machinery and equipment. And so, while the capital build-out is going to support the widening, we also need to think about crowding in private investment into other sectors. And some of these other sectors that we've identified in the note, such as finance, information services, that have historically had much greater gains in productivity – they would need to see bigger capital intentions as well. The other opportunity that we identify for the Canadian growth model is – although the near-term population growth has been slowing, it doesn't actually change the longer run demographic picture. We looked at what the numbers would be for the working age population growth for Canada, taking 2025 as a starting point. And what we see is that Canadian working age population is going to rise by about 3 percent by 2035, by 5 percent by 2040, and 6 percent by 2045. Meanwhile, most of the developed economy peers are going to see shrinkage in their working age populations. And so that is really going to give Canada a window into the rest of the 2030s to continue to accelerate its growth model. From our perspective, the test for the next few years is going to be whether the investment that's being undertaken in a few sectors spreads beyond the big projects. And it really lifts productivity across the economy. Construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and wholesale will be especially important because they are machinery intensive, technology adoption remains low, and recent productivity gaps are large. If those sectors begin to improve, Canada could enter the 2030s with a much stronger growth engine than it has today. And in our perspective, Canada's potential growth could actually pivot from being about 1.5 percent today to entering the 2030s with close to 2 percent in potential output growth. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share our Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets examines what rising rates could mean for equity valuations, earnings and investor appetite.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, thinking about equity resilience in the face of rising bond yields. It's Friday, October 2nd at 2pm in London. The benchmark U.S. 10-year Treasury yield has risen about 100 basis points this year. Global equities, at the same time, are up about 13 percent. And those two facts sit in an uncomfortable tension. After all, higher bond yields give investors better return options elsewhere, and they also make future corporate profits worth less today, which in theory should push stock prices lower.But there's a wrinkle here. That valuation theory actually has two moving parts. What we're referring to here is what we would call a dividend discount model or a Gordon Growth Model, where the value of a company today is worth the value of its dividends divided by the difference of its required rate of return and its growth rate. The higher the required rate of return, which interest rates push up, hurts a stock valuation. It increases the denominator. But a higher growth rate, well, that works in the opposite direction. That decreases the denominator. It makes the company worth more. Hopefully, this is intuitive. if a company has to meet a higher return hurdle, it will be worth less today. If a company's growing faster, all else equal, it's worth more. And that, we think, goes a long way to actually explain what's going on in markets today. Because corporate profits are growing quickly. Over the last year, profits for the S&P 500 are up about 30 percent, and the earnings growth for the median company, well, that's still up in the mid-teens. Growth in Europe, Asia, and emerging markets have also been historically strong. Indeed, if you'd told me on January 1st that the S&P 500 would be up about 13 percent, and at the same time, U.S. Treasury yields would be up about 100 basis points, I probably would have told you with reasonable confidence that stocks would look more expensive relative to bonds. But they don't. The valuation of the equity market, the P/E ratio, has fallen significantly as yields have risen. But because earnings have risen so much more, stocks are still higher. And the so-called equity risk premium, the difference between the earnings yield and the bond yield, it's pretty stable year to date. Now there's another way that higher yields could hurt the stock market. They could simply cause people to sell their stocks and buy those higher yielding bonds. But so far, we're not seeing evidence of that. The flows that we track continue to show money flowing into both stocks and bonds. And the two markets are moving in the same direction day to day. They're showing positive correlation, which is not the outcome you'd expect if people were shifting money from one to the other. There's also an interesting way that companies have a say in this debate. Investors every day look at the market and decide if these yields are high enough that they want to buy them. But companies look at the same yield and say, "Is this low enough that we would want to sell?" And so especially for the companies that are funding the AI build-out – these large technology companies with so much AI spending to do. Many of them, even at these higher yields, are still saying these are attractive levels to issue at. And are more attractive than, say, issuing more stock. The other factor that's always important to keep in mind whenever we're debating long-term valuation questions between stocks and bonds, or really any asset class, is that valuation is a slow-moving force. It is often not terribly predictive of the next six or even 12 months. Indeed, if we think about the difference between the earnings yield on the equity market, the inverse of the P/E ratio, and what the bond market yields, that difference. Well, that difference only explains about 10 percent of returns between stocks and bonds over the next month. Now, valuation is more powerful the longer you give it. And so, extend that horizon out over the next three years and that valuation gap between bonds and equities, well, explains about half the three-year outcome. Markets are not equations that are solved once a quarter. They are ongoing arguments about the future. And when growth is strong, investors are simply more willing to give growth and that future potential the benefit of the doubt. We think this goes a long way to helping to explain the equity market's resilience despite Treasury yields moving well above five percent. But it's also raising the bar. Higher yields simply leave less room for earnings disappointment. Those profits need to keep growing quickly. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Betsy Graseck and Michael Cyprys explore how AI could expand advisor capacity and tokenized assets could grow into a $2.3 trillion market by 2030.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research. Michael Cyprys: And I'm Mike Cyprys, Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers, and Exchanges Research at Morgan Stanley. Betsy Graseck: Today, we're looking at the next phase of growth across asset and wealth management – and how tokenization, AI, and changing investor flows could reshape the industry. It's Thursday, October 1st at 9am in New York City. Assets under management, or AUM, are near record highs across the globe, with a lot changing beneath the surface. Now, much of the recent AUM growth has come from markets rather than from net new client flows. And meanwhile, fees do remain under pressure. At the same time, technologies like AI and tokenization are creating new opportunities for both asset and wealth managers. Our base case has tokenized real world assets growing from roughly [$]40 billion today to about [$]2.3 trillion by 2030. Mike, let's start with tokenization. What are the use cases that matter most near term? Michael Cyprys: So, as we think about it, there's a number of use cases that we see. The most compelling ones really are around cash treasuries and collateral. Take for example, earning yield. Some tokenized funds allow you to earn interest by the minute or the second that is invested rather than having to remain invested by that 4pm cutoff that is the case today. Another benefit is allowing collateral to move around a lot more easily, and this can help support a shift toward 24/7 markets. So, if securities can trade 24/7 – or derivatives – you may also need the cash leg of that transaction to keep pace. Right now, there are certain futures contracts that do trade over a weekend, but those positions do need to be pre-funded on Friday. So that's going to limit perhaps the full uptake for that of 24/7 until you can get the movement of the collateral to keep pace. And that's where tokenization can come in to help solve a real market need. There's also trapped collateral that's just sitting around the world, where institutions and corporates just keep pockets of liquidity in different places just in case they need it at a moment's notice. There’s a cost to that while it sits idle. But tokenization can allow for just more just-in-time movement of money, say with tokenized deposits, tokenized money funds, or stable coins. And another use case is around investors outside the U.S. that may not have as easy access to U.S. markets. But tokenization can help lower barriers, reduce frictions, and allow for greater access to U.S. market exposure. Private markets get a lot of attention, but we think that's maybe a little bit further out. So, to put some numbers around this, today there's around [$]40 billion of tokenized real-world assets. So, think tokenized stocks, bonds, funds. In our base case, we could see that growing to about [$]2.3 trillion by 2030, with a vast majority tied to these collateral mobility and reserve and treasury management use cases. Betsy Graseck: Pulling up a notch, we are expecting assets under management to reach about [$]247 trillion by 2030. But revenue growth is expected to lag asset growth. Mike, what really separates the firms that can grow above market trends you expect? Michael Cyprys: Yeah. So, as you said, most of the growth is going to be driven by market beta, right? So, we have expectation for about 9 percent growth annually in assets under management for about $160 trillion globally today to about $250 trillion by 2030. We expect about three-quarters of that growth rate comes from market beta, which leaves you around 2.5 percent for organic asset growth. So, growing just AUM with the market is not going to really be enough to differentiate. And so, as we think about, you know, how one can differentiate? First, I think it comes down to where one is positioned across the industry. We do see flows concentrating in passive solutions and selected private markets, and the economics can be pretty different there as well. Another way to differentiate is through distribution. Wealth, retirement, model portfolios, customized solutions, all of those channels are becoming much more important. And so, you want to be closer to where that asset allocation decision is actually getting made. And another point of differentiation is around operating leverage, and that's where AI comes in, which I'm sure is a topic we're going to get to in a little bit. That we think can help allow money managers to expand research coverage, can allow salespeople to cover more clients, allow for adding more products and customization without adding necessarily a lot more people and cost at the same rate. So, look, bottom line, I'd say, we think above market growth from having the right products, the right distribution, getting them in front of the right clients, and the technology to scale that just a lot more efficiently. Betsy Graseck: And how important is that AI tool going to be, in your opinion, for separating yourself from the pack? And is it more top-line generative or cost efficiency generative? Michael Cyprys: I think it's critical. It's both. I think it changes the competitive game because a lot of the economics are very different across the businesses, right? Take passive and index investing, for example, that continues to take share. It's a low-fee business, so there scale really matters. In solutions and private markets, the revenue opportunity is better, but you need more capabilities and distribution reach. And in private markets, origination is also key, as well as distribution, right? You can have private credit or an infrastructure product out there in the marketplace. But if you can't get it into a wealth or retirement or insurance channels, then you're leaving a lot of growth on the table. And then with traditional active, performance still matters, but the wrapper is key. Distribution matters more so than ever, and active ETFs are a great example of that. Betsy Graseck: And one question on AI is: How far along do you think it is in your coverage embedded already in the workflow and the processes across your group, your asset managers? Michael Cyprys: So, we're pretty early days here. A lot of firms, already have AI tools today: RFP tools, sales tools, tools within the operational and distribution side. But saving someone, you know, 10 minutes on a task doesn't necessarily show up in the P&L, right? You need to start removing entire steps from workflows. And then using that time savings to cover more clients, to launch more products, do more research, and ultimately slow the pace of hiring. And that's where we think the industry needs to move towards, away from these, sort of, point solutions into an enterprise workflow. And that is tools that connect across the entire organization, underpinned by the same data and the same controls. And our work suggests that this could be pretty meaningful over time, perhaps up to as much as 15 points worth of operating margin improvement – for the leaders over time. But we don't assume that all falls to the bottom line. We expect it to – you know, a lot of that's going to get reinvested, and a portion probably also gets competed away. And when we look at our forecasts for the money managers we cover, I'd say we have modest improvement in operating margins over the next couple of years. And, to your point, on cost versus revenue, we may actually see it on the revenue side first, as it can help allow for more client touches, broader coverage, and faster product development. Betsy Graseck: Okay. So, or as you mentioned, early days. How do you see AI and tokenization impacting either the leverage opportunities, the operating leverage opportunities, or the revenue growth opportunities? Let's start with AI. Michael Cyprys: We think that the potential here is to really improve the capacity to serve clients. As you think about today, the time that advisors spend actually not talking to clients, right? When you think about time that they're spending on meeting prep or research, notes, follow-ups, onboarding.  And that's a lot of administrative work that is wrapped up, in terms of the advisor’s relationship there. And our work suggests that call it about half of that advisor time could be freed up. Then advisor capacity could increase upwards of 30 to 40 percent on our numbers, and that can also increase the quality and the experience that the clients receive. We also see a broader opportunity beyond just the advisor. As you look across the advisor team and the organization, we see an overall cost to serve to come down quite materially. And I know this is a question you didn't ask it, but that's out there. We don't see AI replacing financial advisors, particularly at the higher end, just given the importance of that trusted relationship. And if anything, the value of that advisor probably goes up, particularly just given there's so much change happening around the world every which way you look. And then you overlay that with the aging demographic trends. We actually think there could be a bull market for advice as we look ahead. And AI could be that tool to enable the industry to execute on that market opportunity set and also help expand the TAM in terms of the ability of the industry to capture that opportunity set and bring advice to more people than was ever possible before. Betsy Graseck: And this would be incremental to your growth outlook that you indicated earlier of 7 percent? Michael Cyprys: This could be incremental… Betsy Graseck: Okay! Michael Cyprys: ... to that opportunity potentially over time. Betsy Graseck: Anything on tokenization that is an opportunity for wealth managers? Michael Cyprys: Oh, absolutely. And I think that we're really, really early days; just scratching the surface on this in tokenization and wealth. You know, I think one way to frame tokenization and wealth is it could just make the client balance sheet that much more productive. And this creates some risk as we talk about in the report for the traditional wealth model with respect to sweep cash and the monetization of that, right? If clients hold less idle cash, that could put some pressure on deposit and sweep economics. But that could also be offset by new lending opportunities at the same time. So, wealth firms need to be able to support tokenized assets and lending capabilities without losing that client relationship to someone else's platform. And that's why longer term, the wallet or the client interface becomes pretty important – because that's where the investments, cash borrowing, payments, all of that comes together. Betsy Graseck: And all of this happening right ahead of Nasdaq and NYSE's December 6th, a big event. Michael Cyprys: That's right. U.S. equity markets are going 23/5 on December 6th. Betsy Graseck: Meaning that the only hours they will be closed every day are between... Michael Cyprys: 8 and 9pm. Betsy Graseck: And that's on a pathway to 24/7 ultimately, you believe? Michael Cyprys: That's our expectation, as you have other disruptors around the world that are looking to provide retail with access to 24/7 markets. Betsy Graseck: Exciting times, Mike. As you indicated in the beginning, we have 79 percent growth with AI and tokenization potentially amping that up ahead of a pathway to a 24/7 market. Michael Cyprys: Indeed. Betsy Graseck: Thank you so much for joining us here on Thoughts on the Market, Mike. Michael Cyprys: It's been great speaking with you, Betsy. Betsy Graseck: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As investors look toward the U.S. midterm elections, the biggest question is what could change. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore outlines the signals worth watching. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. It's Wednesday, September 30th, at 10am in New York. As the elections inch closer, investors are increasingly asking about potential ramifications. We just put out a deep dive covering our expectations, and we arrive at four key takeaways. The first, midterms are unlikely to change the core executive-led policy agenda. As we've been noting for some time, a lot of the policy uncertainty that markets have dealt with since the beginning of 2025 has actually come from the executive branch rather than Congress. Tariffs, trade policy, deregulation, immigration, and export controls are all variables that are going to remain within the White House's authority. So even if control of Congress changes, we don't think investors should assume that those parts of the policy agenda simply go away. Where Congress actually matters more is on fiscal policy. But even there, the range of outcomes is relatively narrow. The main differences revolve around the timing of scheduled SNAP and Medicaid cuts, defense spending, and how future government funding and debt limit negotiations evolve. So, that's our first takeaway. Midterms can change the mechanics of governing, but probably not the broader direction of the executive agenda. That means policy uncertainty, at least across those vectors I mentioned, is likely to stay high. Takeaway number two, we'd be careful about treating the midterms as a direct signal for the 2028 presidential election. Historically, what we see is the issues that dominate a midterm don't necessarily translate to the next presidential race. Looking at the six midterm-to-presidential cycles since 1994, the top-ranked issue changed in five of them. And the issue that ultimately proved decisive in the presidential election was actually already visible at the midterm in only two of the six cases. What elections can tell us, however, is where some of the policy fault lines are beginning to form. We're watching four debates in particular in that context: the fiscal and Social Security debate, individual tax landscape, restrictions on data center development, and healthcare. In our view, across those variables, the useful signal isn't simply which party wins more seats. It's which versions of these policies are beginning to gain traction with voters and within the parties themselves. That actually brings us to takeaway number three. AI is one area where the midterms could matter, but mainly through data center policy rather than broad AI regulation. We think it's important to separate those two issues. So first, on data centers, we do see midterms as a catalyst. And that's because many of the most important policy levers sit at the state and local level: permitting, siting, grid interconnection, large load electricity rates, and tax incentives. So that means that the governorships, utility commissions, and state legislatures can actually have a much more immediate effect on the pace and the location of the build-out than Congress itself. In that vein, our base case remains a conditional build-out, meaning the expected level of AI CapEx can continue. But likely it's going to increasingly concentrate in locations where developers can address concerns around things like electricity costs, infrastructure, water, and community impacts. Broader AI safety regulation is different. Here, we think government configuration actually matters less, and that's because we see comprehensive federal legislation as pretty unlikely in the near term, absent a high salience event or incident. So congressional control is not necessarily the key driver. And finally, takeaway number four: for markets, we see more micro implications than macro ones. For equities, the composition and cohesion of the congressional majority can matter for individual sectors. Congress that's able to negotiate changes to scheduled SNAP or Medicaid cuts, for example, could have implications for consumer and healthcare companies. AI related sectors could also respond to changes in expectations and sentiment pertaining to data center restrictions. For rates, the key question is whether the election produces fiscal outcomes that materially change expected deficits. United Republican control would be the only outcome preserving reconciliation as a potential vehicle. Divided government, conversely, would narrow the scope for new legislation and put more emphasis on funding and debt limit negotiations. And for the dollar, our strategists see the transmission mechanism running primarily through U.S. yields and the growth outlook rather than the election itself. So, bottom line, we don't think the 2026 midterms are likely to produce a wholesale change in the policy or macro backdrop. But there will be important lessons to pick up along the way. 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 China Industrials Analyst Sheng Zhong explains how AI, robotics and a major investment cycle could transform China’s manufacturing base and its role in global supply chains.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Sheng Zhong: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sheng Zhong, Morgan Stanley’s China Industrials analyst. Today – how AI and automation are transforming China’s factories, and what that could mean for global manufacturing. It’s Tuesday, September 29th, at 3 PM in Hong Kong.For decades, Made in China has been shorthand for scale, speed, and low-cost manufacturing. Now the story is shifting toward something more ambitious: using technology, productivity, and industrial know-how to shape not just what gets made, but how it gets made. We call this transition Industry 5.0. Industry 4.0 was about connecting machines and digitizing production. Industry 5.0 goes a step further, using AI to improve how factories schedule production, manage quality, and maintain equipment. China is starting from a position of enormous scale. It represents roughly 28 percent of global manufacturing value-added and covers all 666 industrial subcategories defined by the United Nations. There are already more than 30,000 basic-level smart factories and more than 100 million connected industrial devices. That industrial base also gives China a strong platform for robotics. Traditional industrial robots generally perform fixed tasks. Embodied AI could make machines more flexible, allowing them to gain new capabilities through software and updated models. That could effectively turn some physical labor into software-upgradable capital. And the numbers give you a sense of how quickly this could scale. China could go from selling about 8 million robots a year in 2025 to 29 million in 2030, and 76 million by 2035. That’s roughly a ninefold increase in annual sales in just a decade. Scaling robotics and AI across such a large manufacturing base will require a lot of capital. We estimate Industry 5.0 could generate about $12 trillion USD of incremental industrial investment in China from 2026 through 2035. Around $5.5 trillion USD would go toward factory upgrades, including robotics, smart equipment, and software, while roughly $6 trillion USD would support new industrial capacity. But that investment cycle is likely to build gradually. We expect industrial capex growth of about 4 to 5 percent annually in 2026 and 2027, before accelerating toward 6 to 7 percent from 2028 as excess capacity is absorbed, technology bottlenecks ease, and AI adoption broadens across factories. If that investment translates into higher productivity, the economic impact could be meaningful. By 2035, China’s industrial profit margin could rise to 8 percent from roughly 5 today. Industry 5.0 could lift China’s potential GDP level by around 3.5 percent, helping cushion some of the drag from an aging population. And China’s share of global manufacturing value-added could increase from about 28 percent to 30 percent. And those changes would not stop at China’s borders. Final assembly can shift to new locations, but the supplier networks, machinery and production know-how behind it are much harder to replicate. We estimate only around 40 percent of China-to-U.S. exports can be readily substituted. That means China’s role may increasingly extend beyond exporting finished goods to supplying the equipment, components and industrial systems used to make them elsewhere. That is the move from Made in China toward Made by China. 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.

Fewer companies have been driving equity market gains in 2026. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at what investors should make of the narrowing rally as the year enters its final stretch. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the Market’s Bad Breadth.It's Monday, September 28th at 11:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.The market is up this year. That's the good news. But over the last six weeks, I've been watching something that’s giving me pause. This rally has been carried by a shrinking group of stocks.More than half of the Russell 3000 is at least 20 percent below its June highs and the S&P 500 forward multiple has fallen to 19 times, close to a new low for the year. Meanwhile, earnings growth is still running in the mid-teens for the median stock and revisions breadth is approaching cycle highs for the S&P 500. That is not complacency. It is a market that has already done a lot of work to price higher energy costs, a tighter Fed, AI disruption, questions around returns on capital, and geopolitical risk. Last week on the podcast, I noted that this is classic mid-cycle behavior. Earnings are absorbing lower valuations, and quality is taking the baton from the early-cycle winners. Groups that have led powerfully from the rolling-recession trough have been among the weakest areas recently: Autos, Semis, and short-cycle Industrials. That is what tends to happen when the cycle matures and the Fed turns less friendly. The market stops paying for high beta. And starts rewarding free cash flow, stable margins, operating efficiency, and earnings that are still being revised higher. That is why I continue to favor large-cap quality, particularly asset-light, services-oriented, and fee-based businesses.Having said that, there is still one problem to resolve. Breadth improved through most of the summer even as crude and yields moved higher. The deterioration came after Jackson Hole. That’s when markets began discounting a more hawkish Fed reaction function. The percentage of S&P 500 stocks above their 200-day moving average fell from roughly 75 percent to below 50 percent, while the index held up much better. That divergence cannot persist forever. Either breadth catches up to price, or the index comes down to meet breadth. If bond volatility does not settle down soon, it could spill over into equity vol and we would see the S&P 500 price come down about 5 or 10 percent.  Frankly, I would welcome it. A final index-level correction is often how a multi-month correction beneath the surface ends.There has been a lot of focus on the Fed’s recent pivot to rate hikes. However, the two-year yield is already above the level implied by the Fed’s projections. To me this suggests the bond market has been leaning too hawkish in the near term. The bigger uncertainty is how the new Fed Chairman approaches liquidity and the balance sheet. He is more of a monetarist than his predecessors, and markets are still trying to understand what that means in practice. My expectation is that the Fed ultimately provides liquidity if financial conditions tighten too far. But markets may test that resolve first. Bond volatility, funding stress, and whether equity volatility follows are the key signals. If those pressures ease, breadth can catch up and drive the market higher. If they do not, the index probably has more correcting to do.There is also a new, constructive story developing for investors: AI adoption is moving from promise to practice. Companies with higher AI adoption are seeing stronger margins and earnings trends, but consensus still assumes many of those benefits fade in the out-years. We think that’s too conservative. Productivity gains tend to compound, not immediately disappear. Earnings momentum is broadening from enablers to adopters, while adopter valuations have reset to more attractive levels. That supports a barbell approach – own select enablers where earnings durability justifies the premium, but increasingly own adopters where improving fundamentals are not yet fully reflected in expectations.Bottom line, the market is not ignoring risk. It has priced the risks through lower valuations, weaker breadth, and major leadership rotations. What remains unresolved is the gap between a resilient index and a much weaker average stock. The answer is that we probably see breadth improve and the index level come in before a surge to new all time highs. That’s why, I still want to overweight large-cap quality, but use October weakness to add to riskier stocks. The market may need one more uncomfortable adjustment. But that may be exactly what sets up a stronger finish to the year. I will be here to guide you.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Morgan Stanley Research analysts Michelle Weaver, Ravi Shanker and Dave Arcaro discuss two industrial inflection points: how long it will be before autonomous trucking becomes a reality and why power infrastructure is racing to keep up with AI-driven demand.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Ravi Shanker: I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's U.S. trade transportation analystDave Arcaro: And I'm Dave Arcaro, Morgan Stanley's Utilities, Power & Clean Energy analyst.Michelle Weaver: Today, what we learned at Morgan Stanley's Industrials Conference about the changing economics of autonomous trucking and the increasingly tight power market supporting the AI build-out.It's Friday, September 25th at 10am in New York.Now, I know we're all on the road taking meetings post-conference, so the audio might sound a little bit different, but we wanted to bring you the latest from our annual Industrials Conference that recently concluded in Laguna Beach, where two themes really stuck out. The growing physical infrastructure demands behind AI, particularly power, and the shift in autonomous trucking from proving the viability of the technology to commercializing it at scale.Ravi, after roughly a decade of development, you've said autonomous trucking is entering a critical 12 to 18-month period ahead of serial commercial production.What's changed, and why is the debate shifting from whether the technology works to whether it can be commercialized at scale?Ravi Shanker: I think for 10 years the industry has been focused on making the technology work. but with players like Aurora now putting up almost half a million miles of fully driverless revenue-generating operations, on public highways in the U.S., day and night, rain and shine, for different customers. With people like Kodiak, also running, several trucks, in revenue-generating service, for customers like Atlas, I don't think there is much debate on the technology itself.And so, I think the debate is now moving from does this work to can this work for me? Where the next steps are going to be dotting i's and crossing t's on the path to actually pressing these trucks into commercial service rather than having to prove that it works in the first place.Michelle Weaver: Your research suggests that autonomous trucking can deliver roughly a 20 percent lower cost per mile, while higher utilization could be an even bigger source of value. What are the key assumptions behind that math? And what still needs to happen operationally for fleets to capture those benefits?Ravi Shanker: Yeah, so we recently updated our TCO math, on autonomous trucks and published a North American insight, where we revised and revisited our views on autonomous trucking with a lot of proprietary data, in there as well. And part of that new TCO math, again, I think revisited some of the changes in the split of operating costs of trucking over the last several years.First of all, I'll kind of throw a huge disclaimer out there that your mileage may vary, right? Because, depending on who you are as a trucker, if you're public or private, small or large, dry van or reefer, heavy or asset light, long haul or short haul, your split of costs are going to be slightly different.But we started out, by looking at the ATRI's national average. And labor accounts for 35 to 40 percent of the P&L of the average trucker. So, when you take the driver out and substitute that with an autonomous driver, if you will. Even after paying the autonomous technology company roughly 85 cents a mile, for the autonomous operation, you will still save a significant amount of money. Versus the 40 percent of the roughly $3 per mile that it costs for labor today.In addition to that, fuel is another third of your cost structure. And there, an autonomous truck should be anywhere from 13 to 22 percent more fuel efficient. We have taken the low end of the scale to be conservative. And then you layer on insurance savings, maintenance savings on top of that. Even if you add some incremental costs, either for human drayage at both ends or for the truck itself being more expensive – we believe you will save about 20 percent per mile versus a human driver today.And I'll point out that the unit economic savings are only about a-third of the total savings with the utilization benefit driving another two-third savings on top of that.Michelle Weaver: But there, there still seems to be a notable disconnect between how much freight carriers and shippers think can be automated and how much of the network may actually be suitable to be automated. What's the industry potentially underestimating?Ravi Shanker: Yeah. We have seen this in our conversations. Again, part of our report was conducting detailed surveys and in-depth interviews with a lot of our coverage companies. And I will say that there still needs to be a lot of education, of how these trucks work, where they work, what the unit economics are going to be out there.There's still a lot of misinformation. For instance, there's this big perception that you still need human drivers at both ends of an autonomous truck move because these trucks can only operate on a highway. And here's where our AlphaWise analysis, comes in. I think it's the first of its kind analysis where we use geolocation data to pinpoint 10,000 plus of the largest commercial facilities belonging to the hundred largest commercial shippers in the U.S.And we found out that the average [00:05:00] commercial facility is less than two miles away from the nearest ramp point. And these trucks can comfortably do seven to 10 miles, if not longer, off a highway on main roads to get to their end destinations. So, I think you just need a lot of education in the industry.And that is part of the dotting of i's and crossing of t's that we think the industry needs to do in the next 12 months before we see the start of serial commercial production next year.Weaver: Thanks, Ravi. I want to bring Dave into the conversation here, and that question of turning demand into real world capacity brings us naturally to power, where the challenge is also increasingly about physical infrastructure and execution.Dave, coming out of Laguna, you describe management commentary across power equipment as notably positive. What surprised you most about what you heard on demand bookings and project activity?Arcaro: Yeah, absolutely. What surprised me most was probably how consistent the commentary was across companies, across large frame turbine providers and the smaller, on-site power equipment players, the new entrants and the more mature companies in the market. Very consistent feedback. All very positive.And I would say also what surprised me too was the lack of disruption across the board. You know, we all see the headlines about data center moratoriums, political pushback, community challenges that really, it seemed, to increase the risk of data center execution and delays out in the market.But at least with the power equipment companies, they're just not seeing it. You know, in terms of the feedback that we heard from management teams across the board at Laguna, they review project timelines actively with their customers, and that's all still intact. We haven't seen any changes in bookings or slot reservations for equipment deliveries.Still seems to be a very stable and very strong backdrop across the board.Weaver: One of the broader conference themes was the availability of power is becoming a bottleneck for AI infrastructure. How are equipment shortages, longer wait times, and customers planning further ahead affecting pricing? And how far ahead can the industry see?Arcaro: Yeah, we are seeing equipment companies booking out orders farther and farther. The large frame gas turbines, to give you a couple examples, from companies like GE Vernova, they're now in conversations to contract turbines for 2031 and 2032. Smaller equipment companies like INNIO, who make, smaller scale engines for data centers, they're in conversations with customers and taking reservations into 2029 and 2030.So, what we heard from the conference as well was that utilities, which is a big customer for this equipment, they're looking out farther and farther now into the 2030s. That's new and that's a surprisingly long time in terms of how far they're looking out. And we're also hearing data centers looking out toward the end of the decade, you know, late 2020s in terms of trying to secure their power equipment in advance.We would still consider it very much a seller's market. Pricing has been rising, and companies at the conference gave further indications that it's likely to keep rising, what looks like into the 2030s from here. We just haven't seen any signs of softening yet, really regardless of the company or the equipment type that they're selling into the market.So still farther and farther out that we're seeing visibility into the order flow, and with that is also coming firm and even rising prices into the 2030s.Weaver: Investors often frame the power debate as electricity from the grid versus smaller power sources built on-site at data centers. Based on what you heard at Laguna, how should investors think about the balance between those two approaches?Arcaro: Yeah, it's an interesting dynamic. When you talk to utilities and some of the large frame turbine companies, they all say that all this data center demand is going to the grid. Eventually, it's all going to go to the grid. When you talk to the smaller equipment manufacturers and the power as a service providers, they say nobody wants the grid.They see long-term opportunities to sell, on-site power equipment and contract it with their end customers for 15 to 20 years, and we're seeing evidence of that. So, I think, it'll stay It's an ongoing debate among, investors as well. On our end, we think the on-site power market is going to be an extremely large market as we get toward 2030, given limitations in how much power is likely to be accessible from the grid over time for the data center industry.But I would say, my takeaway and my observation from the conference that I would highlight is that it's a really favorable market and favorable backdrop for both sides.Michelle Weaver: From autonomous freight to the power needed to support AI, one message from Laguna was clear. The next phase of technology adoption increasingly depends on what the physical economy can actually build and scale.Ravi and Dave, thanks for taking the time to talk.Shanker: Thanks, Michelle.Arcaro: Thanks for having me.Weaver: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Diesel is at the center of an international supply squeeze, with prices rising to historic highs. Andrew Sheets and Martijn Rats unpack why this industrial fuel matters far beyond the pump.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: Today, the secret life of diesel and why there's so much attention on it. It's Thursday, September 24th at 2pm in London. Diesel is a fuel that I think a lot of investors may be aware of but not familiar with, so to speak. It's often the other price that you see when you're driving down the road. But Martijn, it's incredibly important for the industrial side of the economy and unusually disrupted by current geopolitical events. And so, I'd like to really start at the top, or technically the middle of the barrel, so to speak. What is diesel and what makes it so special? Martijn Rats: Yeah. When people talk about diesel at the moment, they really talk about sort of three things combined. They talk about outright diesel, as well as jet fuel and also heating oil. These are effectively part of the same pool of molecules coming out of the refinery. And so, when you look at that sort of pool of molecules, you talk about the things that fuel trucks, trains, ships, tractors in agriculture, excavators, generators, home heating. It is a molecule that has a tremendously broad range of applications. It's really the fuel of the industrial economy. One of the characteristics of diesel is that it has very high energy density. In contrast to, say, gasoline, electrifying the uses of diesel is harder because it carries so much punch. Andrew Sheets: And why has there been so much on diesel recently, given the current energy disruption in these geopolitical events? Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, the global refining system normally processes about 85 million barrels a day of crude oil and from that, it makes a range of products. Diesel is at the heart of it. But it's only one of many. At the moment, we are short in terms of refinery runs, i.e., the amount of crude that refineries process to the extent of about somewhere between 4 to 5 million barrels a day. So, 4 to 5 million barrels a day on a base of 85, you're talking about 5 to 6 percent. That may not sound like a lot, but in the world of commodities, where prices really depend on relatively small changes, that is actually a very large amount. That sort of 4 or 5 million barrels a day of refineries that are currently not running, they are fifty-fifty, either in the Middle East or in Russia. In the Middle East, it is a story of the Strait of Hormuz and refineries locked behind the strait, and they can't export their products. Some of them are also damaged, although information on that is hard to find. And then the other half that is out is in Russia, where they are effectively taken out by Ukrainian drone attacks. In total, that's sort of 4 to 5 million barrels a day of refining capacity that is not running. 40 percent of their output would typically be diesel, so we are missing something like 1.5 million barrels a day of global diesel supply, all into the seaborne market. Now, I mentioned the seaborne market because the seaborne market is the traded market where traders buy and sell cargoes to each other. And that is where, from a physical market perspective, price formation takes place. The global seaborne diesel market is an 8 million barrel a day market. And so given that all of the supply we're missing is also into the seaborne market, the comparison to make is to say that we're missing about, sort of, close to 1.5 million barrels out of an 8 million barrel a day traded… Andrew Sheets: A pretty large percentage, yeah. Martijn Rats: Absolutely. That is very, very large, and that is hard to offset. Every other refinery around the world that can run is running flat out. The margins are all-time highs. So, there's a lot of incentive to run very hard.But nevertheless, it's left the market very, very tight. Andrew Sheets: So, that tightness in the market shows up via price. And just talk us through a little bit about what has happened to the price of diesel and its related fuels. You know, I think a lot of listeners are probably more familiar with the price of gasoline. They're more familiar with the barrel of oil that's often the quoted benchmark in the market. But what has been happening to these diesel prices? Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, the way to really tell that story is to look at what we call the crack spread. So, making a barrel of refined product, including diesel, of course, you start with crude oil. So, the price of crude oil impacts the price of the refined product. So, quite often we focus more on the uplift from the price of crude to get to the price of the refined product, and we call that the crack spread. Under normal conditions, say a year ago, crude was $70, and then the price of diesel was another $20 on top of that. And so, you got to diesel being 70 plus 20 is $90 per barrel. At the moment, crude is higher. Crude is about $100 per barrel. Crude has rallied. But the increment on top of it has spiked. So, a couple of days ago we got to all-time high nominal term diesel prices over $200 per barrel. So, we're now having a situation that is [$]100 for crude plus another [$]100 to get to the diesel price. So, the crack spread is something that normally lives in a range of, like when the diesel market is weak, maybe sort of $8, $9, $10. When the market is normal, close to $20. If it's very strong, $25 to $30. Now, that incremental crack spread is $100 per barrel, and that is something that we've not seen before. It is stronger than it was in 2022, when we also had a moment of a severe diesel crisis. Didn't last very long in 2022, but the crack spread got to sort of $60, $70 per barrel. So, that highlights the extent to which the price of diesel has rallied. Andrew Sheets: So, Martijn, you mentioned this crack spread. You know, I think if we all go back to our organic chemistry, this is the refineries literally cracking a barrel of oil down into constituent distillates and other pieces. But given those very high prices for diesel, why don't the refiners just refine more? Why aren't the incentives increasing production? What's getting in the way of that? Martijn Rats: Yeah. That's just a matter of like the physical reality of the system. So, when you build a refinery, you often quite think about two things. What crudes are available to me. So, if you're in the United States, you have U.S. shale crudes, or you have crude from Mexico, Canada. And based on those, you then also think about, you know, what is my consumption, where I am likely to be.And based on that, you build a certain configuration – that converts the crudes that you can buy into the products that your specific customer set might need. You fix the configuration of the refinery at the time you build it. And once it's built, there is a little bit of flexibility to say, "Oh, well, maybe at the moment I make a little bit more diesel and a little bit less gasoline," and change the – what we call the yield of these products. Like a little bit within, you know, a few percentage points range. But that flexibility is small, so the only thing you can do to make more diesel is to run the refinery at 100 percent utilization. That is currently where we are. That has already happened. And then you put in the crude that you buy, you get the products for which your refinery is then designed, and that's it.There are no other… Andrew Sheets: You can’t just turn a big dial that says more diesel. Martijn Rats: No. You can't say, "Oh, well, I don't like my naphtha output this week, so let's not make any naphtha for the chemical industry. Let's only make diesel." It's not contained in the barrel of crude and the kits that you have – takes many years to rebuild and probably very expensive.So you're kind of then stuck. I mean, it is what it is. Andrew Sheets: So Martijn, where is this leaving the global story? You know, if we think about just the relative price of this. Again, you mentioned it's an incredibly important fuel for agriculture, for industry… What's it looking like kind of across the major regions? Martijn Rats: Yeah. Look, it leaves a very tight market at the moment. I mean, it's relatively straightforward. The price of diesel depends very heavily on how the geopolitics of the Middle East and Russia sort of play out. So, in terms of the traded price that you see on the screen every day, it swings around very heavily with how the market foresees the future with regards to these two conflicts. So, one week things flare up, the price of diesel rallies. The following week the market feels a bit more optimistic maybe around a deal, so then things sort of sell off. So, we have to live with that sort of geopolitical sort of reality. But other than that, those who can afford it pay a high price to effectively erode demand amongst sets of consumers who cannot afford these higher prices. You see a substitution, for example, what I thought was very interesting last week. Some of the train companies in the United States were talking about a truck-to-train substitution of very high levels of cargo loads on trains because simply the diesel on trucks is too expensive.So, you see those behavioral changes come through. Andrew Sheets: But that point about demand destruction is really important because, you know, a point that you've made over many years is this idea that the solution to higher prices is higher prices. That that reduces the demand for the fuel, that helps these markets recorrect. And yet, you know, we're hitting prices in diesel that are near all-time highs, and we've yet to see that demand really pull back a lot. A lot of economic indicators are still pretty good. What does that tell you maybe about where the demand destruction price really is? Martijn Rats: Making estimates of the demand destruction price sort of bottom up in a sort of modeling sense, going sort of end use by end use, has turned out on many occasions to be very, very challenging analysis. But we can sort of look at the market and say under certain conditions, prices have spiked and what were these conditions? And we can sort of try to learn something from that. We had a very severe diesel crisis in 2022 when the Russia-Ukraine conflict started, and effectively Russian diesel had to be significantly rerouted around the world. We got to $200 per barrel. Andrew Sheets: Right about where we are now… Martijn Rats: Right about where we are. That didn't last very long. Big spike to [$]200, and it sold off. In March-April, we got to [$]200, and it sold off. And now, a couple of days ago, we reached that again. And so, in the trading behavior of the market, it does look like what happens at [$]200 – there either is demand destruction. Or there may not be demand destruction in the fullness of time, but buyers just take a pause. And this makes it quite difficult to kind of really unearth this issue in the sense that in the end, a lot of customers also have inventories of their own. Like airlines have tanks with jet fuel. In Europe, you have a lot of households that use heating oil for home heating if they're not connected to the gas grid. And they have tanks in their gardens. And so, there are a lot of tertiary inventories, as we call them, where people can effectively afford to stop buying for a little bit and see how things pan out, and then they buy later. And so, the actual data points that we have on demand destruction, even at this price, they're actually not that convincing.There seems to be some... There clearly is in China. In China, we have seen signs of demand destruction at these very high prices. But in the rest of the world, either there are subsidies in place, or people draw on their own inventories for a bit. Or they just absorb it because it's an indisplaceable fuel in the short run. Actually, it's not all that convincing that there is a lot of demand destruction even at these prices. Andrew Sheets: So, Martijn, the last thing I want to ask you about is – this is a fuel that is central to a lot of key industrial processes, as we've discussed, agriculture, trucking. What is the risk that the countries that have more of this refining capacity stop exporting it to the rest of the world. Try to keep more of it to themselves in order to cushion the domestic price impact? Martijn Rats: That risk is very real. We've already seen some of this earlier on in the Hormuz crisis in March and April. For example, China at some point announced an export ban on all refined products. In retrospect, that wasn't quite as forcefully implemented as it was announced. But nevertheless, the Chinese government did announce that, and we saw a initially large decline. The government of South Korea at some point banned refined product exports. In the United States, there are voices that say that this might be something that the government should consider. I would say, though, about the U.S. diesel export ban, there is a good reason why this has not happened yet.Because the United States is broadly balanced in gasoline, domestic production of gasoline by the refiners. It broadly equals to domestic consumption. And there is a tiny little bit of exports. But in the overall scheme of things, it's not much. In diesel, it has a very large surplus, which is exported. But if there were to be an export ban and that diesel cannot leave the country – for a little bit, you can store it. But you'd fill up those tanks very, very quickly. When those tanks are full, you then need to slow down the refineries because otherwise you simply have diesel that you cannot get rid of. If you slow down the refineries, and this is how we come back to the start of the discussion, the mix of products that you produce is broadly fixed. So, if you slow down the refineries, you make less gasoline. And so, in the United States, you can get the counterintuitive outcome that a diesel export ban could lead to higher gasoline prices. So, a lot of these things have unintended consequences, and there are good reasons why they haven't happened yet. Andrew Sheets: I think that's a fascinating and counterintuitive way to think about it. Thank you, Martijn, as always, for taking the time. Martijn Rats: My pleasure. Andrew Sheets: And thank you for listening. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you hear us. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Tighter AI safety requirements could reshape the pace of AI investment. Ariana Salvatore and Michael Zezas dig into why the spending may shift toward more compute, not less.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Michael Zezas: And I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research at Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be talking about AI safety and regulation. It's Wednesday, September 23rd, at 10am in New York. We put out a note last week on AI frontier capability gain and the associated safety risks. Those have been in focus in recent weeks, and as a result, we've gotten a number of questions about the path forward for government regulation. So today, Mike and I are going to get into some of the newest developments, where we think things are headed, and how the midterms could shape that path. Michael Zezas: Yeah, and this is pretty important because the concern is that if AI safety scrutiny increases, it's going to slow everything down. You might have less CapEx, fewer model releases, and there's all sorts of downstream effects for the pace of U.S. growth and investment strategy in equities and throughout the AI investment theme. But Ariana, you and the team landed in a bit of a different place and are arguing that a bigger focus on AI safety could end up being a tailwind to compute spend rather than a brake on it. Can you break that down for us? Ariana Salvatore: Sure. So, the way we see this playing out, is there are five potential states of the world. Some include industry self-policing; some include the prospects for heavier government intervention. Across all of them, as you mentioned, we actually think this is a pretty big tailwind to compute spend and CapEx more broadly. That's because as the labs integrate greater safety monitoring infrastructure, we think that spend is only going to accelerate, especially as LLM capabilities increases at a nonlinear rate. Similarly, on the regulation front, we think there are a few things that prevent something like a large comprehensive AI regulation bill from coming to fruition. We think there's really three, kind of, key obstacles to something like that happening. The first is the politics. So, the president himself has said he's against some sort of large-scale regulation. The second is the procedure. So mechanically speaking, there would need to be a legislative vehicle for this sort of thing to ride on. That's hard to see emerging in the very near term. And the third is precedent. So, historical precedent here tells you that usually regulation is catalyzed by some sort of high salience event. That's why our framework for government reaction here hinges on two components: incident salience, as I just mentioned, and instrument availability. Instrument availability basically reflects the extent to which the government already has a tool that it can pull in this direction. So, that's how we think about it going forward. That doesn't mean all policy action is off the table, but that supports our expectation for higher CapEx, higher compute spend over the coming years. Michael Zezas: Right. So, the idea is that the spending continues and the things that would otherwise limit that spending, you don't see as real plausible policy options at the moment. And can you break this down a little bit more? Because I know there's a lot of different proposals floating around Washington, D.C. from policymakers right now. What are you paying attention to? Ariana Salvatore: We don't expect an overarching AI regulatory authority in the near term. Now, importantly, we also don't expect sweeping open weight model regulation. The reason for that is threefold. First of all, we think the U.S. is keen on maintaining this managed stability relationship with China. We've written about the expectations around the U.S.-China summit. That's kind of a delicate balance that we think is likely to persist. So, overly restricting open weights models might throw a little bit of a wrench into that equilibrium that we see. So that's the first reason. The second reason is diffusion. We think the U.S. administration wants to see the proliferation of open weights models. We know that companies are using some sort of hybrid of open and closed weight. So, to the extent that, you know, banning these models would slow adoption, we don't think that's in the interest of the administration. And the third reason is purely mechanical. It's really hard to enforce these sorts of restrictions. Once a model weight is published online, it can be really hard to clamp down exactly who and where it's going to. Obviously, companies can download them, customize them, et cetera. So, the enforcement picture here is also really challenging. That being said, we do think that the executive can continue to lean in and, sort of, make some incremental adjustments or changes on the regulatory front. But we think it's likely less severe than some of the proposals you're seeing in Congress right now. Things like the Kill Switch Act, for example, which basically mandate that companies can maintain an ability to shut down models at a moment's notice, right? If a certain threshold is crossed. So, that's something that we see as less likely to come to fruition. But again, setting safety standards, guardrails, all of that from the administration we think is possible in the near term.Michael Zezas: What about some of the pushback that would at least appear to be rising at the state and local level around construction of data centers? Is that something that you think might materially slow the industrial build-out and the CapEx levels around AI? Ariana Salvatore: So far, what we've seen is that AI safety risks are not the top of the priority list when it comes to data center pushback, right? So, things like environmental concerns, affordability – those tend to be the main vectors of the opposition. That being said, we've gotten the question, right, to your point, of does this, sort of, risk focus mean that the data center backlash is likely to grow? We think that it could, but at the same time, we think this is a highly idiosyncratic issue, meaning that this is something to pay attention to on a very granular level. Certain states and localities will be the ones to really administer these restrictions, and we think in the aggregate, hyperscalers are going to be able to continue to mitigate. We've already seen these mitigation measures employed. We're still constructive on AI CapEx this year and next, because overall, we see the build-out really becoming more of a conditional build-out. So, that means contingent upon some of these concessions, maybe it's more expensive in certain areas. But overall, we don't think that the concerns around safety are going to derail that story. Michael Zezas: So, then when it comes to data centers, the conditions that might be being put on their construction at the state and local level, for the most part – those building out the data centers have been willing to make those concessions, so it hasn't slowed that much. Is that fair? Ariana Salvatore: That's right, and it really depends on where the pushback is coming from, right? So, in some cases, you're seeing communities push back on things like water usage, right? And we're seeing the hyperscalers come out and respond and say explicitly, you know, how much water they're using in some of these operations. Google is proposing a regulatory framework, so that's something that they're mitigating through that lens. In another example, you've got local communities pushing back on just, sort of, disruptions to quality of life, and you're seeing companies like Meta announce a fund to engage more locally there.So, it really is different. There's no one-size-fits-all solution here. But yes, I agree with you that overall, we don't think this is going to meaningfully constrain the build-out. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, it seems like the idea here is that the secular trend around AI development is going to continue in your view. Is there any way that you think the midterm elections or the outcome around that might change your thinking? Ariana Salvatore: So, I think the midterms will be important for sentiment, but when it comes to the actual policy path, we don't think they're the main driver, and there's two key reasons for that. The first is obviously the president is not changing until 2029. So, the fact that President Trump still has to be involved in any capacity – if we were to see a bill emerge from Congress to us gives a little bit of clarity on what that bill could actually look like. And so ultimately, whatever comes to fruition will have to be a product of collaboration between Democrats, Republicans in Congress, and the president. So, that's a pretty much a constant. The second reason I would say is because, as I kind of alluded to earlier, you tend to see government response when there's a high salience event. And in that case, it doesn't really matter what the government configuration is if it's reactionary. When you think back to things like the pandemic, we saw the CARES Act. In 2008-2009, you saw the ARRA. Those are all efforts that were produced in a divided government. And so, in that vein, we basically think that you need to see some sort of event catalyze a response. The key driver is not going to be government configuration. It's going to be the salience of that event specifically. Michael Zezas: Okay, got it. So, the guidance to investors on the back of all of this is what? Ariana Salvatore: So, the thematic recommendations from our team are intact, right? So, what we were talking about is basically we see these all converging towards a tailwind to CapEx and a tailwind to compute supply. So, in that vein, we still think that you should own inference compute bottlenecks because of that excess demand relative to supply. We think that's going to persist regardless of most of the policy scenarios. We also think own leaders in cybersecurity, as we mentioned. This should drive increased spend, especially as open weight models become much more capable. And then in the third piece, we think you should own AI adopters. AI models are already pretty capable to drive significant productivity. We think that that's just going to continue to unlock. The last thing I would mention, we didn't really get into it in this podcast, but in this conversation we typically also talk about AI sovereignty and the U.S.-China restrictions here. So, in that context, we would avoid negative exposure to rising U.S.-China technology transfer restrictions. We think that's an increasing probability because we do see the governments taking more of an active role, which we think drives bifurcation of the global market. Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for breaking it down. Appreciate talking to you today. Ariana Salvatore: Always great speaking with you, Mike. And thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Central banks are turning more hawkish as inflation risks increase. Our Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research Seth Carpenter explains what that means for the Fed, ECB and Bank of Japan.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Today, I’m going to talk about all the movement we’ve seen in central banks and how it’s changing our forecasts. It’s Tuesday, September 22, at 10 a.m. in New York. Over the past two weeks, our economists here at Morgan Stanley have revised their outlooks for the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of Japan to include more rate hikes. Each economy faces different challenges, but all three central banks have arrived at roughly the same conclusion: growth has remained remarkably resilient despite all of the shocks hitting the global economy. And renewed energy-price pressures have increased the risk that inflation proves more persistent than they had previously expected. The clearest example—and our biggest revision here—is the Fed. Now for much of this year, we had actually thought the Fed might avoid hiking interest rates altogether. But in addition to this increase that we just saw at the September FOMC meeting, we now expect two additional rate hikes—in December and in March that will bring the terminal rate up to 4.25 to 4.5 percent. While Chair Warsh has highlighted the inflationary implications of higher energy and commodity prices, for me, the more important signal was the assessment that policy is not sufficiently restrictive. So in our view, the Fed appears to be reassessing not just the inflation outlook, but the amount of restraint that is required to bring inflation sustainably back to target. But even with all of that said, we’re still looking at this shift as more of a recalibration of policy for the Fed rather than a fundamental shift in policy. And so the market may have—just may have—overestimated how much hiking is left. But the shift does have clear and important market implications. Our rate strategists expect investors to pull forward additional tightening expectations in the near term, while increasingly questioning how long policy can remain at restrictive levels before growth starts to slow.But more broadly, the Fed now appears a bit more sensitive to energy-driven inflation pressures, and that strengthens the case for a firmer dollar. Over recent months, rising energy prices have supported the euro because investors have seen the ECB respond more aggressively than the Fed. That maybe former asymmetry could be changing. Our foreign-exchange strategists therefore continue to favor dollar strength, particularly against the yen. Now Europe does face a similar inflation challenge to the Fed, though through a different mechanism. The renewed rise in natural-gas and other energy prices has led our economists to revise up their inflation forecast materially and, therefore, to add in another ECB rate hike in December. But we have got to keep in mind that it is not energy prices all by themselves that have changed the outlook. Economic activity in the euro area has also proven to be much more resilient than we had anticipated. And that reduces concerns that an additional modest tightening of policy would derail growth. And so if you take it all together, the ECB is increasingly focused on preventing higher energy costs from feeding into broader inflationary dynamics. Now Japan might seem different, but the underlying story is really surprisingly similar. For decades, the BoJ’s challenge was generating inflation. But now policymakers are now increasingly concerned about the possibility that inflation will overshoot its target. After the BoJ’s hike last week, we expect it to raise rates to 1.5 percent in December and then raise rates further, to about 1.75 percent, in March. Like the Fed and the ECB, the BoJ faces an economy that has absorbed tighter financial conditions much better than had been expected.And yet, unlike the Fed and the ECB, our strategists believe that markets have become too aggressive in pricing the eventual destination of rates. And that creates scope for expectations to be revised lower over time. As a result, while Japanese rates may continue to rise gradually, our foreign-exchange strategists still expect a broader trend of yen weakness to emerge once temporary positioning effects fade. So the common thread across all three of these central banks that I’ve discussed is that, while the energy shock has changed the inflation conversation, the resilience in growth has further changed the policy conversation.And so for investors, next year is probably going to be characterized by higher policy rates and a stronger dollar than markets expected at the beginning of the year. Well, thanks for listening. And If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses why quality stocks, strong earnings and price momentum support his view that the bull market remains intact.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 ongoing mid-cycle transition. It's Monday, September 21st at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. The S&P 500 is near record highs. That’s despite rising energy prices, two wars running in parallel and AI safety concerns back in the headlines. Meanwhile central banks are tightening. On paper, that's a lot of reasons to be nervous. So are investors just being complacent? I don't think so. More than 40 percent of the Russell 3000 has fallen at least 20 percent since June, while the S&P 500’s forward price earnings multiple has fallen back to 19 times, which is almost 20 percent lower than a year ago. At the same time, median stock earnings growth is running around 15 percent, and revisions breadth is back near cycle highs. Falling valuations alongside strong earnings growth is not complacency. It is the definition of a classic mid-cycle transition. That distinction matters because mid-cycle markets tend to frustrate almost everyone. The index can remain resilient while much of the market corrects. Earnings can stay strong while multiples fall. And leadership can change without the bull market ending. Last week’s Fed meeting fits squarely into that framework. The 25-basis-point hike was largely priced, so the real information was Chair Warsh’s willingness to follow through on his commitment to fight inflation. Recent core inflation data were firmer than expected, but the details were not uniformly hot. Some of the upside was concentrated in a handful of categories, shelter remained soft, and tariff pass-through appears to be fading. That gave the Fed room to act without forcing investors to assume we are heading into another 2022-style tightening campaign. In my view, the hike can enhance credibility. If investors believe the Fed is acting early enough to contain inflation, a higher policy rate can reduce uncertainty and term premium rather than automatically driving long-term financing costs higher. But the rate hike is not my concern. A few additional hikes over the next year are unlikely to end this bull market if earnings remain strong. The bigger unknown is how a Warsh-led Fed approaches the balance sheet, money supply, and credit growth. His philosophy has historically leaned more monetarist than prior Fed chairs. However, we still don’t know how aggressively he will apply it – or how much influence he will have over the rest of the committee. That matters because the private economy is using more capital, and an overly restrictive approach to liquidity could become more consequential than the policy rate itself. This is one reason I continue to favor large-cap quality. High free-cash-flow yield, low accruals, and operating-efficiency factors are leading, while the high-sales-per-employee factor has been one of the strongest recent performers. That also aligns closely with our preference for AI adopters rather than the enablers. Price momentum is not disappearing. But its composition is changing toward quality, services-oriented, asset-light, and fee-based businesses. That is exactly what should happen during a mid-cycle transition. The near-term swing factor remains energy prices. Another meaningful rise in crude or refined products would put upward pressure on the expected policy path, long-end yields, and bond volatility in an unhealthy way. It would also arrive during a period when midterm-election seasonality often produces a 5 to 10 percent index correction. In a worst-case near-term scenario, the S&P 500 could trade near 7100, but I would view that as a tactical correction within the bull market – not a change in our fundamental views. Either way, I remain convicted in our 8,000 year-end price target. The bottom line is that this market is behaving exactly like a mid-cycle market should: valuations are compressing, earnings are carrying the load, and leadership is moving toward quality. The index may look calm, but plenty of concern has already been priced at the stock level. The mistake would be confusing resiliency with complacency—and missing the rotation taking place in plain sight. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

As President Xi heads to Washington, trade, rare earths and AI are set to dominate the agenda. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore unpacks what the meeting could mean for supply chains, tech stocks and the broader market.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, I'll be talking about next week's U.S.-China summit, specifically the bilateral trade relationship, what we can expect on critical minerals and rare earths, AI dialogues, and what it all means for markets.It's Friday, September 18th at 10am in New York.President Xi is scheduled to visit the White House on September 24th for his second meeting with President Trump this year, and his first White House visit in roughly a decade.The meeting follows President Trump's visit to Beijing in May, where the two sides established a framework for what they call a more constructive relationship of strategic stability. That meeting also produced new trade and investment dialogues, commitments around agricultural purchases and aircraft, and an agreement to begin a dialogue on artificial intelligence.But next week's summit comes at an important moment because several of the temporary arrangements that helped stabilize the economic relationship are due to expire later this fall.We think there are three areas to focus on.The first is trade. The current U.S.-China tariff truce is scheduled to expire in November. Now, public reporting suggests that the two governments are discussing an extension alongside potential announcements on agriculture, non-tariff barriers, and a relatively narrow set of goods that could see lower tariffs.The question for markets, therefore, is less whether next week produces a comprehensive new trade agreement and more so on whether the two sides can extend the current period of stability and prevent another significant increase in tariffs.The second area is critical minerals. This is probably one of the clearest examples of the leverage that each side has over the other.Washington, we think, wants more predictable Chinese exports of rare earths and other critical materials used across semiconductors, autos, aerospace, and defense. Beijing, meanwhile, has been pushing back against U.S. restrictions on Chinese companies' access to advanced technology.Public reporting suggests that both of these issues are part of the negotiations heading into the summit, and the timing here is really important. November 10th is an upcoming cliff affecting China's rare earth restrictions and U.S. technology controls, followed later that month by another deadline covering certain minerals. So what happens next week could determine whether those restrictions remain suspended or begin to snap back.The third area is technology, and increasingly artificial intelligence. The two leaders agreed in May to establish an AI dialogue, and President Trump has specifically said AI will be discussed next week.Reporting also shows that shared AI risks could be one area for discussion, although the broader competitive relationship makes a comprehensive agreement difficult, we think. From a policy perspective, the most important point is that technology restrictions are moving beyond advanced chips. The debate includes cloud and compute access, model distribution, procurement, and potentially the use of certain foreign AI models themselves.In other words, we think that while the summit could produce something like an agreement to keep talking on AI, the underlying shift matters more. AI sovereignty pushes both the U.S. and China toward more restrictions or heavier government involvement even over a longer period of time.We expect that a middle path is the more plausible U.S. approach. So think targeted restrictions on specific Chinese developers rather than a blanket prohibition on Chinese open weight models. But even that would reinforce what we've called the two worlds thesis, increasingly distinct U.S. and Chinese tech ecosystems with separate infrastructure, supply chains, standards, and distribution channels.There could also be a host of other issues on the agenda, specifically the U.S.-Iran conflict, which we see as a tail risk into the talks.So what does all this mean for investors?Even a constructive summit is unlikely to reverse the structural push toward technology and supply chain diversification. In fact, we argue that greater U.S.-China bifurcation will actually reinforce investment in parallel ecosystems, semiconductor capacity, data centers, cloud infrastructure, power, and critical mineral supply chains.In that sense, actually less geopolitical friction next week could reduce near-term market volatility, but without necessarily changing the underlying investment cycle.So, the key question coming out of the summit is not simply whether the relations are improving or deteriorating. It's whether the two sides can preserve enough stability to manage their competition while the longer-term process of de-risking continues underneath.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

After raising interest rates for the first time in more than three years, the Fed still doesn’t see policy as restrictive. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets breaks down what that could mean for the monetary policy path.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why the Federal Reserve may have raised interest rates and yet still thinks that monetary policy is providing support.It's Thursday, September 17th at 2pm in London. Yesterday, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates by a quarter of a percent. That part was widely expected. What was more notable was how Chair Warsh described it. At the press conference following the action, he said that the Fed had removed "a dose of accommodation," and he said that both he and many of his colleagues were hard-pressed to describe broader financial conditions as restrictive. That's an important distinction that now moves to the heart of the market debate. If monetary policy is already restrictive, another rate hike means that the Fed is pressing harder on the proverbial brakes on the economy. But if policy is still accommodative, a hike is more like easing off the gas. It means the Fed is simply providing a little less support. And if that is how the committee sees the world, it suggests that there could be further to go. Following yesterday's meeting, Morgan Stanley's economists now expect two additional quarter point rate hikes in December and March, taking the Fed's target rate range from 4.25 to 4.5 percent; and we then expect those rates to remain there through the rest of 2027.Three things are driving this updated view. First is exactly that language around accommodation. The interest rates that keep the economy in balance are always a mystery when viewed in real time. But given booming earnings growth, loan growth, and corporate activity, it's not obvious that the current level of interest rates are holding back activity for the economy as a whole. The Fed may believe that as well, making higher rates a little more palpable.Second is inflation. Chair Warsh repeatedly emphasized that trends matter here more than individual data points, and on that basis, inflation still looks too high. Too many categories are still running above 3 percent. The Fed simply does not sound convinced that inflation is moving sustainably back towards its 2 percent target as fast as it would like.Third is geopolitics. Chair Warsh explicitly cited geopolitical developments as one of the things that had changed since their meeting in July. He also made it clear that the Fed is watching not just high oil prices, but so-called second-round effects. And whether higher prices for fuel translate into higher prices for things that require a lot of fuel.Airline tickets, for example, are one of the areas of the economy where prices are going up the fastest. Higher oil prices are a key reason why. And so with energy markets still severely disrupted, this remains a wild card.There is, maybe, one other wrinkle. The committee also raised its estimate of the so-called long-run neutral interest rate – the rate that it thinks we'll ultimately end up at over the long term that will keep the economy in balance. And it raised this to about 3.25 percent.This is an uncertain estimate, and Chair Warsh himself downplayed its importance. But directionally, a view that the interest rate that keeps things in balance is higher means that any given interest rate that we see today is less restrictive on economic growth.It's less elevated relative to that neutral rate than we previously thought. That, too, leans towards the case for more tightening and more rate increases rather than less.None of this is set in stone. If energy prices fall, geopolitical tensions ease, or inflation improves more quickly, the Fed could stop earlier. But for now, we think the important message from this week's meeting was not simply that the Fed raised rates. It was that even after doing so, it still doesn't think that policy is especially tight. And if that's right, there may be still more to do. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach joins our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen to discuss the Fed’s potential next moves and how energy prices are influencing market expectations.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today, what the Federal Reserve decided at its September meeting and what it could mean for rates through the end of the year.It's Wednesday, September 16th at 4pm in New York.So, Mike, the Fed raised rates by 25 basis points at this week's meeting. What stood out to you the most in the decision? And when it comes to inflation, how do you think this 25-basis point rate hike is actually going to affect the inflation outlook?Michael Gapen: Yeah, so certainly the decision was in line with expectations. You know, obviously what we've learned in the very broad sense is that inflation isn't moving fast enough in the direction that the Fed wants. So, it's responding by tighter monetary policy. And that does set up a very interesting question which you just asked, which is: Well, is it going to work? Is this the right response to the inflation that we're seeing?So, if you do go back and reread that Jackson Hole speech, there's not a lot in there about the drivers of inflation, what's causing higher inflation. But it's clear the only response to above target inflation from the point of view of the chair was tighter monetary policy. So, the Fed is in a bit of a pickle.Most of us believe the majority of the inflation we're seeing is supply side driven from tariffs, from energy. At least in the past, let's call it supply chain disruptions, a de-globalization narrative. Some of it is demand side driven through AI. But I think we're all looking at that thinking modestly tighter rates isn't necessarily going to bring down that AI-related inflation.So, we're left to conclude that the Fed's in this uncomfortable position of saying, "Well, a lot of the inflation that we're seeing is supply side driven and from the structural AI story that we're not convinced higher rates can maybe address."So I think the answer would be, if inflation's going to come down, then higher rates will be weighing on the parts of the economy that are more interest rate sensitive and generally soft already.Matthew Hornbach: Is this a one and done? Or do you think that when the Fed actually goes ahead and hikes rates after a long pause, they are thinking about delivering more than just one rate hike?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I strongly believe the committee as a whole is thinking in terms of more than one move. Monetary policy doesn't, say, hyper-react. It reacts with a bit of a delay. So, to your point, they've been on hold for a while. When they think about changing policy, then they're thinking about a series of moves.So, I think in their mind, if they're raising rates, there's a strong probability that they will do at least one more or two more. They're never going to think that a 25-basis-point move in the funds rate will fundamentally change the macro-outlook. So, I don't think they'd ever walk into this thinking one and done.Now, it is possible we get an ex-post one and done. So, how could that come about? If it is true indeed that we're right that a lot of this inflation is supply-side driven. It is coming down. It's clear that the three- and six-month annualized rates are pointing to disinflation into year-end. We can debate whether it's fast enough or not.But if disinflation continues to happen, then the Fed will have hiked, expect to maybe do another one. But by the time we get there, inflation has improved enough, and they end up not doing it.So, they would sound like, "Oh, we're still ready. We still think we've got more work to do." But in the moment, the data just arrives in a way that they stay where they are. So you would look back and say it was a one and done, but I don't think they go into this thinking one rate hike is going to fundamentally change the story.Matthew Hornbach: Now, of course, the data that we'll get between today and the December meeting will likely have an impact on their decision-making – as well as any revisions that we end up getting.And I think one of the stories that investors have been talking about are some of the methodological changes that the Bureau of Economic Analysis is implementing into the PCE inflation data. Do you see any scope for those types of revisions to lend itself to a one and done type of a policy for this year?Michael Gapen: It is possible. There's uncertainty about what actually those revisions are going to bring. But quality adjustments to software, for example, will over time likely bring inflation lower. Some of the revisions to the other categories. So, we do think it will on average lower year-on-year rate of inflation by about 1/10 or so, maybe a little more.So, it could show up on the high side. And then you've got what looks to be a different path.So yes, I think one of the reasons to maybe go slower, think about perhaps a quarterly pace of hikes, as opposed to, "Oh, we're just going to ramp up three, four meetings in a row," is to let some of this play out. See what those revisions look like.So yes, it could contribute to a world where revisions plus softness in the incoming data mean they hike, say, in September, don't do another one after that. Or those revisions are part of the reason why they think a slower-moving cycle rather than a more aggressive one is appropriate.Matthew Hornbach: Does the labor market play any role today in monetary policy?Michael Gapen: I think it's certainly secondary, if not tertiary. I don't want to say that the committee as a whole sees the labor market just fine and we don't have any concerns there.What's super helpful from the rate hike perspective is labor income, wage income out of the labor market is still decelerating and pretty modest. It doesn't suggest that the economy's overheating and the labor market is a source of upward pressure on inflation. So, I think that's beneficial in terms of thinking of the rate hike cycle.In the other direction, I'd say we've had a number of months now of, kind of, you know, let's call it 50,000 to 70,000 jobs a month on average if you kind of smooth through some of the volatility. That's not amazing, but it's not awful either.So Matt, I'd like to turn it back to you. This is of course the economist's perspective. When we translate this into the rates market; rates market clients may have a very different view. But I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how you think the rates market is dealing with the inflation. I don't want to say impulse, but let's call it the sticky disinflation we're getting, the sources of that inflation, and how it sees monetary policy reacting.How is the rates market digesting all of this?Matthew Hornbach: So, I think actually investors are reasonably nonplussed about what's happening in the underlying rate of inflation in the country. But what has inserted itself into the conversation is the price of energy and how impulsively energy prices have risen over recent months.When we look at how market prices evolve with respect to the path for monetary policy, what we observe empirically is that if energy prices are going up in a given week or in a given month, the market reprices to a more hawkish path for Fed policy. And if energy prices come down in a given week or a given month, and we see the market pricing towards a less hawkish path for monetary policy.So, the primary driver of how the markets are pricing the future of Fed policy is, in fact, the changes in the price of energy commodities. So, Brent crude oil, WTI crude oil, gasoline prices. And so, this is something that we just can't get away from.There are, of course, other things that do influence the level of Treasury yields, but I would suggest that they are more secondary or tertiary themselves in terms of… Similar to the labor market. I would say they have less of an impact on the overall level of yields.So, with a market-implied hiking cycle from the Fed at about three hikes or so from here, given that the Fed just delivered one rate hike, you know, the 10-year treasury yield is around 5 percent. It was much lower earlier this year, and we were pricing in two rate cuts at that point in time.So, you get the sense that if the market's moving from pricing in two rate cuts to pricing in four rate hikes, and the 10-year yield goes from 4.25 percent to 5 percent, obviously there's a relationship there.One factor that investors are certainly interested in is – how does the debt stock play a role in the level of yields? And one of the things that I've been telling people to consider is that it's not the level of the debt, the amount of debt in the economy that matters most for the level of interest rates – as odd as that may be to hear for listeners. It's how quickly that debt stock grows.So, if the debt stock is going up at a certain pace, and that pace is within the bounds of investor expectations, then it typically doesn't have that big of an impact on the bond market. So, one of the factoids that may surprise people is: about four years ago, the news media was very interested in the fact that the amount of debt in the United States had breached $31 trillion. And, the 10-year treasury yield at that time had peaked at about 4.25 percent, somewhere around there.Well, earlier this year, before the conflict in Iran began, the 10-year treasury yield was also around 4.25 percent. But this is four years later, and over these four years, the U.S. has added $9 trillion to the debt.So, here again, this is a good example, I think, of this idea that you can have a dramatic expansion in the debt from [$]31 trillion to [$]40 trillion, and yet the 10-year treasury yield itself is broadly unchanged.And so that just, I think, should tell investors that it's not the size of the debt that matters per se. Lots of other factors can influence the level of treasury yields. And how the market thinks about the Fed is certainly among the more important of those.So, Mike, just want to say thanks again for taking the time to talk after another FOMC meeting.Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson breaks down how the market is transitioning to a mid-cycle environment, with leadership shifting toward higher-quality, asset-light companies with durable earnings.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why inflation should not be a concern for equity investors.It's Tuesday, September 15th at 9 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.The markets have spent the past few months doing far more work than what most casual observers might think. Since early June, the S&P 500 has chopped sideways, but underneath the surface leadership has changed materially. The early-cycle, capital-intensive winners are giving way to higher-quality companies with stronger free cash flow, better margins with more asset-light businesses. Software, Financial Services, Insurance, and Healthcare Services are beginning to show the earnings revision strength that Semiconductors and other cyclicals enjoyed earlier this year. To me, that is the market confirming an economy moving from early to mid-cycle.While many investors are debating yesterday’s news, the market is already moving to new leadership. A good example of this is the inflation data that was released last week. The results were a bit higher than expected and elicited quite a reaction from the media and Fed watchers. However, the probability of a September interest rate hike has been rising for months and was close to 70% before the data were released. Now it’s 95%. Equities have de-rated alongside that repricing in the bond market. In short, the inflation data may have been news to some, but it wasn’t to Mr. Market.While some may view this as the Fed being behind the curve, the bond market has been expecting it for months and essentially doing the tightening for the Fed. Equity markets are well aware of this dynamic which is why valuations have fallen and the index has gone nowhere for the past few months. This is also classic mid cycle transition behavior—strong earnings growth is offset by falling valuations as the Fed starts to focus on its inflation mandate. In other words, the first hike does not mean “risk off.” However, it does reinforce the quality rotation and overall narrative we have been highlighting since June. And earnings are the reason. To remind regular listeners, the median Russell 3000 company is growing earnings in the mid-teens, the fastest since 2021; and revisions remain strong. That is the mid-cycle playbook to a T—earnings are doing the heavy lifting and the market is becoming more selective, not necessarily less constructive. More specifically, the market is demanding better cash conversion, stronger margins, and more durable growth.This is why the momentum unwind earlier this summer has been misunderstood. Some investors see it as nothing more than leverage coming out of crowded positions, but that really misses the bigger message. Semiconductors are a classic early cycle sector and it reached an extreme in earnings revisions breadth back in June. That was the fundamental trigger for the unwind, and the leverage just magnified it. The price momentum factor can recover, but the stocks and sectors that lead may look very different. That is usually how a healthy market adjusts: the baton gets passed before everyone realizes the race has changed.With regard to interest rates, I also think the mainstream explanation is incomplete. Many investors assume higher yields are simply a referendum on debt and deficits. I see stronger nominal growth as the more important driver. Nominal GDP is running close to 7% on a five-year average basis and has reaccelerated on capex incentives, compute demand, and higher velocity real economy. Equities are an inflation hedge when inflation reflects stronger revenue and earnings growth. Deflation—not inflation—is the real kryptonite for stocks.This does not mean we are completely out of the woods on the mid cycle transition that began in June. If oil continues to rise sharply from here, it will likely push interest rates higher and put pressure on growth, an unhealthy combination for stocks. This would likely lead to a 5-10% drawdown in the S&P 500 before the bull market can resume in earnest. The other risk is the midterm elections which historically have been a headwind for equities in the September and October time frame.  Bottom line, the inflation data is old news. The rotation is not. We are transitioning to a mid-cycle market where earnings durability, free cash flow, operational efficiency, and quality matter more. Investors waiting for complete clarity from the Fed may miss the message already coming from the market: leadership has moved to higher quality, asset light companies. Don’t fight it; embrace it. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out.

Healthcare companies are rethinking their business models as patients gain more control over how they access care and purchase medicine. Our analysts Erin Wright and Terence Flynn unpack this shift and the emerging opportunities.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Erin Wright: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erin Wright, US Healthcare Services Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Terence Flynn: And I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's US BioPharma Analyst.Erin Wright: Today, how the consumer is moving into the driver's seat across healthcare.It's Monday, September 14th at 7:00 AMWe're recording in New York City, where Morgan Stanley's twenty-fourth Annual Healthcare Conference is happening this week. One of the biggest shifts we're seeing across the industry is patients gaining more choice, transparency, and control over how they access care and medicine. You can already see it in everyday behavior. In our AlphaWise survey earlier this year, thirty-four percent of US consumers said that they'd chosen to take a voluntary wellness lab test in the past three years, and roughly two-thirds already own a wearable or plan to buy one.And now we're seeing the same trend reshaping how people buy medicine and choose care. So Terence, let's start with biopharma. For years, direct-to-consumer pharma meant advertising and nudging people to ask your doctor about what particular treatment is best for them. What's different this time around? And what's different in this next wave of direct access?Terence Flynn: Yeah, absolutely. Thanks, Erin. So for most of the industry's history, the patient sat at the end of the value chain and had really limited control over the product, the price, or the route through which the drug was obtained.Manufacturers marketed to doctors and consumers, but the transaction was itself intermediated. So we think that's starting to change here. It's no longer simply about more consumer advertising or another cash pay discount. There's a parallel access infrastructure that's building here where the patient can increasingly start the initiation of the treatment journey themselves, obtain a prescription, often digitally through a telehealth provider, and then fill this prescription through other non-traditional channels.And so there really is a shift in the model that we're starting to see here. But again, we're not talking about replacing insurance here; we're talking about areas where friction is high and where a cash pay price is viable.Erin Wright: So Obesity has been the clearest proof point, as we are seeing patients asking providers about GLP-1s. Where else are we seeing this?Terence Flynn: Yeah. So manufacturers are actually already selling over twenty-five branded drugs directly to patients at cash prices. Now, the common features of these drug classes are that they're self-administered, so essentially the patient can start and stay on treatment, and where there's limited in-person infrastructure that's needed, and where, as I mentioned, you have a lower price point or a coverage gap, meaning traditional insurance coverage doesn't exist.Now, we're seeing this in large chronic categories. You mentioned obesity. Another one is, migraine headaches. There are also other areas that are amenable to telehealth, so think oral PCSK9 therapies, topical dermatology, non-opioid pain. So again, we think as more self-administered products launch, you're gonna see the addressable DTC pool expand.Erin Wright: And ultimately what does this reveal about patient demand and gaps in reimbursement?Terence Flynn: Yeah, I think GLP-1s, as you mentioned, Erin, provided the first proof point here that this new DTC model could actually be viable. And really the reason for that is that, the US employer coverage base right now, only about fifty percent cover these obesity medications.And so for the other fifty percent, you have a gap in coverage. And that's really why people are seeking other channels for coverage. And so again, that really created this opening here for this new model. And so again, that's another consideration when you think about other medicines that could go through these channels is you have to think about the insurance coverage situation. And so for some areas like oncology, for example, insurance coverage is gonna be very high, and so those wouldn't be amenable to a DTC approach.Erin Wright: So Terence, your analysis points to roughly twenty-six billion peak US opportunity. What makes a certain therapeutic well-suited for direct-to-consumer, and where is the opportunity most concentrated?Terence Flynn: Yeah. So there are really four variables that we considered. The first is self-administration. So as I mentioned, you have to be able to administer the medicine yourself, meaning you don't have to go into the physician or hospital for an injection, for example. The second is that the diagnosis doesn't need an in-person confirmation. So think of something like a biopsy or something. So you'd have to be able to diagnose, as I said, over a remote telehealth channel. The third would be something that is a lower price point. Obviously, there are, like we mentioned, the GLP-1 medicines are at a different price point versus oncology medicines.And then the last one would be any kind of legal restrictions. So sometimes FDA has a lot of restrictions around who can prescribe a medicine. These are called REMS. And so any medicine that had restrictions like that obviously would not be amenable to DTC. So again, we think through those different variables, and then we ultimately built up this twenty-six billion dollar TAM that represents about three percent of total branded pharmaceutical spend. Of that, about half is driven by the obesity or GLP-1 medications.So Erin, that's a good bridge to healthcare services because consumerism isn't just about paying cash. What does greater consumer control actually look like?Erin Wright: You're right. It's not just about paying out of pocket for healthcare. With now consumers becoming more proactive with their healthcare and preventative care, we are seeing a whole healthcare ecosystem shift, from health insurers now offering lifestyle savings accounts empowering patients with more choice on that front, health systems and hospitals are creating a digital front door and delivery of care twenty-four/seven on that front. And also, we're seeing more direct-to-consumer pharmacies and transparent pharmacies that are gaining traction.Terence Flynn: And what does the Alpha Wise survey data tell us about consumers' willingness to pay out of pocket for care?Erin Wright: So based on our AlphaWise consumer survey, twenty-five percent of consumers report paying entirely out of pocket for at least one healthcare service over the past year. That was actually higher than what we were expecting. Most commonly, this was attributable to behavioral and mental health services, about eight percent of the cohort.Annual spend was about nine hundred and eight dollars, but maximum willingness to spend was about double that. So this suggests consumers are using out-of-pocket services and medications and are willing to spend to do so.Terence Flynn: That's very interesting. How important are digital tools, wearables, and testing in actually accelerating this shift?Erin Wright: So wearables are certainly a piece of the puzzle. What is new though here is that we're seeing wearable data align with actual biological data, where, for example, clinical laboratories are now partnering with these wearable companies and other direct-to-consumer healthcare platforms to offer subscription-based biomarker panels and other testing services. This is where this type of technology becomes more actionable from a healthcare perspective and really, frankly, empowers patients to take matters into their own hands.Terence Flynn: So as consumers take more control, as you discussed, what types of healthcare service models are best positioned to benefit?Erin Wright: There are certainly a host of companies across healthcare that are attacking this from several different angles.But if we think about who in the industry has the most touch points into the consumer, into the patient, it would be your diversified managed care companies and vertically integrated managed care companies where we view that many of these larger insurers are best able to adapt to consumerism in healthcare. We're already starting to see that happen with stepped-up technology investments helping to facilitate greater transparency and access, whether it's across insurance, provider arms, technology, or, um, or pharmacy assets as well.To sum it up, in biopharma, we're seeing a parallel access channel emerge alongside traditional reimbursement. And in healthcare services, consumers are gaining more control over how they choose access and pay for their care. Consumers aren't stepping outside of the healthcare system. They're taking a more proactive and more active role in how they navigate it.Terrence, thank you for taking the time to talk.Terence Flynn: Great speaking with you Erin.Erin Wright: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or a colleague today.

Heather Berger of the U.S. Economics Team hosts Wealth Management Senior Economist and Strategist Sarah Wolfe to discuss what it takes to define the middle class in America today. They break down how factors like rising essential costs and the development of AI are reshaping consumer balance sheets and financial security.Sarah Wolfe is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Heather Berger: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Heather Berger from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team.Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, Senior Economist and Strategist on Morgan Stanley's Thematic and Macro Investing team in the Global Investment Office.Heather Berger: Today, the K-shaped economy, the middle class, and how AI could reshape both.It's Friday, September 11th, at 10a.m. in New York.The K-shaped economy has been a major theme this year. At its core, it describes an economy where households are experiencing very different circumstances. Those with more assets have benefited from rising wealth, while those with less wealth remain more dependent on income and more exposed to increases in essential costs. But that top versus bottom framing can miss an important part of the story: the middle class. Sarah, you recently wrote about what it takes to make it to the middle class in America. How would you define the middle class today, and how does that differ from the way that households define it themselves?Sarah Wolfe: I think the important thing here is that economists and households define the middle class very differently from each other, and, and I'll get into why that's the case.So if you're an economist, the middle class is roughly defined as two-thirds to twice the median household income, which today means if you're making around fifty-five thousand dollars a year to a hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars a year, depending on where you live in the country, that is roughly the middle class. And that's where about half of Americans sit today.We've actually seen that number decline, so sixty-one percent of Americans in the 1970s were in that middle class definition by economist terms. Now it's about fifty percent, so we have seen it shrunk. But even though it's shrunk, fewer and fewer households feel like they're in the middle class, and they don't define it by necessarily income or a specific number, but they really define it by milestones, I would say.So do you own a home? Have you been able to build a family, and can you pay for childcare? Have you saved enough for retirement? Do you have an emergency fund? Are you constantly stressed about your bills? That feeling is really what the middle class is about today, and I would say that less than fifty percent of Americans actually feel like they're in the middle class once you start to put that definition around it.Heather Berger: What are the key factors that actually make a household feel financially secure?Sarah Wolfe: I think there's four things that determine household security and stability. The first, of course, is income, stable income. Do you have a job, and do you think you're going to continue to have a job six months from now? We love the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey that asks consumers this.Do you have affordable fixed costs, like housing, childcare, healthcare, and transportation? Do you own assets? This is critically important because if we look at where gains have come from from the last five years, it hasn't really been that much through the labor income channel. It's been through the asset channel, like home equity, retirement savings, are you invested in the stock market, et cetera.And then the last one is this emergency fund and a manageable debt. What is your debt load? Is it fixed rate, or is it revolving? The more of these pillars that a household has, the more financially fulfilled and comfortable they are, and the more likely they are to feel like they've made it to the middle class, but the reality is, is that fewer and fewer households are meeting these four boxes that define the middle class by historical terms.Heather Berger: And what has made that security harder to achieve? Which of those costs that you mentioned have moved the furthest out of reach?Sarah Wolfe: I think these numbers are going to maybe surprise our listeners, but in some ways feel very real to them as well. So if we look at how much inflation has risen since the 1970s, shelter, the cost of housing, has risen 6.6 times more than the overall inflation basket. Childcare costs have risen by 14 times more than the overall inflation basket, and healthcare costs have risen 10 times more.And if we dig more into childcare, we now like to call it the second mortgage. And we're not being sarcastic or anything. The reality is that to send two children to childcare in America costs more than a mortgage in 45 states, and costs more than rent in 49 states.So it's really, this reality has gotten a lot more expensive, and these baskets, these individual things like childcare, healthcare, shelter, that define the middle class, have risen more than the overall inflation basket, and certainly have risen more than income growth over this period as well.Heather Berger: Right. So the overall inflation measure can kind of understate the increases in some of these essential costs. And when people talk about a K-shaped economy, the middle class itself isn't necessarily moving as one group. You mentioned homeownership a lot. How much do homeownership, age, and geography determine who is moving up and who is getting squeezed?Sarah Wolfe: Homeownership is always incredibly important, right? Because it's this large asset that is more equally distributed across the income distribution, as opposed to if we think about equities, and you've done a lot of great work on this. That is the most highly concentrated asset across the income distribution, right? Where the top 20% is sitting on 70%, at least, of equities. So homeownership remains the best channel towards wealth accumulation. Obviously, though, timing of homeownership matters a lot. If we were all so lucky to have bought a home in 2019 and 2020, we got a low fixed-rate mortgage, and we would've benefited from the tremendous run-up in home prices over the last five years, right, over 50% home price appreciation over this entire period. So that's been really important. Also, geography, where you bought a home, did that benefit from the COVID home price appreciation? And then the geography also matters because someone living in New York versus someone living in the Midwest is living with really different fixed costs, realities of fixed costs, and that's also gonna help define do they feel financially secure, and do they feel like they're in the middle class?The other component I don't wanna leave out, though, equities is really important. And we did some work looking at the Fed's distributional financial accounts, and if you look seven years ago, Gen X was doing way better than Gen Y or the millennials were at that same age 15 years ago. But then, because the millennials were sitting on so much equity wealth because they've built up their 401Ks, they really couldn't get as successfully into homeownership, so they had more stored away in equities. They have now surpassed Gen X at this age, two and a half times. It is a tremendous reversal in wealth and in who's doing well, and it's because of what's happened in the stock market. And it's not because they were better savers. It was just a lot of timing and luck. So I would say that our fate is not prewritten, as we also think about Gen Z entering the workforce and becoming wealth builders.I want to dig in, though, to a really important part of the K-shaped economy, though, and that's AI. We can't talk about anything without talking about AI, for better or for worse. And that the common view is that white collar, high-income workers are the most exposed to displacement, and we're seeing that in some of the job numbers recently, right, where tech and financial services are shedding jobs. But your work, I think, is really unique, and it's the only thing I've seen on this that argues that that's only part of the story. So what are we missing about how AI is going to affect high-income households in the K-shaped economy?Heather Berger: Yes. Yeah, I think it's hard to talk about the economic outlook, the consumer outlook these days without thinking about AI. And as you mentioned, I think really the main focus so far has been potential white collar job loss, and this, of course, is an important channel. Labor income is really the main driver of consumer spending. But there are also several other transmission channels through which AI will affect consumer balance sheets.And so ultimately, you were just talking about equity wealth, AI will also affect asset markets, which we've already started to see. It will affect consumer prices and policy decisions, and each of these will flow through to consumer spending and consumer credit performance. And so since different subgroups of consumers differ in the types of goods and services they buy and the composition of their balance sheets, the effects will not be uniform across the spectrum.As we've seen with past innovation waves, AI has the ability to potentially widen income and wealth inequality, or it could help to close the gaps.Sarah Wolfe: Can you dig a little bit more into some of these other channels outside of the labor market? So what is the wealth channel, and how does it filter through to high-income households? And then what also is the inflation channel that we should be looking at?Heather Berger: Sure. So the wealth channel is really important for high income consumers because they have equity wealth that is very elevated relative to their labor income. So for that top twenty percent cohort, their equity wealth is around six times their annual labor income. Whereas for the lower income groups, they're about in line with each other.And so even if the marginal propensity to consume out of income is higher than that out of wealth, for this high income group, asset markets are still a really important driver of spending. Now, for lower income groups and really across the spectrum, of course, inflation will be important as well and will really help determine purchasing power.When we think about the price channel, we're really thinking in two phases. The first is that in the near term, AI could potentially create price pressures. So if we look at areas like electricity and software, we've already started to see that the demand from AI has led to increases in these prices. But over the longer term, we are expecting that eventually AI will lead to productivity gains, and therefore could lead to disinflation.Sarah Wolfe: In which categories are we expected to see disinflation, and who does that benefit?Heather Berger: So we're really first expecting to see it in the industries that have higher adoption rates. And so far those have been industries like financial services, tech. And so if we think about these services categories of spending, they really make up larger shares for the high income group, the older group. And so we do think they will benefit first from that disinflation channel.Sarah Wolfe: I think if I sum up some of the key takeaways, it seems that the balance sheet is more important than income, and it's going to continue to be so. If you look at the top 1% wealth percentile, they're holding 70 times more wealth than the median wealth group, and that used to be 33 times in 1963, right? So that gap between those in the middle versus those at the top has widened, and this dynamic with AI is only probably going to continue to widen that gap, making people feel less and less secure about their finances, making it feel harder to be in the middle class, and in particular, making it feel unattainable to reach the next class, right, because that gap is so large. And so we'll be watching as a lot of these dynamics play out.Heather Berger: Right. So asset markets will be just as important as labor markets in figuring out how the K-shape economy will evolve.Sarah, thanks for taking the time to talk.Sarah Wolfe: Great speaking with you, Heather.Heather Berger: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy "Thoughts on the Market," please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets discusses when markets may not adequately compensate investors for uncertainty around themes like Fed policy, AI financing and energy supply.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, what American football can teach us about the value of ambiguity.It's Thursday, September 10th at 2p.m. in London.I really like this time of year. It's a little cooler outside. There's the excitement in the air of a start of a million new school years. And of course, it's finally American football season. Of the top one hundred US television telecasts in 2025, ninety were football games. In an increasingly divided world with an increasingly fragmented ecosystem for content, this unanimity is stunning. And while many factors explain football's popularity, one that I've come to appreciate more with time is its strategic complexity, especially the value of ambiguity.Not tipping whether the play is a run or a pass, disguising whether and where you're going to blitz. Coaches work hard to keep their options open until the last possible moment. And as we enter September, this strategy is not just confined to football.Take the Fed. Markets are pricing a roughly two-thirds chance of a rate hike next week, about the same chance that an NFL team passes on second and seven. Part of that uncertainty comes from exactly how you parse Fed Chair Warsh's comments at Jackson Hole. Chair Warsh said the Fed needs to be confident that underlying inflation is moving towards its objective, “clearly and at sufficient speed.” Otherwise, it has, "work to do." This was generally interpreted as a move closer to raising rates. But was it? What is sufficient speed? What counts as underlying inflation? And what does “work to do” actually mean? After all, if inflation is better in the second half of the year, as our economists expect, this framing could just as easily justify no action. We forecast the Fed to stay on hold next week. It is admittedly a close call.Then there's ambiguity in AI financing. The numbers here are enormous. Morgan Stanley analysts forecast more than 1.3 trillion dollars of spending among the six largest hyperscalers in 2027, a sixty percent increase from the record-setting levels of this year. But how all this gets financed, that's less certain. There's an increasingly rich menu of options for financing across public and private markets, from investment-grade bonds to asset-backed securities, from direct financing to guarantees. The spending seems likely, but what form it takes and how much it impacts other markets is more ambiguous. My colleagues Matthew Hornbach and Vichy Tirupattur discussed some of these ambiguities and their potential effect on Treasury yields earlier this week.Finally, ambiguity clouds the energy market. Some analysts are optimistic that oil flows are finally normalizing in the Strait of Hormuz. We are not. Coupled with major disruptions to Russian refining capacity, we've now raised our fourth quarter forecast to one hundred dollars per barrel for Brent oil and eighty-eight euros per megawatt hour for European natural gas.Across these three themes, some of this ambiguity is intentional. Some simply reflects a wide range of possible outcomes. In football and in markets, keeping your options open can be valuable when you're calling the plays, but it's less attractive when you're being asked to price them. And that, for us, is the issue. There is plenty of uncertainty. We're not sure investors are being paid enough for it. A close call September Fed meeting, adverse seasonality, and very low levels of expected volatility leave us positioned for higher volatility across macro markets and cautious on mortgage-backed securities.In credit, we think all of this issuance is a question of price, not capacity. We continue to expect record investment-grade supply this year with wider spreads as a release valve and prefer collateral-backed assets over unsecured corporates. And with oil a risk to both stocks and bonds, our US equity strategists think that energy equities offer an attractive hedge.Ambiguity has value, but when the range of outcomes is wide and the price of uncertainty is low, we think investors should demand more compensation for it.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Big Tech is pouring more than $1.4 trillion into AI, prompting investors to ask: Is it worth it? Our U.S. Internet analyst Brian Nowak looks at three business models that could earn 25 to 50 percent returns for Gen-AI-enabled technologies.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet analyst.Today, can the enormous investment behind Gen AI actually pay off?It's Wednesday, September 9th, at 9am in New York.AI has moved quickly into everyday life. It helps people write software, research purchases, automate work, find information, among myriad[s] of other use cases.But we need an infrastructure build-out of extraordinary scale to support all of this activity and more activity to come.In all, we estimate that the major cloud providers are going to spend more than $1.4 trillion on this AI build-out next year alone. But compute capacity is potentially going to quadruple from 2025 to 2028, reaching roughly 120 gigawatts.But all of the spending has raised a lot of questions for investors. One of the most common questions is: What kind of return on invested capital can these companies earn from all of these trillions of dollars of data center infrastructure investment?Well, our bottom-up work points to encouraging answers to this question.We see paths to roughly 25 to 50 percent return on invested capital, or ROIC, across three emerging AI business models. Now, ROIC is a useful way of measuring whether investments pay off. Think of it as how much after-tax operating profit can be generated relative to the capital required in the first place.The first business model we've analyzed is renting compute power. This is the infrastructure layer of the AI economy. Cloud providers build data centers filled with advanced graphics processing units, or GPUs, and rent that compute capacity to customers. In our base case, a large next-generation data center can generate a return on invested capital of roughly 30 percent simply renting AI compute power.And even if rental prices move around, our scenarios still produce returns ranging from low 20s percent to nearly 40 percent. So, despite the enormous cost of building and capital being deployed for these facilities, we think the economics here are quite attractive.The second business model we've analyzed is where an AI lab has their own model, and they also own their own infrastructure. They give access to their model through an API to consumers and enterprises who then build upon it, they utilize the model. In some cases, they build applications using that model that can be future sources of productivity or efficiency for the economy.In this scenario, we think the economics can be even stronger. When the model developer owns their own underlying infrastructure, our base case generates a roughly 75 percent incremental operating margin and a return on invested capital of 40 percent plus.These returns on invested capital are impressive, but what determines whether these returns can actually materialize?Well, two things matter a lot. The first is the price the developers are able to charge for tokens, which are the units of information that AI models process. The second factor that matters considerably is how efficient[ly] can this infrastructure process these tokens.This is why continued improvements in chips and software to drive higher token throughput – or more tokens per GPU per second – are critical to the long-term unit economics across this AI ecosystem.The third model we've analyzed is when the AI developers rent their compute infrastructure rather than owning it. So, effectively, they are paying someone else for the data centers and the GPUs that they need. While this lowers their returns on invested capital because another provider takes a piece of the unit economics, our base case still produces roughly a 30 percent incremental operating margin and 25 percent post-tax return potential.So, while the AI build-out requires enormous investment, the size of the spending alone doesn't tell the whole story about whether or not there are economic returns to come.What ultimately matters is the revenue and profit that the infrastructure can generate. And as more of the infrastructure shifts from training AI models to serving customers through emerging products and inference, we think we're going to get a much clearer answer to this question investors are asking today.Was all this spending worth it? Our research suggests: Yes.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

U.S. Treasurys are the foundation of the bond market. But our strategists Matthew Hornbach and Vishy Tirupattur explain the growing impact of corporate credit as AI financing accelerates.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Vishy Tirupattur: I am Vishy Tirupattur, Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Matthew Hornbach: Today, the interplay between the U.S. Treasury market and the corporate bond market.It's Tuesday, September 8th at 10am in New York.So, Vishy, what I'd like to do is start by asking you what's going on in the corporate bond market? What's coming to market? How much duration does it have? Talk to us about the theme of AI in corporate bonds.Vishy Tirupattur: So, this is what is happening. Hyperscalers have enormous CapEx needs, and they'll see opportunity for realizing return on invested capital; and in anticipation of that, the CapEx requirements for the AI infrastructure are enormous.And the key motivation that underlies is that the demand for compute vastly exceeds the supply of compute. And that as long as that demand-supply imbalance is there, there is a continuing need for CapEx, and that CapEx needs to be financed.And credit markets across the board, not just the unsecured market. You know, credit markets in public space, private, investment grade, unsecured, secured, high yield, below investment grade, leveraged loans, private credit – all of these channels of the credit markets are going to be deployed to enable that financing.Matthew Hornbach: Now, Vishy, you've written about this extensively over the course of the past year and have really been on the forefront of expecting a lot of supply. But have you even been surprised at the scale of the supply that we've gotten from these hyperscalers?Vishy Tirupattur: We are surprised, not so much by the scale of the issuance, but certainly by the breadth and the depth of these markets. And also, the ability of the markets to deal with complexity associated with this issuance. So, you know, about a year ago, we were expecting that much of this would be investment grade only; much of this would be only U.S. dollar denominated. We were wrong.We have seen issuance in seven currencies, and we have seen issuance substantially happen in investment grade, but also in high yield and in leverage loans. And a lot more in structured private investment grade credit and in securitized credit. We have been surprised by the ability of the markets to be both in their depth and the breadth and complexity; clearly been surprised.Matthew Hornbach: And one of the features of some of the issuance that may have been the most impactful on other markets has been the duration of unsecured AI-related financing. Talk to us a little bit about what's going on there.Vishy Tirupattur: So, if you look at the AI infrastructure, you can think of it in many different forms. One way of thinking about is the data centers building – the fab, the LAN, the chips and the servers. If you took the whole data centers, their expected life is something north of 20 years. And there is a lot of CapEx requirements.So initially, when you're financing the entire data center as one package, there has been issuance that went well beyond the 20-year point in the term. And keep in mind that the CapEx requirements are kind of across the board.So, it's not just been 20-plus year bonds. There have been bonds issued of various tenors, including a substantial supply of 20-plus year of duration.Now what is happening is that the focus of some of that is changing towards more shorter-term component of it. So, we've gone from financing the entire data structure, moving towards financing components, and in particular chips.The chips have a technological obsolescence factor associated with them. So, the chips need to be refinanced in about five years. So, the structures that are now increasingly emerging are towards amortizing structures that are more five-year duration, five-year maturity loans.Matthew Hornbach: So, this sounds like an interesting shift from much longer duration, longer maturity issuance to something in what the U.S. Treasury would call the belly of the curve. Kind of in the two to five-year maturity sector. Is that right?Vishy Tirupattur: So yes and no, and I'm hedging only for the following reason: Because a lot of this issuance, these issuers are relatively new in their size of these issuance, so they have not established a certain cadence of issuance.It is not that they have given up on the longer maturity, but the focus is shifting. We expect more to the five-year point of the curve.Another important thing is there has been a significant political pushback on the data centers. We have seen moratoria in the state of New York. It's a very live issue in much of the midterm elections. And opposition to data center is bipartisan, and it's very much alive.So, because of this, we may have some slowdown in the buildup of data centers, therefore slowdown in the long-term CapEx. But then near term, you know, the chips that were bought a few years ago need to be replenished and new chips need to be deployed.So, that financing focus might shift from a longer term to a shorter term. But that said, they're not going to let go entirely of the longer-term financing. Just the focus will shift towards the mid five-year term.Matthew Hornbach: That's very interesting because in the U.S. Treasury market, the focus has not been on the five-year sector. It has been further out the yield curve, where 30-year Treasury yields have been making highs for; that we haven't seen for a couple of decades now. And it hasn't been just in the nominal yield component of Treasuries; it's been in the real yield as well.And, in fact, the difference between the nominal and the real yield, the so-called break-even inflation rate, has actually been very stable throughout this move higher in overall bond yields.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Matt, let me ask you this question. For the last several weeks, we have seen long-end rates, particularly 20-plus year rates being persistently high. What is in your mind driving this persistently high yield in the 20-plus year category?Matthew Hornbach: So, this is something that Treasury Secretary Bessent alluded to in his recent interview on CNBC – that the month of August tends to be a month of lower transaction volumes in the U.S. Treasury market. And in particular, the middle of the month tends to be the lowest transaction volume period within any given month.And so, what we think might be going on is that investors who have been investing in these corporate bonds that you've talked about – may be preparing their own balance sheets for the issuance that most people tend to expect to come in September.Now, if that was the case, then it would be reasonable to assume that those investors tried to sell some of the bonds that they had. Or perhaps just stop buying any bonds in preparation for the supply that they would expect to come in September. If that was the case and the dealer community had to absorb that duration risk onto their balance sheets, they probably would want to recycle that back into the market.And the most liquid way of doing that is to sell treasuries. And so, we do think that there was very likely some selling of treasuries by the dealer community, as they were absorbing corporate bonds from the investor base.Vishy Tirupattur: So that makes sense, Matt. You know, if you think about the dealer community as well as investors, their anticipation of future; corporate bond issuance could drive their actions today.But the only point I would make is that because these are new issuers, and because they have not established a cadence, there could be substantial variability in their frequency. And periodicity that will come to the market. And in what tenor.You know, there's this change I talked about – longer term for financing needs versus component financing needs. There are all these degrees of freedom these issuers have that they can use that degrees of freedom. And the investors and the dealers don't have a lot of sense of what that might be.Matthew Hornbach: It sounds like there's going to be a lot of uncertainty, which might mean that there's going to be a lot of volatility.So, with that Vishy, thanks for sitting down and talking about the bond market with me.Vishy Tirupattur: Great to hang out with you, Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Investors have plenty to digest this month, from economic data to central-bank decisions. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets outlines what could drive the next bout of volatility.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, several catalysts for more volatility later this month.It's Friday, September 4th at 2pm in London.Over more than a century of market history, Septembers have tended to see more volatility than the average month. You can't exactly set your watch by it, but the trend is definitely there. As investors come back from summer and capital market activity restarts in earnest, things historically tend to move.This idea seems especially relevant this year. Despite the headlines, it was a pretty calm summer for markets. Since early June, U.S. stocks, yields, and credit were all modestly higher, and they got there with minimal movement. The realized volatility – that is how much these markets are moving on a daily basis – has been historically low.September offers a number of catalysts that could test that.First and foremost is the Fed. Inflation remains above the central bank's target, and markets are pricing a roughly two out of three chance of a rate hike at the September 16th meeting. That's more uncertainty this close to a meeting than we've had in a while – and the impact goes far beyond a single decision. Live meetings from the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank also loom in September.September is also a month that historically sees unusually heavy capital market activity. That makes sense. If you're a corporate and looking to raise money, it's often better to wait until investors are back from the summer before going out looking for those funds.But this September could be unusually active, given a growing IPO pipeline and continued funding needs from AI-related construction. And so, it's fair to say that even adjusting for September's usually heavy pace, there's an unusually wide range of outcomes around where capital market activity could land this month.Investors are also coming back from the summer with major uncertainty still hanging over global energy markets. Morgan Stanley's commodity team still sees global energy flows as severely restricted and recently raised their forecast for oil prices, seeing them reach about $100 a barrel in the fourth quarter of this year.The price of what's in that barrel is becoming even more extreme, with the price of diesel fuel in Europe up 140 percent since January 1st. And so, as inventories continue to draw down and questions around the duration of this conflict persist, both factors could drive more market movements.The good news is that while Septembers have historically been more volatile months, they're not necessarily a bellwether. And that could apply again. By month-end, we should have a much better idea of the Fed's path, the scale of capital market activity, and the state of energy supply.But until then, the level of expected volatility across many markets, particularly interest rate and foreign exchange markets, remains unusually low. Given this backdrop, we think those levels of expected volatility can rise.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats explains how tightening supply and shrinking buffers are pushing Brent prices up again, and what that would mean for fuel costs and energy markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Martijn Rats: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist.Today: why the oil market is tightening, and why we now see Brent reaching $100 per barrel later this year.It’s Thursday, September 3rd, at 3pm in London.It has been an extraordinary summer for oil. Brent — the global benchmark price for crude oil and the reference point for most of the world's oil trade — traded above $110 per barrel in mid-May, fell to $71 by early June, climbed back above $100 three weeks later, and then dropped again to around $79 per barrel. More recently, prices have moved higher again. But the question now is whether that is just another temporary swing. Or whether there is a sign that the underlying market has changed.We think it has changed. Supply is tightening, inventories are falling, and some of the buffers that helped absorb earlier disruptions are fading.The clearest evidence is in inventories. Crude oil sitting on the water fell from nearly 1.3 billion barrels in mid-July to 1.1 billion barrels recently. That was a decline of about 190 million barrels. During one four-week stretch, oil-on-water fell at the unusually high rate of 5.3 million barrels a day, the fastest four-week decline since this data series began about eight years ago. Usually, when there is such a large amount of crude oil that is brought on land, it drives up onshore oil inventories. However, not on this occasion. On a global basis, onshore crude oil inventories have fallen by another 38 million barrels over the same period. That means that those offshore barrels arriving were being used straight away rather than put into land-based storage.The biggest supply issue is still the Middle East. Crude flows from the Strait of Hormuz briefly recovered to about 15 million barrels a day after the June Memorandum of Understanding. That was close to the pre-conflict level. More recently, however, they have been running again around about 7 million. Now, Red Sea exports have also fallen sharply, from about 4 - 4.5 million barrels a day in March and April to around about 1.5 million barrels a day at the moment. Therefore, total regional exports are still up from the lows in March and April, but they are sharply down from that late June peak. Another source of support is fading: strategic petroleum reserves. Globally, those releases added around 2.5 million barrels a day to supply in March and April. But that has fallen sharply, and we do not anticipate material further releases from global SPRs after September.Then China is important, too. Its seaborne crude imports are normally around 10 to 11 million barrels a day but briefly fell as low as 5 million barrels a day leaving more oil available elsewhere. Now, China's buying activity still appears low, but at a minimum it has stabilized, and there are tentative signs of an increase. If Chinese imports have stopped falling and possibly go into reverse, they can no longer free up additional barrels for buyers elsewhere, making the global oil market tighter. So why hasn’t crude become even more constrained? It's because of refineries. Global refinery outages are running 5 - 6 million barrels a day above normal. Although supply of crude oil is constrained, this means that demand for crude is also reduced. Now, the result of that is that the tightness in the system has instead shown up in refined products rather than in crude. And diesel is the clearest example of this; and the one most likely to be felt throughout the economy, since diesel prices feed straight through into trucking, freight, farming costs, and many other areas. The front-month diesel benchmark in the U.S. was recently around $195 per barrel, versus Brent at $95 per barrel. The difference between the value of a refined product and the crude used to make it is called a crack spread. For diesel, that crack spread reached around $100 per barrel, an all-time high. Over time, that gives refiners a very strong incentive to bring back capacity where they can. If they do, crude demand should rise, whilst inventories are already falling and Middle East supply so far remains constrained. We now expect a full recovery in Middle East supply to take well into 2027. On that path, oil inventories should keep falling throughout the fourth quarter of this year as well as the first quarter of next year. We now forecast Brent to average $100 per barrel in the fourth quarter.Now, for much of this year, the oil market had several shock absorbers: strategic reserves, abundant barrels at sea, and unusually weak Chinese imports all helped. Those cushions are thinner now. That leaves less room for another disruption, just as the road back to normal supply is getting longer. 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.

Midterm elections, backlash against data centers and a U.S.-China summit. Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore discuss themes that could test investor confidence in the coming months.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll look ahead to public policy catalysts that matter for investors this fall.It's Wednesday, September 2nd at 10:30am in New York.Okay, Ariana, there's a few days left in the summer, and investors are already starting to think about what's going to happen this fall. And there's a pretty heavy calendar; everything from midterm elections to some pretty important diplomatic dates. High level, what do you think people need to focus on?Ariana Salvatore: So, I'll start with probably the most consequential catalyst of the list that you mentioned, and that's the midterm elections. Obviously, not until November 3rd, but the debate is going to start to emerge over the coming weeks – in terms of if Democrats were to win just one chamber versus both chambers; if Republicans were to keep control; what could that mean for markets? And what are the durable policy themes?I think in this context, the biggest debate far and away is on data center pushback. And this has transitioned from more of a macro thematic. So, investors trying to understand the potential implications for the CapEx build-out, to more of a micro really granular question, right? Which races are the ones that we need to watch? Where are there states or jurisdictions that projects that are pending could be possibly called into question?And that's, sort of, the continuous debate that I've had recently with investors, trying to pinpoint it more precisely to figure out where exactly the build-up could be impacted.Michael Zezas: So, I hear from investors this general concern that the midterm elections will reveal that it's become a consensus preference amongst American voters and members of both parties to slow down on data center spending. Or perhaps even stop it or something more severe like that.What type of midterm election outcome would point to that as a possibility?Ariana Salvatore: Well, I would start by saying the politics here are scrambled in the sense that there's no clear fault lines when it comes to Democrats or Republicans around data center opposition, right? We are seeing some pretty notable pivots even from lawmakers that in the past were supportive of data centers. So that's why I think we have to zoom into these really specific races.And there I would say there's some governorships that matter actually more than some of the Senate races; because remember, governors also in certain states can appoint public utility commissioners. And in places like Texas, that actually could be a really consequential outcome for the 2026 midterm elections, more so than who ends up sitting in Congress on a very federal level.Michael Zezas: Okay. And so, would you say it's fair then that folks running for office who are challenging incumbents in both parties, who are expressing a desire for more regulation on data centers, that it kind of cuts across both parties? So, this is more about folks challenging incumbents than it is about one party or the other having a specific view on AI and the AI industrial build-out via data centers?Ariana Salvatore: That's right. It's hard to sort into these really generic party umbrellas, and there are a few nuances under the surface. If you look at something like Ohio. The governor's race there, both the Republican and Democrat candidates are proposing a conditional build-out, basically. So, if certain projects meet criteria, they're going to be allowed to proceed.In other races, like in Texas and Pennsylvania governorships, you're seeing the opponents basically propose a more restrictive form of the pause or directive that's already in place. So, I would say it's not very clean in terms of Democrat or Republican-led. And that just gives us conviction that this is going to persist and remain an issue even after November. Even though the federal policy incentives we don't think are likely going to change.Michael Zezas: So, we could see investors taking a signal about the AI data center build-out from an outcome where incumbents don't do particularly well.Now, I know we're still doing work on this, but what's the current thinking about – even if we were to see a result like that, how much should investors be concerned that the expectations around spending on data centers might not be realized because of new policy, other regulatory changes that would come as a result of the midterms?Ariana Salvatore: So, I would say overall, we are still very constructive on AI CapEx, right? So, our internet team is still forecasting over a trillion dollars of spending for the hyperscalers next year, and there are a few reasons for that, one of which has to do with this AI sovereignty theme that we've been writing about.So, this notion that governments are increasingly wanting to control their own stack and their own AI capabilities, so that's driving a bit of the spend. On the other hand, we are starting to see mitigation measures from some of these companies to appease some of that local community backlash. And there we don't see a one-size-fits-all approach.We see very tailored solutions depending on what the source of the pushback is. Just to give a few examples. When you have communities that care about electricity price increases, for example, many hyperscalers have signed on to the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. When you have communities that care about the environmental impact, you've got companies like Google who said they want to put forward a regulatory framework for water usage; Amazon also disclosing their water usage in data centers.And so, like I said, there's not really a uniformity to these responses, but enough that we think will mitigate the concern and still leaves us constructive on the overall build-out.Michael Zezas: Right. And you actually bring up a really interesting point on the idea of AI sovereignty. Some of the kind of similar concerns that are driving voter anxiety around the build-out of AI, might also reinforce some of the spending that has to happen there. To the extent that voters and policymakers are concerned that AI should be controlled and aligned with American values would require some spending to make sure that there's sufficient supply chains and other variables in play that the U.S. is in control of.Is that fair?Ariana Salvatore: That's right. That's one of the clear policy consequences we see from this shift in sovereign AI and governments seeking that control. The other one is, of course, the potential for further tech restrictions and divergence between the U.S. and China on AI specifically.Michael Zezas: So, on the topic of China and the U.S., one date that you point out here is September 24th, a date when the U.S. and China are going to be meeting again. What's on the table for discussion? What do investors need to know? Obviously, there have been concerns over the past year about the level of tariffs and trade tensions between the two.Is there anything here that we need to pay specific attention to?Ariana Salvatore: So, we think the overarching goal for both sides is to maintain this managed stability that was established in the May summit too. At that point, the clear deliverables were around trade, right? So agricultural purchases, Boeing purchases, et cetera.We think there's likely some small incremental change to those deliverables, in particular when it comes to AI dialogue. But notably, we think there's potential for escalation into that summit, again, within the bounds of what we call tactical escalation. But we do think that there's plenty of room for more policy escalation between both the U.S. and China in line with some recent action that we've seen over the past few weeks.Michael Zezas: Got it. And there's also a couple of important considerations around fiscal policy, funding, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Can you talk us through that a bit?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so fiscal's been in the headlines recently as well, just given the Treasury buybacks and crossing that $40 trillion threshold. And I think in that context, it sort of puts a renewed spotlight on government funding.There we see a potential latent risk of another shutdown come December, right? So, we saw a continuing resolution pass both the House and the Senate and sort of punt that debate until after the elections.And then the NDAA is the annual bill that funds the Pentagon. It has to be done in December on a bipartisan basis. So, the elections have the potential to shift the incentive structure for some lawmakers, and we could see these, kind of, re-emerge as really big debates towards the end of the year.Michael Zezas: Now, interestingly enough, we've got a bunch of catalysts to pay attention to: midterms, the potential for data center pushback as a consequence of it, a U.S.-China summit, which we think is going to result in the continuation of managed stability, and fiscal catalysts where, you know, the debt and the deficit have been in scope and concern, particularly for equity investors. All of that is happening against a backdrop where the historical norm going into midterm elections – is one where the equity market tends to struggle a bit. Is that fair?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, we tend to see a little bit of negative seasonality into the midterm elections, and our equity strategy team has pointed out the potential for a knee-jerk reaction if you were to see Democratic outperformance in November. We think that's not likely to be durable. We think it's more so the case that investors are going to pull forward the anticipation of Democrats doing well in the 2028 presidential election.We don't think that's going to be a long-lasting theme in the market, but it's typically in line with what we see during elections.Michael Zezas: So, this idea that there are going to be seasonal challenges to the equity market is important to take on board, particularly when there are a lot of policy narratives which in the investor's mind could reinforce the price action that comes with weak seasonality.But our view is that you need to keep your eye on the secular trends here underpinning economic growth, including the AI build-out, which we think at the moment is going to be less sensitive to some of these policy outcomes than it might seem – given strong campaign rhetoric around restricting data centers.Is that a fair statement?Ariana Salvatore: Yes, that's right.Michael Zezas: Great. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Pleasure speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. Ariana, what should our audience do next?Ariana Salvatore: If you enjoyed the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As AI agents gain access to sensitive enterprise systems, companies need new ways to control what they can do. Meta Marshall breaks down the emerging market for agentic identity security.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Meta Marshall: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Meta Marshall, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Cybersecurity and Telecom & Network Equipment analyst. Today: AI assistants are starting to act on our behalf at work, which brings up a critical question. What should these agents be allowed to do? And how should those permissions be granted? It’s Tuesday, September 1st, at 10am in New York. More and more, AI is helping us get through the workday. We ask it to summarize documents, analyze data and take notes during meetings. Increasingly, though, these tools are moving beyond just answering questions to acting on our behalf. Suddenly, the security challenge shifts from managing a tool to governing a whole new digital workforce. In coming years, this problem should get bigger as we estimate seeing 79 AI agents and 109 machine identities for every human employee. Now, traditional identity security at work was built to answer two basic questions: Who are you, and what can you access? Think of it as your office badge. It identifies you and determines what doors you can open. AI agents, however, make that question much harder to answer. They can operate autonomously, move across applications and databases, collaborate with other agents. They take actions without direct human involvement.So, companies need to know not only what an agent can access, but why it needs access, for how long, and what it actually did. That’s the core foundation of agentic identity solutions. The risk environment from this problem is already substantial. About 80 percent of breaches in the work environment today involve stolen or misused credentials. Nine out of 10 organizations experienced an identity-related breach in the past year, and 83 percent experienced at least two. Now add potentially hundreds of machine and AI identities for every human; each operating continuously and at machine speed – and the problem is much larger.One solution to managing AI agents is zero standing privilege. Instead of giving an agent permanent access, you give it permission for a specific task and revoke that permission when the job is done. Here’s the issue though: Today, only 39 percent of privileged access is managed through this just-in-time or zero standing privilege architecture. And the reality is that humans can’t approve every request. More of those decisions will need to happen automatically, in real time, through what’s known as runtime governance. We estimate, as a result, that agentic identity alone could become roughly a $33 billion global opportunity in our base case, which brings the overall identity market opportunity to more than $60 billion in coming years. This need for agentic identity coming from AI could also push a historically fragmented industry towards a more unified platform. In one industry survey, 85 percent of organizations said fragmented identity systems delay their human response to identity threats, with respondents citing an average of 12 hours needed to respond per incident. We think that favors platforms that can manage human and machine identities together and make security decisions dynamically, overall making a more secure environment. This transition won’t happen overnight. Agentic identity products are still early, and we don’t expect an immediate financial impact. But as enterprises move from experimenting with AI agents to deploying them more broadly, spending to secure those agents could become a more meaningful growth tailwind in 2027. The longer-term growth opportunity comes down to a simple dynamic: more agents, with more autonomy, will require more control. And that could make identity security essential to scaling AI across the enterprise. 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.

Younger generations are reshaping caffeine consumption. Our U.S. Household Products and Beverage Analyst Dara Mohsenian discusses how the growing appetite for energy drinks could influence beverage habits for years to come. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Dara Mohsenian: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dara Mohsenian, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Household Products and Beverage Analyst. Today, we're going to talk about how the next generation of U.S. consumers is really redefining their daily caffeine boost. It's Monday, August 31st at 10am in New York. For generations of Americans, caffeine has been synonymous with coffee. You wake up, make a pot, or stop at a coffee shop and start your day. But the picture today is different. Younger consumers have grown up with many more choices to jumpstart their day. Walk into a convenience store, gym, or college library these days, and you'll see that energy drinks are increasingly becoming an alternative for getting their caffeine boost. The reason people are drinking more of these caffeinated beverages is pretty straightforward. They want more energy. Among consumers who increased their energy drink consumption over the prior three months, 61 percent said they needed more energy. Experimentation is important, too. 44 percent cited trying new flavors, and 37 percent said they were trying new brands. Our survey of roughly 3,000 U.S. consumers points to significant runway for energy drinks going forward. When we spoke to current energy drink consumers, a net positive 19 percent expected to increase their consumption over the next three months. That's well above our prior surveys and is true for both men and women. Perhaps more interesting is who expects to drink more. Demographics have always been a key driver of energy consumption. The younger generation is increasingly choosing energy drinks over, historically, coffee and carbonated soft drinks. In our survey, importantly, if you look at the 25- to 34-year-old and 35- to 44-year-old age groups, they actually showed the strongest forward intentions to increase consumption. This means that the consumers who embrace energy drinks at the very young ages don't appear to be aging out of the category as they become older. They're taking the habit with them, essentially. It's also important to point out that caffeinated drinks is not a zero-sum game. Yes, the generational preferences are shifting, but the total pie is really growing here. Energy drinks is the biggest share gainer within caffeinated drinks, but only 20 percent of incremental energy drink consumption in our survey came directly from switching from coffee, and 22 percent directly from switching from carbonated soft drinks. So, most of the demand is actually incremental to caffeinated drinks in general. Going forward, we do expect energy drinks to be the highest growth segment within caffeinated drinks, growing at a high single-digit rate. We're even seeing it replace areas such as alcohol and snacks as it's moved to that affordable indulgence. And that's particularly driven by GLP-1, also accentuating the need for caffeine for consumers who are losing weight and have less energy.So, we see robust high single-digit energy category growth as likely to continue. That's been the compound rate, 9 percent over the last 15 years. Going forward with the demand drivers we talked about in a rational pricing environment, we see that likely to sustain. And much of the energy top-line momentum has been supported by new products and innovations. That includes zero sugar drinks. They're perceived as better for you. They're attracting new consumers, particularly women. And also, older consumers are sticking with the products as they age. Energy drinks have also become more affordable versus other beverage categories, particularly beverages, where the price increases have been sharper. Convenience is another part of the appeal. Among consumers who recently switched from coffee to energy drinks, 57 percent cited more caffeine per beverage and 45 percent pointed to convenience. Nearly half preferred the flavor of energy drinks, while 45 percent cited greater flavor variety. There may also be room for energy drinks to show up in more places. In our survey, 47 percent of consumers said they would buy more energy drinks if they were available in vending machines, 46 percent in fast food and fast casual restaurants, 37 percent in coffee shops, and this is showing up in custom energy drinks at a lot of the coffee shops covered by my colleague Brian Harbor. Again, it's expanding the pie. It's not just about taking share from carbonated soft drinks or coffee. So, America's caffeine habit is really enduring, and it's expanding. Younger consumers, they have more flavors, more formats, more ways to fit caffeine into different parts of the day, and those caffeinated preferences don't appear to be tapering off as consumers age. 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 Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore looks at what the midterms may reveal about politician’s appetite for tackling the faster-than-expected increase in the U.S. debt.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why fiscal is back in focus and what we can learn about the broader debt trajectory from the upcoming midterm elections. It's Friday, August 28th at 10am in New York. Fiscal policy has moved back onto investors' radars following Treasury's recent buyback announcements. Those came in the same week that total U.S. debt crossed $ 40 trillion for the first time, a milestone that arrived months earlier than most people expected. As my colleague Andrew Sheets puts it, that's a big number. But the more useful question isn't the number itself. It's whether all this debt is starting to act as a brake on the economy.We don't quite yet see a credibility problem in the Treasury market, but that's exactly why fiscal is back in the conversation. And it sits against a bigger backdrop. The U.S. continues to run large deficits in an economy that isn't in a recession. Our economists expect the deficit to stay around 6 percent of GDP through 2027. And voters are clearly concerned about elevated debt levels. So why isn't fiscal austerity coming up more in DC? Simply put, we think the political incentives point the other direction. At the risk of oversimplifying, fiscal consolidation or deficit reduction means either less spending or more taxes. And the political costs of those choices land immediately. We think neither party, therefore, has the incentive to take on that type of policy change – if we don't see a meaningful cliff or a risk to existing programs, especially into an election. But what about after? We think the midterms won't in and of themselves be a catalyst to fix the debt trajectory. But they can tell us something about where this goes next. And I'd point to two things in particular. The first is Social Security. It's not likely to be the headline issue in November, but we could see a useful test case for the debt conversation more broadly because the deadline is creeping closer. The latest trustees report projects the retirement trust fund will become insolvent in the fourth quarter of 2032. And at that point, it could only cover roughly 78 percent of scheduled benefits without a change in law. Now, that's likely to matter more in 2028 than in this cycle, since whoever wins the White House that year will be in office when it hits. But the midterms can still show us where the politics are consolidating. Recent polling points to a fairly consistent pattern. Voters want lawmakers to act. They prefer raising taxes on high earners over broader benefit cuts. And they're notably more open to trimming benefits when it's targeted at the top of the income distribution. That likely explains why a number of 2026 candidates have converged on lifting the payroll tax cap, while some Republicans have largely retreated from campaigning on things like a higher retirement age. Watching which of those messages actually wins, especially in Senate races like New Hampshire or Maine, where a significant share of the electorate depends on these benefits, could provide some useful hints with respect to which of these policy changes actually resonate with voters and end up reflecting the eventual fix. The second is the broader fiscal landscape after the election. If we get a divided government in November, that typically means more fiscal noise around the recurring deadlines, like government funding and the debt ceiling. Those two matter for markets in very different ways. A shutdown's bigger effect tends to be indirect. So, think delayed or lower quality government data since agencies can end up working from smaller survey samples. That leaves investors and the Fed making decisions with less complete information for weeks at a stretch sometimes. The debt ceiling is more direct. That shows up most clearly in the Treasury bill market. Bills maturing around a potential deadline tend to cheapen relative to other short-term benchmarks as investors have to price default risk into that narrow window. And that's the case even when a resolution is still the base case. So, here's the through line: fiscal likely isn't about to become Washington's top priority just because debt crossed $40 trillion. But the midterms are a chance to see whether the political incentives are starting to shift – on Social Security specifically, and on the broader appetite for political fights around funding deadlines more generally. Either way, we think fiscal policy is set to stay in the headlines in the years to come. And especially so as we head into the 2028 presidential election season. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share your Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Investors are keeping a close eye on Jackson Hole for signals on the economic outlook and the path for rates. Our Chief U.S. economist Michael Gapen joins Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach to discuss whether markets get what they want—or what the Fed needs.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Matt Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Matt Hornbach: Today, we'll be discussing the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium and Chairman Warsh's opening remarks. It's Thursday, August 27th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, let's get right into it and talk about the upcoming opening remarks by Chairman Warsh at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium that will be delivered to the public at 10 am tomorrow, Friday. How are you thinking about what to expect from those opening remarks? Michael Gapen: Well, historically, and by historically, I mean in a post-2008-2009 world, Jackson Hole has been used, not every year, but frequently as a venue to communicate to markets. The longest gap on the Fed's meeting calendar is between the July and September meetings. So, Jackson Hole falls between that and provides a useful opportunity to communicate what might be coming. That's what's normally been done. Warsh has repeatedly stated he wants the Fed to talk less and communicate less and say less. So, I don't think we will see or hear, in this case, a lot about his views about how the economy is operating today and how monetary policy may be conducted into year-end. So, I don't think we'll hear a lot about, say, the December; the outlook for the economy from September to December, and what it might imply for interest rate policy or balance sheet policy. So, little in the way of near-term forward guidance. I do think, however, he did say in the July press conference that the venue would be good to tackle some of these big questions that he has talked about, that he's created these task forces for. So, whether it is the balance sheet or the inflation framework, or communication or AI and productivity or data quality and so forth. This would provide, I think, a reasonable opportunity for him to start talking about that. I don't think maybe we'll get a lot of conclusions. But I would look for commentary that's more in the question; or in the spirit of those big questions and less about the near-term conduct of policy.So maybe not what markets want, but this is what markets will get. Matt Hornbach: Just rewinding a bit, the conference itself is on a somewhat of a niche topic. What exactly is the conference about? And, in terms of the papers that get released at the conference, do you have any sense as to where they might be headed? Michael Gapen: So, the topic of this conference, the economic symposium, as you noted, is Financial Innovation: [its] Implications for [the] Payments [system] and [monetary] Policy. So, I would expect there to be a lot of sessions for things like central bank digital currencies or stable coins or Bitcoins. Near money type innovation that has happened in recent years, which leads to things like competition for deposits from the non-financial sector vis-a-vis the financial sector. So, a competition of near moneyness to money, if you will. Its implications for the interaction between the non-financial system and the financial system, competition for deposits. Does it create risks around financial disintermediation? And therefore, how might the regulatory environment and monetary policy work in that world? So little more, I'll call it, esoteric and maybe arm's length from the day-to-day conduct of policy. But I would look at the speeches probably in that vein. Deposit competition, financial market stability, and what kind of regulatory framework might you need to ensure we can still conduct policy effectively in that world. Matt Hornbach: Sounds like an exciting set of papers… Michael Gapen: Yes. Yes. Matt Hornbach: … for professors to read through. Michael Gapen: This is why they don't often leak the schedule too far in advance, right? We all might decide not to listen. Matt Hornbach: Indeed. Well, it is the end of August, and people are probably still on holiday here and there… Michael Gapen: I'm doing my best, but you called me in today. Matt Hornbach: Yeah, the least I could do. So, you did mention that this might be an opportunity for Chairman Warsh to maybe spotlight a bit these task forces and the topics that they're tackling, one of which is the inflation framework. And that word framework, I think, is important because the investors that we've been speaking with are frustrated that the Fed has not really laid out a framework – for monetary policymaking in this new era of Chairman Warsh, and his leadership at the Fed. So, I'm curious, if we're not going to get forward guidance on monetary policy and what will happen at the next meeting. And we're also not going to get much forward guidance on the framework that the Fed is using to decide on what to do with short-term interest rates. What are we meant to think about the framework? Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think ultimately, of course, we're going to need to know this, and this is what economists would refer to as the ‘difference between forward guidance and the "reaction function." So, the framework is really, you've got a set of tools, how do you intend to use them to achieve your objectives? A conventional Fed would say, "Well, if interest rates are low and inflation's too high, then we should raise rates," right? So high inflation brings high interest rates, low inflation brings low interest rates. All else equal, there's still the employment side of the mandate, of course. And the market had that view, at least initially, right? As we were in the June-July period and Warsh was talking hawkishly, the curve generally flattened. Expectations for front-end yields moved higher, and inflation-fighting credibility maybe kept the back end stable or brought the back end down. So, you could argue the markets looked at Warsh as maybe bringing a conventional reaction function and a conventional framework. But in the June and July FOMC meeting and in conversations with the press during the press conferences, Warsh – I don't want to say backtracked. He just didn't validate that and did say that we will achieve price stability. Didn't quite say how he would use the tools to do that. And even suggested maybe interest rates weren't the primary mechanism with which to influence, create, deliver price stability. So, the curve then steepened out. So, I think the market is wondering what Fed chair we have and what his reaction function is? And if inflation's running hot, is it an interest rate answer or is it a balance sheet answer? I'd also just add one last thing, Matt, is it makes a difference what the rest of the 18 people on the FOMC think. [Be]cause I think you would agree, and I'll put forward right now, I think they have a largely conventional view. Half of the committee thought it was time to raise rates in June. So, we have a balance between not knowing the chair's framework and having to intuit it. Or hope that we hear more. But then also knowing the other 18 who could band together and have greater voting power act in a largely conventional framework. I think that's the debate and the dilemma that we're all dealing with. Matt Hornbach: Yeah, I think investors, have certainly expressed frustration about the lack of guidance in any form or fashion. Perhaps with the exception of the balance sheet; we have a general idea that the balance sheet will be smaller in the future. And we have a sense from what Chairman Warsh has said in front of the House of Representatives during his semi-annual testimony that any changes would happen gradually over time. But, in terms of the pricing of the July meeting, and what happened at the July meeting, investors were very disappointed that the Fed did not go ahead and raise rates in July. Now, the market was only assigning about a one in three odds of a rate hike in July. And so, the fact that the Fed did not go ahead and raise interest rates in July was not a surprise in the sense of market pricing. But I do sense that investors were frustrated; that because they didn't get much forward guidance going into the July meeting, that the market might not have priced more probability on a July rate hike because the Fed, in fact, did not signal that they were leaning in that direction. But I see it as somewhat ironic because it seems to me, and I'd like to get your view on this. It seems to me that Chairman Warsh doesn't want to provide that type of specificity. He'd rather have the markets tell him what to do at an upcoming meeting, as opposed to him telling markets what to do at an upcoming meeting. How do you think about that? Michael Gapen: Oh, I think it's… [It] strains credibility to think that by saying nothing, you get the market's interpretation of the economy, data, and events – without the market thinking what the Fed thinks about it. I don't think that there's a world where you get the unvarnished market expectation independent of the Fed. So, I don't personally agree in the analogy of the market should play the ball and not the referee. The Fed is not a referee in markets. The Fed is a player in markets. Monetary policy acts through financial markets to achieve a set of financial conditions to deliver price stability and maximum employment. So, the Fed and markets are on the field at the same time. The Fed, in some ways, is the 800-pound gorilla on the field at the same time. So, everybody else on the field has to know what the gorilla is doing in order to do what they're supposed to do. Yes, there's always some circularity between Fed communication and market reaction to that. But I think that's natural and normal and important in making monetary policy effective – meaning it has to transmit through financial markets. And so, you could diminish the effectiveness of monetary policy if you don't tell the market what, at least what your framework is and what your reaction function is. And the tools that you intend to use and how you would intend to use them. Then the market could be an inefficient transmitter of monetary policy. So, I disagree with the notion that by saying less, the Fed learns more. But that's my view. I'm one of many. That's my opinion. The chair obviously has a different view. Matt Hornbach: Well, I can certainly understand not wanting to be the referee, especially after what we saw at the World Cup. There were a couple of games where the referee… Michael Gapen: And nobody likes the referee. At least half the people are upset with the referee. Matt Hornbach: Indeed. Okay. So, Mike, I think we're going to leave it there. Michael Gapen: Thanks for having me on, Matt. Matt Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets discusses when and how higher yields and mounting U.S. debt could become more than abstract concerns.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, at what point do higher yields and higher debt actually matter? It's Wednesday, August 26th at 2pm in London. In its first 240 years, the United States of America accumulated roughly $20 trillion in federal debt. The country has borrowed another [$]20 trillion in just the last 10. The question for investors is when this debt load will act as a brake on economic activity? Or, worse, create stress that disrupts today's relative calm?So, let's start with the first question. For economic activity, the bar seems pretty high. You see, even with all the activity around AI, U.S. corporate debt as a share of the overall economy is broadly unchanged in the last decade and actually lower than where it was before the pandemic. The balance sheets of the household sector in the U.S. are even stronger. Household debt to GDP is lower than where it was prior to COVID and lower than where it was in the year 2000. And this may even understate the strength – because much of this debt is locked in at historically low mortgage rates; while household assets, the other side of the balance sheet, have soared to record levels.That may help explain why both consumers and businesses have remained more resilient than expected this year despite the higher interest rates and energy prices. This divergence of trend between public and private balance sheets is also global. Europe has also seen higher government debt offset by even more private sector de-leveraging, while Japan has seen rising public borrowing and pretty stable private sector leverage. To some degree, this divergence between the public and private sides of the economy reflects a policy choice. Governments determine how to balance taxation and spending. And many countries, not just the U.S., have reduced taxes over the last decade while allowing public borrowing to increase. A deterioration of public sector finances relative to private sector finances – it's not especially surprising given that choice. If strong balance sheets are helping U.S. households and companies be less sensitive to higher rates, where should we look for stress? Well, for all of this debt, the U.S. bond market is actually still pretty well-behaved. U.S. inflation expectations are roughly unchanged year to date. Expected bond market volatility is historically low.Indeed, one reason that recent intervention by the U.S. Treasury into the bond market was such a surprise to investors was the lack of these usual stress markers. Instead, the point at which these higher yields might have a larger market impact may be up to another factor: asset allocation. Today, 30-year Treasury bonds yield about 3 percent more than expected inflation over that period. Long-dated U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds once again yield more than 6 percent. And so, the question of when higher yields begin to matter may be less about when businesses stop borrowing or consumers stop spending. And be more about when investors decide that bonds offer better value than stocks. So far, Morgan Stanley Research is not seeing clear evidence of that shift. Fund flow data and market correlations do not suggest a significant reallocation away from equities, and strong earnings growth is helping support the equity valuation case. But these are metrics that we'll be watching. In the meantime, we think that rising U.S. debt and Treasury market intervention may weaken the U.S. dollar, especially against a high-yielding currency with much, much lower debt levels – the Australian dollar. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Paul Walsh, Michelle Weaver and Daniel Blake discuss how thematic mapping can help investors separate true beneficiaries from market hype and identify risks hiding beneath the surface.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome everyone to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research in Europe. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Daniel Blake: And I'm Daniel Blake, Head of Asia Thematic Strategy. Walsh: And today we're discussing why thematic investing may be entering a new phase – moving from simply identifying big ideas to systematically measuring them.It's Tuesday, the 25th of August at 2pm in London. Weaver: It's 9am in New York. Blake: And it's 9pm in Singapore. Walsh: Daniel, let's kick our discussion off today. Thematic investing has become one of the most important ways for investors to think about long-term opportunities. But your latest work suggests the framework itself is evolving. So, what's changing? Blake: Well, if you look at where we've started. So thematic investing has been narrative-driven, focusing on identifying major structural trends for investors. So, at Morgan Stanley, we've identified core themes of artificial intelligence and tech diffusion, the future of energy, societal shifts, and the transition to a multipolar world. So, what's changing is that investment approaches are becoming much, much faster. So, we're now seeing clients deploy agentic AI to drive trade recommendations. And sure, AI can read a new 100-page thematic report from Morgan Stanley faster than humans. But for the right conclusions, it's important to connect these models with high-quality data sets. And we think that's going to be helpful for human investors as well. So, this is where the third phase of thematic investing comes in. The first phase was identifying secular trends that cut across markets and industries. The second phase was creating investable products around those themes. But this next phase is about measuring that exposure systematically in real time. So, this allows investors and their AI agents to identify whether a theme's importance is broadening or fading and to track individual companies' exposure to that theme over time. Walsh: So, the thematic investing is moving from narrative-driven to a higher velocity data-driven approach. And I guess that's where our thematic mapping exercise really comes in. So, Michelle, when investors hear the term thematic map, they may think it's just another screening tool. But it's much, much more than that, isn't it? Weaver: Absolutely. The easiest way to think about it is it's a research framework that sits on top of traditional sector and regional analysis. Historically, investors organize portfolios by country, sector, or industry group, and those verticals are still very important. But increasingly, the biggest investment forces cut horizontally across those boundaries. AI touches software companies, industrials names, healthcare, financials, and it's even had a huge impact on the utility sector.Thematic mapping helps us identify where those exposures exist across thousands of stocks, and importantly, how significant those exposures are – all with the help of our analyst experts. And the innovation isn't simply identifying if a company's exposed to AI, energy transition, or defense spending. It's determining whether that exposure is central to the investment thesis, just supportive or insignificant. And that's very different from traditional thematic baskets. Walsh: So, we identify the exposure, but the idea of significance seems particularly important because investors constantly hear companies talking about themes on earnings calls for example and in their public communications. But how do you separate genuine exposure from a more marketing-driven language around thematics, Daniel? Blake: This we see as the most valuable and ultimately human-driven part of the framework. So, as an example, we know that many companies are outlining their AI initiatives, and not all of them will end up being AI beneficiaries. So, the key question is how a given theme will impact revenues, margins, competitive positioning, and valuations. And this requires the deep knowledge of both the industry and the company, as well as where things are going. And so that's where our analysts come in. Across all countries, all sectors, mapping the materiality of their entire coverage, that's almost 4,000 companies, to every global theme in real time. Sp. our job in the thematic strategy team is to coordinate the framework, help identify emerging themes, and draw out the insights and recommendations. But the core insights are really coming at the analyst level, company by company. Walsh: And so, to your point, Daniel, it's about the analyst overlay in terms of significance that is really important. So, investors really shouldn't think of thematic exposure as a simple yes or no question… Blake: Exactly. That's really the new innovation in this framework, and most companies will sit somewhere along that spectrum for a given theme. And there's value in tracking how that position is changing over time. Walsh: Yeah, rate of change is clearly critical. And Michelle, one of the things I found particularly interesting is that the framework isn't just about identifying winners. It's also about identifying companies that may be challenged by structural change as well. Why don't you help our listeners understand why that's so important? Weaver: Because every major theme, yes, creates a lot of opportunity, but it also creates disruption. And I think investors naturally focus on beneficiaries. Where are we looking on the long side? But in many cases, understanding who might be negatively exposed can be just as valuable. If you think about AI, there are obvious beneficiaries, whether those are the big enablers or they're companies adopting the technology successfully. But there could also be companies facing pricing pressure, margin pressure, or broader disruption because of that same theme. And that's equally true whether we're thinking about the future of energy, societal shifts and big demographic realignments, or the multipolar world. And a complete thematic framework should help investors understand both parts of that equation. And this is becoming increasingly important as markets move from broad thematic enthusiasm towards more selective stock picking. Walsh: Absolutely. The ability of the thematic mapping to help us understand both sides the equation clearly incredibly important. Let’s bring it back to investors' portfolios. Daniel, how should investors think about thematic mapping as part of portfolio construction rather than simply stock selection? Blake: If you're looking at that portfolio construction level, whether you're a retail investor or you're one of the largest asset owners of sovereign funds, one of the biggest benefits is for revealing and managing hidden exposures.So, an investor might believe that their portfolio is diversified with positioning across many sectors and markets. But when you use the thematic map to underline, to explore the underlying thematic exposure, you might find that many of these holdings are tied to the same structural trend. So, the thematic map allows investors to better diversify portfolios while retaining the best expressions of desired themes. And as you mentioned, it's not just a screening tool. But it's pretty useful as a screening tool as well if you want to take exposure to a given theme overlay with valuations and preferences. It’s very helpful for that reason as well. Walsh: Yeah, understood Daniel. And Michelle, as we look stock markets right now, how are you seeing the opportunities via the thematic mapping work that we’ve done? Weaver: Flagging potential rotations is another key part of what this analysis offers. And if we think about your question from a valuation perspective, AI adopters currently look relatively inexpensive, but they still offer strong expected earnings growth. And we're also seeing analyst sentiment beginning to improve. You're seeing a growing number of companies having their earnings estimates revised higher. We're also seeing a similar opportunity across our societal shifts themes. Valuations here are well below their typical levels over the past decade. And at the same time, we're also seeing earnings expectations improve here. Walsh: So, perhaps the biggest takeaways are that thematic investing is becoming more measurable, more transparent, and more integrated into portfolio management. It's no longer just about spotting the next big idea. It's about understanding where that idea exists, how much it matters, and of course, how it's evolving. Michelle, Daniel, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Weaver: Great speaking with you Paul. Blake: Thanks for having us. Walsh: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Bonds may no longer provide the shelter investors have expected. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson talks about the changing relationship between inflation, yields and risk.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Bonds may no longer provide the shelter investors have exMike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the shifting landscape in macro markets.It's Monday, August 24th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.Over the past few weeks we’ve seen large moves in rates, oil, gold and crypto. What does it mean for equities? First, investors are still treating these markets as separate stories, when they are all part of the same regime shift that began with COVID. More than six years ago, in the depths of that recession, I argued investors should prepare for the return of inflation. That was a very out of consensus view. At that time, the world was obsessed with deflation, the 10-year Treasury yield was below 1 percent, stocks had been hit hard, and gold was sitting around $1,500 an ounce. But the policy response to COVID – what I called helicopter money – changed the game. It marked the end of the 40-year disinflationary regime and a very different investment environment for investors to navigate. It is also the foundation of our run it hot thesis. In a world where inflation has returned, cycles are likely to be shorter, policy more reactive, and leadership changes more frequent. That is very different from the 1982-to-2020 period. Then falling inflation and falling rates allowed economic cycles to stretch for eight or 10 years. We are now in a world that looks more like the post-World War II era: stronger nominal GDP growth, more persistent inflation, higher economic volatility, and a bond market that is no longer the tailwind it used to be for risk assets. In short, the great secular bull market in bonds ended with COVID. This has huge implications for investors of all stripes. My near term view on rates is also different from the mainstream. A lot of investors are saying rates are rising because of debt and deficits. I am not dismissing those factors. But I think the bigger driver is strong nominal GDP growth, which really is the result of aggressive fiscal policy since the pandemic. We are in an era of fiscal dominance, and in that environment the Treasury and the Fed are forced to find ways to fund deficits without breaking markets. That is how I interpret the Treasury’s recent buyback activity. I don’t think this is quantitative easing or yield-curve control. The scale of the program is not large enough. Instead, it’s just another tool to maintain market functioning and stable financial conditions. So when I look at the large move in precious metals and crypto last week, to me it suggests that markets believe this is just a first step toward larger intervention – if financial conditions tighten further. For equities, this all reinforces the quality rotation we have been recommending. Since the peak rate of change in earnings revisions breadth in June, led by Semiconductors, the market has gone through a significant leadership change. Quality factors have started to outperform after a year of lagging, which is exactly what we would expect as a post-recession recovery matures. High free cash flow, high gross margins, stable sales growth, and low capex-to-sales factors have all been working. Some investors are frustrated that the S&P 500 barely sold off during the historic momentum unwind. But if quality is coming back into favor, that makes perfect sense. The S&P 500 is one of the highest-quality benchmarks in the world. Leadership at the stock level may continue to morph, but index leadership for the S&P is unlikely to fade – and may even get stronger. The near-term risk remains oil. Brent crude prices have moved higher over the past couple of weeks. And rising oil has historically been a much more reliable headwind for equities than falling oil has been a tailwind. Our still constructive equity view does not require crude to collapse. It simply requires crude to stop rising. If oil spikes again because the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, that could pressure input costs, push yields and bond volatility higher, and create another round of market instability. Bottom line, the run it hot regime is alive and well. It supports equities. But it also shortens cycles, increases rotations, and forces investors to be more tactical at times. I currently like large-cap quality stocks, AI adopters, and the S&P 500 over international peers. Hedge the oil risk with energy stocks and keep your head on a swivel as we navigate the next phase of this recovery and bull market. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

AI’s enormous capital requirements are reshaping the way companies tap credit markets. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur takes stock of this summer’s key financing developments. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today: Why the summer of 2026 is all about AI Financing and the evolution of credit markets. It is Friday August 21st at 2pm in New York. The summer of 2026 may ultimately be remembered not for a new model release or a breakthrough chip, but for developments in AI financing that highlighted how quickly capital markets are adapting to the demands of the AI buildout. The starting point of our analysis remains unchanged: the demand for compute continues to outstrip supply of compute, resulting in upward revisions in AI infrastructure capex expectations as hyperscalers commit additional capital to secure future capacity. Our equity research colleagues now estimate that the total capex for the four largest hyperscalers will rise 57 percent in 2027 versus 2026. These spending plans reflect growing conviction that such investments can generate 25 percent plus returns on invested capital. At the same time, the lag between capex deployment and monetization continues to pressure near-term cash generation, with our analysts' 2027 free cash flow estimates for the four hyperscalers continuing to move lower. To a credit analyst, what this means is that the result is a widening financing gap in 2027. That means AI-related credit issuance will remain substantial and may even need to increase further before cash flows from these investments begin to catch up. Developments in credit spreads this summer have been equally telling. Credit spreads for hyperscalers have widened meaningfully. More notable even than the absolute level of widening is the divergence across financing channels. For example, spread widening was most pronounced in unsecured bonds, where issuance volumes accelerated sharply and investors remained exposed to a broader range of risks tied to the AI investment cycle. By contrast, spread widening in data center ABS and CMBS was much more modest. These structures are backed by operating assets that have already been constructed, powered, and leased, with contractual cash flows largely established. Combined with a more measured pace of issuance, these characteristics helped insulate securitized credit products from the volatility seen in unsecured credit markets. The divergence across credit markets also reflects the differences in issuer incentives and sensitivity to funding costs, which will shape issuance volumes going forward. At the higher end of the quality spectrum, the major hyperscalers, with average ratings of roughly AA, combine substantial financing needs with significant ratings flexibility. Given their ROIC expectations, these issuers are relatively insensitive to modest changes in borrowing costs. Higher funding costs alone are unlikely to materially slow capital raising by the highest-quality participants in the AI ecosystem. The opposite is true further down the quality spectrum. Lower quality hyperscalers and data center developers, including former bitcoin miners and REITs, have less balance-sheet flexibility and lower tolerance for higher funding costs. For these borrowers, wider spreads represent a more meaningful constraint, making funding costs a natural stabilizer of future supply. The next phase of AI financing is also likely to look quite a bit different as incremental capex shifts from data center shells toward compute equipment, particularly servers and chips, as well as energy assets. While some of these assets have already been financed through high-yield bonds and leveraged loans, compute infrastructure is particularly well-suited to asset-level financing, creating a larger role for private capital. The emergence of large-scale component financing is likely to be enabled by the highest-quality issuers flexing their ratings as well as balance-sheet strength. We expect these issuers to increasingly provide backstops, credit support arrangements, and residual value guarantees, helping private capital underwrite ever-larger pools of AI infrastructure assets. As AI scales from a technology cycle into a capital cycle, understanding the nuances of financing is becoming increasingly important. In the next phase of the AI buildout, understanding the flow of capital may prove nearly as important as understanding the flow of innovation itself. AI is no longer just a technology story. It is increasingly a capital markets story as well. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

AI is becoming a matter of national strategy, as countries seek more control over their own technology. Our Heads of U.S. Public Policy Ariana Salvatore and Global Thematic Research Stephen Byrd look at the race for AI sovereignty and its implications for investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Head of Global Thematic Research at Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be talking about AI sovereignty, what it means, what countries around the world are doing to advance their own goals, and what a more fragmented AI ecosystem could mean for investors.It's Thursday, August 20th at 2pm in New York. Stephen Byrd: And it's 9pm in Helsinki. Ariana Salvatore: As AI becomes more powerful and therefore more important to the global economy, countries are asking a basic question: How much of it do we need to control ourselves? That's at the heart of AI sovereignty, making sure governments around the world can access the computing power, data, energy, and technology they need even as geopolitical tensions may rise. Stephen Byrd: And that seems to fit into a broader trend we've been talking about for some time, a more multipolar world where governments are increasingly willing to intervene in markets around strategically important technologies. Ariana Salvatore: Exactly. We describe this as a potential ‘two worlds dynamic.’ The U.S. and China have been gradually de-risking from one another, particularly in advanced technology. We've already seen policy tools, including export controls, tariffs, and incentives for domestic manufacturing. And as AI becomes more strategically important, our expectation is for policy intervention to increase rather than decrease. But what's interesting is that the U.S. and China aren't necessarily pursuing sovereignty in the same way. Stephen Byrd: So, let's unpack that. Can you start with the U.S.? What does the American approach look like? Ariana Salvatore: Yes. We think the U.S. is trying to do two things at once, basically. On one hand, it wants to preserve national security guardrails around some of the most sensitive AI capabilities. But on the other hand, it has an incentive to make sure the American AI tech stack is broadly available to allies and partners. So, there's an inherent tension there between those two objectives. Obviously, if you restrict access too much, you can encourage other countries to develop alternatives,. But if you allow unrestricted access, policymakers may begin to worry about losing control over strategically important technology. So, the way that we chart this is through a middle path. We think the direction of travel looks less like complete technological separation and more like selective access – tighter controls around sensitive capabilities alongside an effort to maintain the global reach of the U.S. AI ecosystem. Stephen Byrd: Whereas China's approach is more focused on building out an indigenous ecosystem. Specifically, we see policymakers in China pursuing greater self-sufficiency across the AI stack, from chips and computing infrastructure to cloud and models. Our China strategists argue that bifurcation could actually increase China's incentive to build a larger China-compatible AI ecosystem abroad, particularly across the Global South and other markets that aren't firmly aligned with the U.S. ecosystem. China's model emphasizes lower-cost models, open weight ecosystems, subsidized compute, cloud partnerships and infrastructure exports. So, the competition could increasingly be about not only which country has the most advanced model, but which ecosystem can achieve the widest adoption. Ariana Salvatore: That's right, and that brings us back to this idea of two worlds. So, Stephen, is the implication here that we're going to be heading toward two completely separate AI systems? Stephen Byrd: Not necessarily, I'd say. You know, the supply chains are still deeply interconnected, so our research does not suggest a sudden decoupling. But we could see greater duplication and less globally fungible infrastructure. Countries may increasingly want compute located domestically or regionally. Sensitive data may need to stay within particular jurisdictions, and companies may need different cloud cybersecurity or distribution arrangements in different markets. And that means the same global level of AI demand could require more physical infrastructure than it would in a completely integrated world. Ariana Salvatore: So, fragmentation, like other themes within multipolarity, are more economically inefficient. But potentially pretty important for the investment cycle. We think sovereign AI can make the system more redundant and more capital-intensive as a result. Our research teams think there are potential beneficiaries from that across semiconductors, data centers, networking, power, cloud, cybersecurity, and infrastructure software. Let's look at data centers specifically. If governments and enterprises increasingly require local hosting and greater control over sensitive data, you will inevitably need more geographically distributed infrastructure. Colocation operators, we think, can benefit because they provide the power, cooling, space, security, and interconnection that can allow customers to keep workloads in specific jurisdictions. So, the fragmentation we're talking about may introduce inefficiency at a system level while simultaneously creating incremental infrastructure demand.  Stephen Byrd: And there's another constraint here that we probably shouldn't overlook, which is energy. Compute ultimately needs power. So, access to reliable, affordable electricity becomes part of a country's competitive position in AI, which ties into our politics of energy theme that we outlined in January of this year. But as we've also noted, that creates a political constraint. Our thematic work has highlighted rising concern around the impact of data center growth on power prices and on local infrastructure. This has really shown up in a big way in the U.S. And that can mean more pressure to protect existing rate payers, more emphasis on low-cost power. And greater interest in behind-the-meter or off-grid power solutions that allow data centers to secure electricity without putting the same pressure on the grid. Ariana Salvatore: Which suggests that there's a cost, in fact, to AI sovereignty as well. Stephen Byrd: Absolutely. And if countries want more domestic compute, duplicated infrastructure, localized supply chains, and greater redundancy, the system may become more resilient, but potentially more expensive – and we're certainly seeing signs of it being more expensive. Compute and power are already constrained in many markets. Add to that regulatory requirements, localization, and potential restrictions on technology transfer, and reducing dependence can carry an inflationary cost. So, for investors, I think the question isn't simply whether sovereign AI increases spending. It's also where that spending has to occur, what gets duplicated, and which parts of the stack become strategically indispensable. Ariana Salvatore: So, Steven, to frame this for investors, the way we see this theme unfolding suggests that sovereign AI reinforces rather than undermines the broader AI CapEx cycle. We think competition between the U.S. and China is intensifying. Countries outside those two ecosystems increasingly will want greater national resilience and flexibility. And that combination can support additional spending on compute, data centers, networking, and power for years to come. Lastly, an increasingly important question is who controls and supplies that infrastructure, energy, standards, and supply chains that will allow those models to operate at scale? Stephen Byrd: And that may ultimately be the most important thing to watch. Sovereign AI is another example of geopolitics moving directly into the technology investment cycle and potentially changing not only where AI gets built, but how much infrastructure the world needs to build it. Ariana Salvatore: Steven, we'll leave it there. Thanks so much for joining me. Stephen Byrd: Great to be here, Ariana. Ariana Salvatore: And 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.

From chocolate and sugar prices to energy markets and inflation, El Niño’s impacts may soon reach far beyond the weather forecast. Our Latin America Agribusiness Analyst Julia Rizzo maps out where the pressure could emerge first.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Julia Rizzo, Latin America Agribusiness Analyst at Morgan Stanley. Today: how El Niño could move from the Pacific into commodity markets, grocery prices, and investor portfolios. It’s Wednesday, August 19th, at 10am in Sao Paulo.You may not follow rainfall patterns in Brazil or cocoa-growing conditions in West Africa. But you immediately notice when chocolate, groceries, or electricity cost more. And you can connect the dots to El Niño -- a warming cycle in the Pacific Ocean that disrupts weather globally. It changes where rain falls and shapes the outlook for crops, power markets, transportation, and inflation. There is now a 95 percent chance of a very strong El Niño in the fourth quarter of 2026. It could end up being among the most powerful events in more than 75 years of recorded history. Timing and location matter greatly. Crop damage often depends on whether heat or heavy rain arrives during a narrow planting, flowering, or harvest window. The most direct effects are likely to appear first in commodities. Sugar is on the list of commodities most exposed to favorable price dynamics from weather conditions. Cocoa also looks tight. Grains are more complicated. Soybeans need evidence of a net South American production loss. Problems in northern Brazil may be offset by stronger crops in Argentina or Brazil south. Corn is even more dependent on timing. The key near-term catalyst remains U.S. weather and crops. What happens next matters well beyond agricultural markets. Food is the main channel through which El Niño reaches the broader economy, and the effect usually appears after a one-year lag. That makes inflation primarily a 2027 story. In Latin America, the largest incremental inflation risks are concentrated in Peru, Brazil, and Colombia, with most of the pressure arriving in 2027. That matters for central banks. Weather shocks can fade. So, policymakers often look through an initial rise in food prices. The greater concern is that higher food costs may begin to influence inflation expectations, wages, rents, or other prices across the economy. Colombia stands out as the clearest case where those second-round effects could complicate monetary policy. India and Indonesia also face meaningful economic exposure. Agriculture accounts for a large share of output and employment in these countries. India is especially sensitive. Agriculture represents about 18 percent of the GDP, 43 to 45 [percent] of jobs, while food makes up roughly 36 percent of the consumer price basket. Record food reserves may provide some protection, though a poor growing season could still weigh on rural incomes and keep food inflation elevated. The economic consequences will vary widely. Higher agricultural prices can support farmer income and benefit some parts of the food and agricultural supply chain. They can also raise costs for households, food producers, and businesses that depend on grains and sugar. Utilities may benefit in markets where hotter or drier conditions lift electricity prices, while heavy rainfall could disrupt transport routes and airports in those exposed regions. Historical asset-price signals are limited, so this is less of a broad macro trade than a detailed assessment of local exposure. Rainfall, crop timing, inventories, and the ability to pass higher costs on to consumers will determine where the pressure lands. El Niño may begin in the Pacific, but its market footprint can travel from cocoa farms in West Africa to a grocery aisle, a power grid, or a central bank meeting. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

After a historic rally and a sharp correction, South Korea’s equity market may be approaching a turning point. Our Chief Korea Equity Strategist, Joon Seok, explains that the next cycle will need stronger foundations and more sectors joining in.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Joon Seok, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Korea Equity Strategist.Today: Why Korea’s equity market may be moving from a sharp reset toward a broader and more sustainable recovery.It’s Tuesday, August 18th, at 2pm in Seoul.South Korea’s stock market has delivered the kind of ride that makes even long-term investors check their phones more often than they would like. The KOSPI surged 101 percent in the first half of 2026, then fell more than 38 percent from its peak by July 30th. But the market now appears to be moving toward a more durable recovery.The first reason is valuation. Take the KOSPI’s forward price-to-earnings ratio, which compares share prices with expected profits over the next year. It fell below five times, its lowest level since 2004. Our capitulation index also dropped to minus 2.53. This index combines market momentum with the breadth of the sell-off, so it helps show whether fear has become widespread. Readings below minus two have often marked troughing territory outside the major crises.The second reason is that forced selling appears to be easing. Now, we have seen leverage as a double-edged sword as leverage helped fuel the rally, but it also made the decline sharper as investors were forced to cut positions. Assets in leveraged single-stock ETFs have fallen about 70 percent from their June peak, and margin lending has also come down. Now, hedge funds have completed roughly three quarters of a typical risk-reduction cycle. Put simply, the most intense selling may already be behind us.Still, a healthier recovery needs more than a rebound by the tech sector. Tech remains central because AI infrastructure continues to drive demand for advanced memory. Morgan Stanley Research expects global spending by large tech platforms to reach 805 billion U.S. dollars in [20]26 and 1.2 trillion dollars in [20]27. That creates a lot of opportunity – but it also keeps markets sensitive to any change in capital spending, chip pricing or competition.The broader Korean economy offers support. Real GDP growth has exceeded 3 percent for two consecutive quarters, up sharply from 1.1 percent in 2025. Full-year growth is now likely to land in the mid-3 percent range; and generally, Korea’s growth is around 2 percent. Importantly, the improvement is spreading beyond exports. Consumption is recovering, tourism has surpassed pre-pandemic levels, and the government is targeting 23 million foreign tourists this year.There are trade-offs. Inflation reached 3.2 percent in June, and the Bank of Korea raised its policy rate to 2.75 percent. A measured hiking cycle could take rates to 3.5 percent by the first quarter of 2027. Higher rates may help financial-sector earnings, but they also raise financing costs for households and businesses.The source of market liquidity is changing as well. Domestic retail investors drove much of the first-half rally, but tighter leverage rules mean foreign investors are likely to determine the next leg higher. Corporate-governance reforms and better capital management could also encourage broader international participation.We continue to see a path toward a KOSPI target of 9,000 by June 2027, with a bull case of 10,500 and a bear case of 5,500. The next phase should be steadier and more balanced. Industrials, financials, healthcare, communications, and consumer staples should also contribute alongside technology.Korea still has room to run. But the stronger signal may be quality – meaning earnings resilience, disciplined capital management and broader participation. The stock market’s initial rally was fueled by speed and concentrated leadership. The next phase will require wider and more durable support.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 Andrew Ruben and Nathan Feather discuss how AI shopping agents could transform how consumers discover, compare and buy products and the implications for eCommerce.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Ruben: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Ruben, Latin America Retail and E-commerce Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Nathan Feather: And I'm Nathan Feather, U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Ruben: Today, what happens when the shopping cart starts thinking for itself and maybe even for you?It's Monday, August 17th at 10am in New York.As we think about trends that are driving e-commerce, which remains a share gainer within the overall retail landscape, it seems that there's a transformation that's quickly building around agentic e-commerce.So, Nathan, I think it's timely for us to talk today as agentic seems like it could be the next catalyzer of growth and innovation within the e-commerce landscape.Nathan Feather: How much bigger do we think agentic commerce could make the global e-commerce market?Andrew Ruben: Global e-commerce as we see it is a nearly [$]5 trillion market today. That implies 22 percent of retail sales. The way we see over the next five years is a $7 trillion opportunity, with growth accelerating to a 9 percent compounded rate, up from about 7 percent over the past four years. And this is partly on the tailwinds from agentic.What we see here is this broad arc of reducing friction with e-commerce over time.Think about how easy it is now to pick up your phone, search for some inventory, click, and the goods can be here within one, two days, if not same day. That's reduction of friction that we think physical retail can't match, and the improvements of agentic commerce. Having this agent that can help you search, help you discover – that should further the e-commerce opportunity.We think agentic alone could add about 6 percent to the five-year e-commerce addressable market, with about 20 percent of industry volumes having some material agent influence.So, within this opportunity, Nathan, agentic isn't one size. How should investors distinguish between AI influence shopping and fully autonomous purchasing?Nathan Feather: To your point, there's a wide different flavors that we're calling agentic commerce. And it starts really at the top of the funnel with, you know, you could go to your chatbot of choice and say, ‘I want a hiking backpack with a water bottle slot and a place to hold my keys,’ right? ‘Show me the best options in a certain price range.’And there you're capturing the top of the funnel, but as you click in, you may bounce out to a retailer and purchase on there. Or it could go even further, and maybe you complete your entire checkout within that specific chatbot.Now, right now what we're seeing is about half of consumers are starting the top of the funnel at least sometimes with a chatbot, but a very small portion are actually completing purchases. And so, as time evolves, we expect that funnel to widen and start to see a little bit more of this fully autonomous purchasing; although for the most part, we think it's really going to remain top of funnel and mid-funnel.Now, adoption does look very different across regions, partially because of different consumer behaviors. Why has AI shopping gained more traction in some markets than in others?Andrew Ruben: I think that's right, and what we see is so far to date, agentic shopping has been led by the U.S. and China. These are the two largest e-commerce markets globally, also among the highest penetration. Some data to support it: We have proprietary Morgan Stanley AlphaWise survey that show about 30 percent of China consumers shopping using AI tools over the past month. And that compares to about 12 percent in Brazil.Now, we do see some barriers in terms of the pace of companies' innovation, but I think this is more a matter of time. The example you give of that shopping journey, that does seem like it should be applicable globally.There is also a second barrier, and that would be trust. We do see that consumers are using AI search, using AI discovery, and as they get more comfortable with agentic, we think the use cases can increase over time. But as we see consumers today, they're comfortable with search, but not many are willing to let AI do the full end-to-end checkout.Ultimately, as we see it, the companies will drive the innovation, but it's consumers who determine uptake.And that raises the question of who owns the customer journey. Do retailers keep control, or do the general AI agents take the lead?Nathan Feather: To be frank, this is one of the major unanswered questions within this market. And, you know, we can speculate, but we're not going to know for a few years. So, let's go through the potential paths here.I think the first goes within the customer journey. Where does the customer want to check out? Who has the best experience as you go through that journey? And early on, it's retailers. They have your purchase history. They have your payment information. They have your shipping.To your point, they're trusted. You know if you're going to shop at one of these large retailers, you're going to get what you want. And if you don't, you're going to be able to get that refunded.And so, we think at least early on, retailers will likely keep control of that purchase journey and actually be able to innovate a lot on site. Launch on-site agents that are able to get you to the inventory they have even faster.But retailers could gain control over time. They can shop across multiple websites. They can price match. And so, it is going to be a question over time which of these ends up taking the lead. And the economics will change as a result of that.And Andrew, what determines whether agentic commerce ends up generating purchases that wouldn't have happened otherwise rather than simply shifting existing sales to a new channel?Andrew Ruben: It's a good point on the economics because let's say an agentic transaction happens on a company's site. You do still have costs, and that relates to the large language model. The conversation query going back and forth, that's going to be more expensive than a traditional keyword search.So, here's where incrementality comes in. If you're a consumer that's having this transaction on the site, we think that gives better targeting, better information, and should ultimately put the product in front of you that you want to buy. And what this translates to is incremental sales, a sale that wouldn't have happened if you only had traditional search or an experience that you couldn't match in the physical channel.So, we do think that if the sale is incremental and those model costs eventually come down, then that's the setup for an agentic sale to be profitable. I'd also mention the advertising business. It's important for e-commerce having suppliers that will pay to be one of the product listings up front.Our view is that if you're searching better, then you should get better discovery, and the value of that top real estate should hold. That should be more important for the supplier with better targeting, and they can pay up for that.But there is the risk on the other side. How real do you think the risk is that external agents divert traffic and advertising dollars away from e-commerce platforms?Nathan Feather: Well, the risk is real, and it's really dependent on the customer journey. You know, if you go to a chatbot today, you're expecting when you type in your query, you're going to get the most accurate result that they can offer. The issue with advertising is people are paying for that top slot. It's not inherently maybe the best product. It's the person who wanted to pay the most to get that top slot.When you go to, you know, a search website, it's not necessarily the expectation, right? You know that the first few results are going to be paid, and then there's going to be organic after that. And so, from a customer side of things, there's going to be a question of whether there's the permission to see advertising within that flow.If there's not, you could see advertising dollars get diverted, and that is a risk. If you look at large e-commerce retailers, especially marketplaces today, a majority or sometimes all of their profits actually come from the on-site advertising that exists. And so, it's something worth watching. Although we note early on, this ended up being less of a risk than people initially expected.Now, zooming out here, we've covered a lot of ground. So, as we think about it broadly, what are the likely factors that separate the winners here? In other words, what are the capabilities that matter most as we move into an agentic world?Andrew Ruben: Right. And to get to those capabilities, I think agentic commerce is going to improve e-commerce as a digital service. But this still surrounds the movement, the sourcing, the pricing of physical goods.So, I believe that the rules of retail and e-commerce should still hold. That's the fundamentals of do you have the broad selection, the right inventory at the right location that can get to the right consumer? Second, the ability and willingness to innovate. That's companies that have their own agents, that have partnerships, that are developing these tools we think will be better positioned.And then third, thinking about some complementary assets. If you're a marketplace platform with logistics, with loyalty, with financial services, this should support the positioning depending on how the customer journey evolves. Each of these factors we think will matter in an agentic world.And then finally, what evidence should investors watch to see whether agentic commerce has moved from experimentation to a durable growth driver?Nathan Feather: There's a couple of different factors we're looking for here, and it's important to note we're looking for leading indicators. Given agentic is still a relatively small portion of purchases, we're trying to find those things that could identify where you're going to hit inflection points. So, a few things I'd call out.The first are company disclosures. What are the actual retailers in this industry saying about experimentation? And are the products that they're testing actually moved into production?Second, looking at consumer surveys and whether people are starting to use these AI tools more at the top of the funnel, we think will filter down more to the bottom of the funnel over time as additional things are launched.And last, how is your own search behavior changing? Are you starting to see you gravitate more towards an AI chatbot as you're going through your shopping journey? Oftentimes, you'll start to see the behavior start to shift, and then the dollars flow over time.Andrew Ruben: That's it. The shopping cart may become smarter and ultimately grow faster. But for investors, the defining question remains the same: Who owns the customer journey? Nathan, thanks for speaking with me today.Nathan Feather: Great to be here with you, Andrew.Andrew Ruben: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets examines why investors might be overlooking the stability and performance of UK assets, despite persistent negative sentiment.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why the UK may need better PR. It's Friday, August 14th at 2pm in London. The last decade has been rough for the United Kingdom. Brexit was a true economic earthquake, and the subsequent weakening of economic ties to mainland Europe, the UK's largest trading partner, made economic activity weaker and more complicated.Then COVID hit the economy hard. So did spiking energy prices when Russia invaded Ukraine. Political volatility has been high, with seven prime ministers in the last 10 years. And at present, UK growth is weak, inflation is too high, and debt to GDP is rising. Moreover, in a post-COVID world that's increasingly driven by the profit and power of technology, including AI, the UK market seems almost stuck in another era. Of the 10 largest companies in the U.S. stock market, eight are in technology. In the UK, none of the 20 largest companies are in tech. Safe to say, being downbeat on the prospects for the UK is one of the most consensus views that I encounter. But it can also be deceiving. Simple stories in the market rarely are.Let's start with the argument that UK markets are boring, stagnant, and being left behind by their lack of technology. It's just not true. Through early August, the S&P 500 has returned 85 percent over the prior five years. The UK market? It's returned 82 percent. And over the last twelve months, the performance of the UK and U.S. markets are also similar. In short, don't judge a book by its cover. The UK's currency, meanwhile, shows no sign of global investors shunning the island. Over the last 10 years, the UK pound has actually gained value against the U.S. dollar. Notable given how strong the performance of the U.S. economy and markets have been over that time. And that's also pretty impressive relative to its peers. Over this same timeframe, the value of the Japanese yen, the Brazilian real, the Indian rupee, and the Korean won have all fallen significantly. The UK's currency, on a relative basis, has outperformed.Now, the UK's growth is weak. Morgan Stanley forecasts growth of just 1 percent this year versus a bit over 2 percent for the United States. But it's notable just what sort of headwind the country has been dealing with. The UK household and corporate sectors are both increasing their savings rates and doing so at the same time; and more savings means less spending and economic activity. To put some context around this, U.S. households are currently saving only about 3 percent of their disposable income. In the UK, it's over 9 percent. And so, if that UK savings rate can just simply stop moving higher – or even fall – well, it would represent a big support to growth going forward. But aren't we avoiding the big question, the fiscal question? After all, we at Morgan Stanley forecast that general UK government debt to GDP will be about 96 percent this year, some of the highest levels since World War II. But this is a global market, and I do think that the relative picture matters. So, when thinking about the UK's 96 percent debt to GDP ratio, let's consider what the numbers are elsewhere. That ratio is 120 percent in China. It's 120 percent in France. It's 125 percent in the U.S. It's 138 percent in Italy, and it's 208 percent in Japan. And out of all of these countries, the UK is the only one where we think the government deficit is materially smaller in 2027 than it was in 2025. Also, year-to-date, 10-year bond yields in the UK have risen less than yields in the U.S. or Japan.A new UK Prime Minister does raise the potential for new policy, something investors will need to watch closely. The country remains sensitive to swings in global energy prices. Yet we think the underlying story is more nuanced and positive than often gets discussed. Market performance has been bearing this out, and in many cases, the bar is low. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Robotaxis are accelerating along the road to commercial viability. Auto and Shared Mobility Analysts Andrew Percoco and Tim Hsiao discuss what this rapid development means for global investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Percoco: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Andrew Percoco, Head of North America Auto and Shared Mobility Research. Tim Hsiao: And I'm Tim Hsiao, Greater China Auto and Shared Mobility Analyst.Andrew Percoco: Today, why robotaxis may be approaching a commercial inflection point. It's Thursday, August 13th at 8am in New York.Tim Hsiao: And 8 pm in Hong Kong.Andrew Percoco: So Tim, for years, robotaxis were really confined to limited pilot rollouts across the globe. You've done a lot of work over the last few weeks. We put out a big collaborative report on the robotaxi market and how it could be a $1 trillion TAM by 2040.What makes this moment different than some of the other robotaxi hype cycles that we've seen in the past? Tim Hsiao: We observe four things have been converging. Firstly, end-to-end AI is improving much faster. Secondly, hardware and the training costs are falling. And thirdly, more well-capitalized players can fund deployment. And last but not least, regulation is becoming clearer.The leading operators are no longer just demonstrating the technology. They are running fully driverless services around the clock and generating commercial rides. So in our view, the questions has been shifting from can it work to who can expand operating areas, raise utilization and lower costs at a much faster pace.So that's a very different setup versus the 2018 and 2021 hype cycles. Andrew, U.S. autonomous miles could rise from 116 million in [20]25 to 16 billion by 2032. But still make up only about 0.5 percent of all miles driven. How can robotaxis become a meaningful business while remaining such a small part of the market?Andrew Percoco: I would say, you know, obviously the U.S. mobility and transportation market is a massive market. So even with the rapid growth that we expect in robotaxis, it's going to take a long time to make a material impact in the overall market share of mobility. But if you think about the profit pools in this business, 16 billion miles at $2 a mile can, you know, pretty quickly become a very significant TAM and market opportunity.And I think, you know, fundamentally, if you think about a robotaxi business, I would argue you're better utilizing an asset... Or if you think about the, you know, car park, the amount of vehicles that are, you know, in the fleet today or in the U.S. today, they're sitting idle 90 percent of the time, right?So you're talking about taking a smaller amount of volume and driving a higher utilization on that fleet and driving much improved economics. So yes, it's going to take time to displace the, you know, hundreds of millions of cars that you have on the road in the U.S. and displace the penetration of miles driven. But ultimately, you know, we think that the profit pool and the opportunity in robotaxis are much more attractive for the entire value chain, as it relates to robotaxis. And I'd say there's a few things that we're watching along the way to make sure that, to your point, you know, this is not another hype cycle. And that there's real commercial backbone to this business.I'd say the first is seeing the rollouts continue to improve, and the density of the rollouts improve across the select cities that we've seen in the U.S. right now. Robotaxis are only available in a handful of cities in the U.S., so we want to see that continue to expand into more cities. But also the density of the fleet increase in the cities where they're currently present.And at the same time the safety side is still something that gets a lot of questions in making sure that it is truly safer than a human driver, across technology platforms, right? There's various players in this market with different approaches to technology. So, I think seeing that the safety curve is starting to or continues to improve is going to be very important for the viability of this market going forward.Obviously U.S. is very different from China. What have you seen in China? China has shown some impressive growth and utilization in some of the operators that are on the road in China. So just curious as to your perspective in terms of what you're seeing on the ground there. Tim Hsiao: I think China shows that there's much in operations and skill challenges as technology challenges. The fleet  in China is above 5,000 vehicles across I think more than 7500 square kilometers in key cities. And some operators average more than 20 orders per vehicle per day.So, total cost of ownership has fallen roughly 30 to 40 percent, while remote assistance ratios are moving from like one operator for like 20 to 40, even like 50 to 60 vehicles. And we think it will achieve like one for a 100. So that has produced real break-even happens, especially in some major cities like Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Wuhan – the tier one, tier two cities.So in our view, I think in China, wider operating domains, fleet density and utilization rate, as you just mentioned, reinforce one another. So make it some more like the real commercial case. Instead of just, like trials as we saw a couple years ago. If more value shifts towards the software, fleet operation, and the data, as well as the customer relations, how does that change the profit pool, across the auto industry, especially in the U.S.?Andrew Percoco: First off, I think the auto industry in general is becoming, you know, more software focused and aware. You know, it's being led by the robotaxi market where the autonomous driving software and technology is obviously the most important part about getting this technology to market.That is ultimately trickling down to personally owned cars where you're seeing more autonomous technology being deployed. Auto OEMs are able to charge subscription revenue for this software. So it expands, I'd say, the value proposition of buying a vehicle expands the profit pool for the OEMs.It changes in some ways the cyclicality, or can change the cyclicality of the industry if you've got more kind of recurring revenues, subscription like business model versus just a hardware focused OEM model, which has been kind of the predominant focus for the OEMs historically. I'd say the other angle, interesting angle here is, you know, as this business scales, there's gonna be a lot of vehicles on the road. There's gonna be a lot of fleets of vehicles on the road. Those need to be managed by somebody or some company, right? So if you think about, you know, the rental car industry, right? These companies have been in the business of managing fleets and renting out fleets for  a very long time. They know how to do that very, very well.I think there's an interesting opportunity for that part of the value chain, to participate in aiding these robotaxi fleet operators, in scaling and bringing their business to market. Charging, maintenance, reconditioning, all the things that  take a lot of time and a pretty large amount of physical infrastructure.That's an opportunity for the rental car industry to come in and leverage their existing know-how to help. And, you know, I think Tim, an important part of this commercialization process is driving down the cost structure of robotaxis. They are very sensor; heavy sensor heavy. They're very compute heavy. I think China is the clear leader on cost and supply chain. I think in China you're seeing robotaxis, you know, around $35,000 to $40,000, which is considerably lower than what we see in the U.S. today.So, how do you think that that will accelerate adoption in China, but I'd say more importantly overseas as some of these robotaxis businesses look to expand outside of China. Tim Hsiao: In our view, it could be a major accelerant because as we noticed that the depreciation is still one of the largest fixed costs for robotaxi. So, as we just mentioned, I think, $35000 to $45000 US dollars, the purpose-built robotaxi can lower the breakeven utilization threshold. And make it easier to finance fleets and open cities that could not support the $150,000 US dollar vehicle.And not only in China, because globally, I think the Chinese cost deflation can be paired with the local ride-hailing platforms in the overseas market that provide demand and regulatory access. But as we highlighted in our previous, the global reports once again, we don't think the cheap vehicle is sufficiently by their self.So in our views, on top of the competitive cost structure, registration, data localization, insurance, and local operating costs can still delay the margin curve, particularly in Europe, which we think there are still quite a lot of uncertainties. So Andrew, as we just, as we just discussed, the lower vehicle costs help, but the operating model still has to work, right? So with operating costs expected to fall and the margin potentially moving above 30 percent or even higher at scale, what are the key assumptions investors should focus on?Andrew Percoco: There’s a handful of key assumptions you need to sensitize to get to that 30 percent or more margin structure in this business. I'd say the first is going to be utilization, right? You need to be running these assets at a high utilization to essentially amortize those fixed costs over a larger number of miles driven.Number two, insurance today is probably one of the largest buckets of cost when we think about this business. Insurance is, from our perspective, a big unlock for this industry as the safety, as we mentioned before, the safety data continues to improve. We think that will be a reason to, to expect that the insurance costs associated with autonomous driving technology and robotaxis will continue to decline.It's about 30 cents per mile on our estimate, so it's very significant in terms of the overall cost structure of robotaxis. Drivers or where there's the most sensitivity around the model. Obviously, there's charging costs, there's maintenance costs. Those are, I think, fairly known at this point. But the utilization and insurance, I think, are the two biggest drivers of really getting that margin profile to improve over time. Tim, I guess when you think about the next, call it 10 to 15 years, I think we will put out a trillion dollar market by 2040 from a TAM perspective.What do you think the biggest markets are that investors should be watching, in terms of getting us to that trillion dollar TAM? Obviously, U.S. and China are kinda leading now, but what are the next markets people should be watching?Tim Hsiao: In addition to the major market, as you just mentioned, the U.S. and China, in our views, I think we also need to focus on markets like Europe, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. I think their scale is underappreciated, as we highlighted in our previous report. Because if you think about that, Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia in aggregate have roughly four million taxis together ride-hailing vehicles.So even with 25 percent conversion, they imply that about one million is the L4s vehicles. The Middle East offers supportive regulators, you can tell, simpler operating environments and higher fares. And if you think about the Southeast Asia, the ASEAN, I think the market has dense demand and strong local platforms.And of course, Euro markets definitely can't be ignored because Euro will move more slowly, because we think the regulations and the data rules would initially add cost. But the truth is, if you think about the European market, I think the taxis or ride-hailing fares are among the highest globally, even compared to the U.S. and rest of the world.So in our view, the material margin could be more attractive. And this market, on top of the U.S. and China, in our view, can support several regional winners. So, not only limited to a very, you know, the single one or two markets.Andrew Percoco: Yeah, it’s great Tim. It sounds like, you know, the robotaxi race, if you want to put it that way, will be won by those who can really bring together technology, and a compelling cost structure while also following the proper regulations and making sure the safety is improving at a rate that's acceptable to regulators.So, Tim, thanks for taking the time to talk today. And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

The potential path to a durable U.S.–Iran agreement has twists and obstacles ahead. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore discusses current negotiations and the impact of recent developments for investors.Disclaimer: Important note regarding economic sanctions. This report references jurisdictions which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of US Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, the latest on U.S.-Iran tensions, talks, and the path to a deal. It's Wednesday Aug 12th, at 2 p.m. in New York.The diplomatic picture in the Middle East has shifted yet again. Last week, there was growing optimism that the U.S., Iran and Oman could reach an arrangement to improve commercial passage through the Strait of Hormuz. But the two sides have since hardened their positions. This week, we've seen some bouts of escalation, and headlines have been mixed over the past few days.At the same time, the energy security picture remains complicated. The U.S. administration says the seven-day average of oil leaving Hormuz has risen to almost 9 million barrels per day. But traffic remains well below normal conditions, and the risks we think are no longer limited to the Strait. We’re beginning to see potential for disruption across multiple regional chokepoints and alternate shipping routes. That brings us back to the framework negotiated nearly two months ago. The U.S. and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding in mid-June. It was intended to create a 60-day window for negotiating a more durable agreement. That framework addressed commercial passage through Hormuz, the U.S. naval blockade, sanctions relief and frozen funds – as well as longer-term negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. But the implementation has proven much harder than agreeing on the framework itself.So where are negotiations getting stuck? First, there's the Strait itself. Iran has tied a full reopening of the Strait to a broader package that includes an end to the U.S. blockade, sanctions relief and compensation. Washington, in turn, is trying to preserve economic leverage and appears unwilling to provide those concessions upfront. Second, sanctions sequencing: The U.S. wants relief tied to clear signs of progress, while Iran is seeking confidence that any relief is durable and not easily reversed. And third, there’s the nuclear question: enrichment levels, Iran’s existing stockpile, and a longer-term verification framework. These are still to be negotiated. That’s likely to take longer than the 60-day time period. So, what’s the right framing here for investors? We think it’s not necessarily a deal or no deal binary. It’s more so a series of partial agreements, implementation tests, setbacks, and renewed negotiations. After the June deal was signed, we flagged several live paths to re-escalation: execution risk around sanctions and Strait control, a potential divergence between the U.S. and Israeli objectives, domestic political pressure in Washington, and the basic challenge of resolving core nuclear questions within such a short time frame. We think those risks are now becoming more visible, but we think both sides have strong incentives to avoid a return to a full conflict, like the type of engagement we saw back in March of this year.Moving forward, the signposts we laid out in June—maritime normalization, access for the International Atomic Energy Agency, sanctions implementation, military restraint, and rhetoric—all remain the right trackers to watch. But expect the bargaining process itself to be noisy, unstable, and non-linear. Rather than a clean transition from conflict to ceasefire to final deal, the more likely path will have fits and starts. So what should investors do with that information? On oil, our commodity strategists remain constructive on prices, given the ongoing supply uncertainty and the emergence of new chokepoints across the region. Altogether, they see those constraints keeping the market relatively tight compared to the levels we briefly saw in June when the MOU was signed. If there’s another sharp rise in oil prices, our U.S. equity strategists think that could be a key risk to the near term outlook. Our U.S. economists agree, but also think the Fed would need a bigger shock than markets previously expected to resume hiking. As a result, we expect the Fed to stay on hold this year. 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 discusses a new market cycle, in which investors are demanding more than just growth from companies.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll look at an important shift in what the market wants to see from companies going forward. It's Tuesday, August 11th at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.This week I am going back to our broadening thesis – but with a slightly different twist. Earlier in the year, broadening was about beta. It was about the market moving beyond a narrow set of mega-cap winners and rewarding economically sensitive areas as the rolling recovery took hold. In the last few episodes I’ve talked about how that phase is now over. And we’re moving from an early-cycle broadening into a mid-cycle quality rotation. In short, the market is no longer demanding just growth – but growth with durable earnings, strong margins, and free cash flow. To be clear, the broadening in earnings is still very much alive. Russell 3000 median stock earnings growth is running at 15 percent, the strongest since 2021; while median sales growth is at 8 percent, the best since 2023. At the same time, 87 percent of S&P 500 companies are beating earnings expectations this quarter, and earnings revisions breadth has rebounded to 23 percent, with 76 percent of industry groups showing positive revisions breadth. However, headline earnings are no longer enough for stock outperformance. The market is saying, ‘Show me the money’— and that’s exactly what should happen in a mid-cycle transition. When companies raise both earnings and free cash flow estimates, they are rewarded. When they only raise earnings and not free cash flow, the market is much less forgiving. Investors are no longer paying indiscriminately for growth. They want cash conversion. This is also why I think AI adoption remains such an important theme. The market is increasingly rewarding companies that can demonstrate real efficiency gains from AI, not just talk about the open-ended opportunity in abstract terms. That is a very different phase for the AI cycle. The first phase was about building the infrastructure. The next phase is about who uses it well. Companies that can translate AI adoption into better margins, better productivity, and better free cash flow should continue to be rewarded. In other words, AI is becoming less about the promise and more about the evidence.That framework tells us where to be positioned. I continue to favor quality and AI adopters. Within Financials, I prefer large-cap Financial Services, particularly Insurance and Capital Markets exposed businesses, where earnings revisions are inflecting and our regime analysis remains supportive. Within cyclicals, I like Discretionary Goods, where the wallet-share shift from services to goods, improved pricing, and better earnings revisions all point to catch-up potential. In Tech, I continue to prefer hyperscalers over semis. Semis can still participate tactically, especially after recent momentum unwinds, but the hyperscalers offer a better multi-month risk-reward. They have resilient core businesses, attractive relative valuation, and underappreciated optionality around AI-related ROI and adoption. Just as important, they are not only enablers of AI, but they are early adopters. They have the flexibility to spend less if the market becomes more demanding about capex discipline. In terms of remaining market risks for this year, I’m still watching interest rates and oil very closely. A gradual rise in nominal yields alongside strong economic and earnings data is not necessarily bearish. In fact, historically, that has been one of the better environments for equities because it brings back my ‘run it hot’ theme. Stronger nominal growth supports revenues and earnings. The problem is not the level of rates. It is the pace of change. If back-end yields rise too quickly, the cost of capital becomes a headwind for stock valuations.Bottom line, the broadening is still happening, but the market is raising the bar. Early-cycle beta is giving way to mid-cycle quality. Earnings are broadening, but free cash flow is also necessary to be fully rewarded. AI is still an important market driver, but the market wants measurable benefits and the leadership is becoming more selective within sectors rather than across them. This shift may make the market feel less euphoric in the short term, but also healthier and more sustainable in my view. This is not a market that is simply chasing momentum any more. It is starting to separate the companies that can simply talk about growth from the companies that can convert it into durable free cash flow and longer-term value.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Our U.S. Consumer Finance Analyst Jeff Adelson and our Co-Head of Securitized Product Research Jay Bacow explain why AI can transform the way Americans shop for, manage and refinance their mortgages.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Jeff Adelson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jeff Adelson, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Consumer Finance Analyst.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research, also working at Morgan Stanley.Jeff Adelson: Today, how AI could change the way Americans shop for, manage, and refinance their mortgages.It's Monday, August 10th at 10am in New York. The U.S. mortgage market is worth more than $14 trillion, and its performance ultimately depends on the choices millions of homeowners make. Today, refinancing still means shopping around, comparing offers, and working through a lot of paperwork. AI could make that process much easier, especially when rates begin to fall.Jay, you led this work on our AI mortgage blue paper. What's the main way AI could change the mortgage market, and why does the borrower matter so much?Jay Bacow: So we think the biggest change would be borrower adoption of using AI agents to manage their personal finance. An agent on your phone could just monitor mortgage rates, compare lenders, reduce the paperwork, and make homeowners more likely to refinance when the economics work.Let's think about what that could be. Historically, only about 30 percent of borrowers that had the ability to lower their mortgage rate by a 100 basis points did so in a given year. When a borrower went to get a mortgage quote, less than half of them asked more than one lender for a quote.That agent could go reach out to 30 lenders, ask for a variety of different mortgages, could upload all the documents, could do this all effectively instantaneously, present the homeowner with the best option. Allow the homeowner to effectively click a button and refinance. I think this could be pretty transformative for the mortgage market.Jeff Adelson: Now, as we think about this transformation, Jay, mortgage investors still rely heavily on past refinancing behavior trends. If AI makes borrowers more likely to refi[nance] when rates fall, how could that change the way these investors value mortgage-backed securities?Jay Bacow: Well, we all know that past performance is not indicative of future performance, and those models are likely to understate future prepayments. If you get a faster response, it's going to make mortgages more negatively convex.That's going to make the durations shorten. It's likely to widen mortgage spreads by about 10 basis points in our base case. And now, if that base case were to happen and we get, let's call it 100 basis point rally in the future, we think that that could cause something like a 40 percent pickup in refinance volumes versus our current expectations of what refinance volumes would look like in that 100 basis point rally.Jeff, you cover a lot of the largest mortgage lenders. What does this mean for their business model?Jeff Adelson: So, it's pretty straightforward. More borrowers refinancing means more loans for the industry to originate. Today, we're still sitting below what I would describe as normalized levels of originations. We're sitting at about $2 trillion of mortgage originations per year. As we think about normalized, we think that's somewhere in the order [of] around $2.5 trillion. So just that $600 billion alone could get us straight there. We tend to think about this more in our bull case, where we could see something in the order of $3 trillion of originations or more, still below what we saw during the peak COVID years of about $4 trillion or more. But still pretty meaningful and material for the industry.Now, for the scaled lenders, that can create meaningful operating leverage. Mortgage companies have historically had to hire aggressively when volumes rise, and then they've had to reduce headcount when the cycle turns. AI could allow them to process more loans with the same employee base, making their cost structures more flexible and reducing the need to rebuild capacity during every single refi[nance] wave.But the earnings benefit we don't think will necessarily match the dollar benefit from volumes. If AI makes it easier for borrowers to compare offers and allows every lender to process more loans, then competition could intensify and pressure gain on sale margins. So the opportunity is a larger market and better productivity.The key question for individual lenders is: how much of that volume can they capture without giving too much back through pricing? Now, as we think about automation, Jay, it could bring in more loans, but could also intensify competition and reduce the profit lenders can earn when they originate and sell a mortgage. So, how should investors in your space weigh those two effects? Jay Bacow: So, the mortgage investors are short the option to the mortgage homeowner of when they can refinance.And if the mortgage homeowner is going to be more efficient about refinancing, the mortgage investor is going to need to get paid more for that. They're going to demand wider spreads, and they're particularly going to demand wider spreads where that option that they're shorting is worth more. That's generally how it's going to play out, but there's also other aspects as well.That duration shortening, because the borrower's more likely to refinance, means that the investors that own that duration will need to buy some more duration against that. You're also going to see more demand for duration as rates rally. So it's going to be a bid for the low strike receivers, as our options experts will pay close attention to.And then if we get a further rally, you also get a more of an impact across the consumer writ large. You can imagine a world where mortgage rates are substantially lower than they are right now. An agent could sit there and say, "Why don't you consolidate your debt between your credit card, your auto loan payments, maybe your student loan payments and your mortgage?" Allowing consumers to save more and then maybe spend that in the economy.Jeff Adelson: If we maybe take it a step beyond refinancing, how could AI affect home sales, homeownership, and access to home equity?Jay Bacow: So let's just go back to thinking about this agent that's on your phone that's looking at all the opportunities.Traditionally, right now, most people are only calling up one lender, they're getting one quote. If your agent is looking at lots of different lenders and lots of different options, you're probably going to get more ability to take out a mortgage. So you're going to get an expansion of the homeownership rate.That's going to create more demand for housing. As rates rally, you're going to get home sale activity picks up more than it used to, and people are also going to be more able to take advantage of the equity they have in their house. So, you're going to get more usage of second liens and HELOCs and cash-out refinance activity.Once again, we think this is mostly going to happen three to five years down the road, but we're not really sure exactly how this is going to play out. So Jeff, what would be some of the signs that people could look at to see if it's playing out in the three to five-year timeline that we're expecting – or slower, maybe even faster?Jeff Adelson: Sure. So yeah, I mean, I think it's going to be similar to what we've already observed as consumers ourselves and what we're seeing with all the LLMs and AI tools we're adopting today. You should see some rapid advances in the ease of use and the adoption of these technologies from a forward-facing, client-facing perspective. What we all see in the websites, what we all see in the apps.It should become easier for us to engage with the mortgage process, compare rates to actually step into the process. Whereas today, you still need to maybe speak with a bank officer, a loan officer, or a mortgage broker to get deeper into the process and actually better understand what your rate means today.So that would be the first step. The second step would be closing speeds. The average originator today still takes about 40 to 45 days to close a mortgage. The biggest and largest originators that have invested the most in technology and AI today are closing at about, call it, 12 to 20 days. So, half the industry level. So, that should come down over time and make it much easier to actually apply and finish a mortgage.And then quite frankly, the most obvious answer would just be at the given level of rates that are outstanding today, we should see a step up in the level of refi[nance] volumes. That would be the most obvious one. But that'll be the outcome of everything else we've talked about rather than the actual cause.Jay Bacow: That makes sense. So faster refinancing, it's likely to make the mortgage market more responsive when rates fall and effects that are going to reach well beyond the borrower. Jeff Adelson: That could mean higher volumes for lenders, quicker prepayments for investors, and wider swings across housing and rates markets.Jay Bacow: Jeff, thanks for taking the time to talk.Jeff Adelson: Great speaking with you, Jay.Jay Bacow: And thank you all for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explains how U.S.-China tensions, export controls and domestic regulation are reshaping where AI is built, who controls it and what investors should watch.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a look at how government is increasingly determining the future of AI in the U.S. – from where it's built to which technologies US companies and consumers can use. It's Friday, August 7th at 10am in New York. AI is rapidly reshaping the economy and society, so this is a pivotal moment for government to consider the rules governing that development. The first area to watch is technology restrictions, particularly in the context of U.S.-China competition. Now, for much of the past decade, the government's approach has been to restrict a relatively narrow group of technologies with clear national security implications while maintaining broader commercial ties. But as export controls spread across more sectors of the economy and AI moves from software into physical infrastructure, the definition of what qualifies as national security has become broader. The Department of Commerce could, for example, expand the entity list. That would require US cloud providers, software companies, and model marketplaces to remove or stop supporting models tied to designated Chinese developers. Congress could then make those restrictions more durable through things like the annual defense bill or other policy vehicles. We're keeping an eye on several legislative proposals, like the AI Overwatch Act, which would tighten controls and give congressional oversight around exports of the most advanced AI chips; and the MATCH Act, which would extend restrictions further upstream to semiconductor manufacturing equipment and seek closer alignment with allied producers. These measures wouldn't directly ban Americans from using a Chinese model, but they could constrain China's ability to train future frontier systems. But it's not just the US that could impose a set of restrictions. China has a parallel set of tools focused more on integration and market access. Regulators could block four models or APIs. They could require locally controlled deployment. They could impose Chinese data and content standards or use cybersecurity and entity list authorities to promote domestic substitutes. The likely result is an increasingly distinct pair of AI ecosystems. That's our two worlds thesis in practice. Over time, we think that means a bifurcated global AI market into separate technology ecosystems. That looks like the U.S. relying on export controls, allied supply chains, and largely closed frontier model platforms, while China emphasizes domestic hardware, open-weight models, subsidized compute, and localization. Over time, that bifurcation could produce different chips, models, standards, data rules, and distribution channels, while third countries navigate between the competing stacks. The second area to watch is domestic regulation. Today, the landscape is pretty fragmented. States are moving first on certain specific issues, including automated decision-making and child safety. Now, at the same time, Congress is confronting competing objectives from industry, consumer groups, and national security officials. So far, we think the evidence suggests that the administration's preference is for a light-touch approach, a largely voluntary national framework rather than a broad new licensing regime. But it's also moving toward more direct oversight of the most advanced models. That includes the possibility to play a more active role prior to model release to ensure that certain protections like cybersecurity and intellectual property are met. Publicly outlined priorities from industry seem to broadly overlap with that approach: a consistent federal framework, clearer liability standards, access to data, compute, and power, and copyright rules that don't materially limit model training. But of course, the industry isn't monolithic. There are some important nuances between frontier developers and other players. So, what does all this mean for investors? The government's reaction function will be critical to the way AI is developed and diffused throughout our society in two key ways. First, we see regulation altering not only the pace, but also the geography of AI infrastructure. At the same time, we think these constraints could strengthen the investment case for bottleneck solutions like on-site power generation, fuel cells, storage, and more. Second, greater technology bifurcation supports investment in parallel supply chains. The key takeaway here is that the government is no longer simply regulating the industry from the sidelines. It's helping to determine how fast AI develops through domestic rules, where it develops through infrastructure, permitting, and sovereign AI policy, and which technologies are accessible through export controls and market access restrictions. 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.

America’s biggest banks are opening more local branches. Our Head of U.S. Large Cap and Mid Cap Banks Research Manan Gosalia looks at the merits of physical locations.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Manan Gosalia: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Manan Gosalia, Morgan Stanley's Head of US Large Cap and Mid Cap Banks Research. Today: why the bank branch you pass on your commute may matter more than you think. It's Thursday, August 6th at 10am in New York. When was the last time you went to your bank? You probably do most of your daily banking online and maybe go to the local branch for occasional transactions, like getting a certified check or talking to a financial advisor. So, you might think that bank branches are fading into the background. But America's biggest banks are actually accelerating their investments in physical locations. That shift could reshape the competition for your deposits. In our research, we looked at where 12 large U.S. banks are expanding their footprints, and we identified 57 target markets. 34 of those markets are being pursued by multiple banks, and nine of those markets are being pursued by five or more banks.Since mid 2025, about 80 percent of these banks' new branches have opened in those markets. Most of the expansion is happening in the Southeast and Texas, with additional activity in the Midwest and several major metropolitan areas. 95 percent of the target markets have either above median projected population growth or they have ranked in the top 10 percent for deposit growth. That helps explain why Nashville and Atlanta are each targeted by seven of the banks, while Miami, Dallas, and Denver are targeted by six. These are places where households and businesses are growing and where banks see an opportunity to build relationships that could last for decades. The central question is whether physical branches still attract deposits. The evidence suggests that they do. From 2022 to 2025, 90 percent of the time when a large bank increased their branch share in the market, their deposit share also increased. But to become a real contender, a few scattered branches are not enough. Banks generally need at least a mid-single-digit share of local branches to compete effectively. At 10 percent or more branch share, deposit share exceeds branch share by a median 3.5 percentage points. So, density, not just presence, is what matters. Most large banks that we looked at have not reached that level. 60 percent of their positions in expansion markets remain below 5 percent market share. And so, this build-out looks like the beginning of a long competitive cycle. Even then, the pressure is already visible in what banks are paying for deposits now. The highest offered retail certificate of deposit rates are higher in the South compared to the Northeast. Higher rates do make deposits more expensive for banks to fund. In fact, evidence from the recent earnings reports suggest that this may already be happening. And we expect higher funding and branch costs to pressure bank margins and lift expenses into 2027. This means the cost of gathering core deposits could move structurally higher. And the lesson is surprisingly old school. You can do almost everything on an app, but a branch on the corner still carries weight. 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.

From short-term interest rates to long-term bond yields, the Fed's credibility is being tested. Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets discussed inflation, Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh's outlook, and the options ahead.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today: Can the Fed hold the line? It's Wednesday, August 5th at 2pm in London. The Federal Reserve has a difficult job. The U.S. economy is a complex and varied ecosystem that covers everything from brain surgery to your burger order. The Fed is asked to keep prices stable and people employed using, for the most part, just one simple tool. A short-term interest rate, and without any control over what government policy or global events might bring. Currently, the Fed probably feels pretty good about its success with one half of this – in the job market, given that the unemployment rate is near historical lows. But it probably feels less successful about price stability. Over the last five years, overall prices in the U.S. economy have risen over 20 percent based on the Fed's preferred inflation measure. That's roughly double the increase that a goal of 2 percent annual inflation would otherwise bring. Into this complexity steps a new Fed chair, Kevin Warsh. He has emphasized two changes for his tenure. First, that inflation is too high and needs to come down. And second, that the Fed has historically communicated too much with the market, which Chair Warshkeep thinks has helped contribute to investors potentially taking too much risk while also restricting the Fed's options to act. What markets are now processing is a potential tension between these two goals. After all, high inflation is an immediate issue. In a world where the Fed is hoping to keep price increases at about 2 percent per year, their preferred measure, PCE inflation, is rising more than 3 percent on an annualized basis over the last three, six, and 12 months. In the latest ISM Manufacturing Survey, [the] measure of price increases among manufacturers is well above normal. In the face of that, one option for the Fed to combat this inflation would have been to raise interest rates. It didn't do that. Another would be to suggest that it was very close to taking action and likely to move soon. It didn't do that either. Indeed, our economists think that the market took Chair Warsh's lack of guidance and action at the most recent Fed's meeting to suggest a pretty high bar for rate hikes; and even the potential to redefine the Fed's 2 percent inflation target in favor of something more general and unspecified. The result was a market reaction that would suggest less focus on inflation. The prospects for rate hikes were reduced, the yield curve steepened, led by a sell-off of long-end yields, measures of expected inflation rose, and the U.S. dollar weakened. In the days since, markets have settled a bit. But the result is going to be a market that is now going to be much more sensitive to incoming inflation data. If that inflation data moderates in the second half of this year, as we at Morgan Stanley expect, then the Fed's approach could look justified – as the data suggests that neither action nor more communication about what they're going to do is necessary. But if inflation doesn't cooperate, the challenge becomes immediate. Christopher Waller, another member of the Fed, recently said that "Sternly staring at inflation until it melts before our withering gaze is not an option." The market will expect action and expect a framework explaining that action. Until that point, our rate strategists think that yield curves will continue to steepen. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Head of US Public Policy Strategy Ariana Salvatore and US Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver, alongside Senior Economist and Strategist in Morgan Stanley’s Private Wealth Management Sarah Wolfe, examine the economics of the AI datacentre boom, the pushback and the policy implications.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Michelle Weaver: I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, Senior Economist and Strategist with Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Ariana Salvatore: Today: the politics, economics, and market implications of America's AI data center build-out. It's Tuesday, August 4th at 10am in New York. AI infrastructure spending is becoming a major force in the U.S. investment cycle. But as you've heard on this podcast in recent weeks, local resistance to data centers is growing, and projects worth hundreds of billions of dollars are being canceled or delayed. More than 300 local moratoria have passed since 2023, and restrictions now touch 40 states. Now, most are temporary pauses, not outright bans, but the community opposition is tangible. For investors, the key question is how these local pressures shape the broader build-out. So, I wanted to talk to you both because, Sarah, you've looked at this on the local level, and Michelle, you've been leading some of our thematic work on this topic. So, Sarah, maybe we'll start with what happens when a data center comes to town. How does a large project ripple through a local economy, especially when so much of the expensive hardware is imported? Sarah Wolfe: I think we need to look at the data center build-out from two lenses. First, at the national level, and then what's really happening at the local level, county by county. So, at the national level, the headline investment can actually overstate the contribution to GDP because a lot of the components that go into data centers – think chips, servers, networking equipment – most of that is imported. So, it's actually an offset in the GDP accounting.But when we analyze the AI build-out at a local level, we see that the town experiences the project very differently. A data center still needs a physical shell, concrete, steel, electricians, construction workers, and then the restaurants that feed the construction workers. So, the local multiplier depends on how much of that spending around the data center stays nearby. Workers are going to get paid, local suppliers win contracts, and nearby businesses will see more demand. And then importantly, governments may collect more property and business tax revenue. When we look at county-level research on the AI data center build-out, we do see positive effects on employment, business formation, wages, income, and tax returns. So, these data centers are significant. They do have significant multipliers. But we need to dig a little bit deeper and look at how it affects different counties. Ariana Salvatore: So, it sounds like there are some local economic benefits. How durable do you think those are? Sarah Wolfe: Some of the effects are durable and some aren't. The largest and most important effects come through employment in the near term. If we look at the construction phase of these projects, let's look at a data center that's 250,000 square foot, in Virginia. That supports more than 1,500 workers during construction. But then, if we look at what happens after construction is done, there's only about 50 full-time workers once it's operating. And I will say I think that's a high-end estimate. If you look at how many workers these data centers employ state by state, some numbers are 10, some numbers are 20, and some are 30 employees. So, 50 is maybe on the higher end. So, the bottom line is that the labor market multiplier actually fades after the facility comes online. What does persist, are the smaller share of data center processing jobs, ongoing supplier and service activity, and then importantly, of course, the property tax base. But even that fiscal benefit depends on how the incentive package is designed. If a locality, for example, grants a very large, long-lived sales or property tax exemption, it may give away much of the revenue that made the project attractive in the first place. So, the job story is real, but it's much more front-loaded. And then the tax revenue story is real too, but it really matters on how the locality negotiated the incentive package. Ariana Salvatore: So, it sounds like there are some benefits and some potential drawbacks. How do you think communities should judge whether a trade-off like that is worth it? Sarah Wolfe: I think communities should be asking this question of how much spending and tax revenue actually stays local after all the incentives? How many jobs remain after construction? Who pays for new generation transmission, water system, and roads? And who bears the spillovers through utility bills, housing costs, or land use? The evidence does suggest that data center growth can lift incomes and expand the tax base. But it also raises home prices. And as we know, it raises electricity prices as well. A typical AI data center may use as much electricity as 100,000 homes, so cost allocation is critical. The strongest agreements make benefits durable and costs explicit through transparent reporting, sunset dates or claw backs on incentives, infrastructure cost-sharing, and protections that keep the household from subsidizing this build-out. The test is really whether the community captures enough lasting value to justify the demands on land, power, water, housing, and public finances. Ariana Salvatore: Michelle, I want to bring you in here. The local picture that Sarah describes helped explain why the politics can be so uneven. How are moratoria and other local restrictions changing the pace and the location of the build-out, maybe on a national scale? Michelle Weaver: I think you have to think about just the different type of moratoria themselves even. So, we're not seeing them uniform across different states in what's been proposed.However, the majority of moratoria are a pause, not a[n] outright ban on construction. So, they might say, "Okay, we want one year," or "We want three years to do local impact studies and, and think about the way these data centers are going to impact communities." So, the primary risk is really to the pace of the build-out, and as more and more of these moratoria pop up, you have to start to think about how that could shift the geography and the location of where these data centers will ultimately be built. We are seeing a shift towards more data centers being placed in rural locations. This also has implications for the international data center build-out. You're seeing more and more of these data centers go up in Canada and in Australia to serve U.S. needs. Ariana Salvatore: The polling data show us that voters are increasingly skeptical of AI. Specifically, they're worried about electricity prices and local costs. How should investors read that concern? Michelle Weaver: Well, there's a couple things we have to unpack here. First is really around perception. So, in certain areas where you have both high data center activity as well as unregulated utility markets; yes, it's true, there is some of this raised cost ending up on consumer power bills from data center activity. But in other areas with unregulated utility markets and lower data center activity, you don't see the same link between consumer power bills and what's going on with data center electricity consumption. But perception is what really drives politics and given that this perception is becoming spread across different states with both regulated and unregulated utility markets, politicians are reacting to it. And the second thing this gets at is affordability. Consumers have been stressed by inflation for years now and elevated prices. And given that they think that data center costs are now winding up on their power bills, it's not surprising that you're seeing this big reaction, and that anything having to do with affordability has become a huge issue for voters. Ariana Salvatore: Translating that into how we think things evolve from here, what industry and financing trends do you think matter most going forward? Michelle Weaver: We recently identified the three main bottlenecks for the data center build-out as power, people, and politics. This whole episode has been about that third P, politics, but let's unpack power and people. On power, we still think there's a potential shortfall of around 38 gigawatts needed through 2028. So, power is going to remain a huge bottleneck, and as the politics layer gets placed on top of the power layer, you're seeing more and more of an issue there. And so, what that really argues for is for data centers to be off grid. That way they can say, "Okay, there's no way we can potentially impact consumer power bills if we're not even connected to the grid." The second P, people, is another big bottleneck, and we're seeing a very tough time for data centers to get skilled laborers. It's very hard to find electricians right now and other skilled laborers needed to set up these data centers. Ariana, that brings us to the policy debate. Why is data center opposition moving from town halls into state houses and Congress? And what does this mean for a conditional build-out? Ariana Salvatore: Yes, I think the points that you both touched on really explain why we're seeing this sort of pushback evolve, right?Local communities are concerned about their electricity prices. Again, we see that on more a regional than a national basis. They're concerned about quality-of-life concerns. They're concerned about the environmental impacts. And so, all of that has caused these efforts to sort of cross state lines. We see it in both Democrat-held state legislatures as well as Republican-held. So, it's definitely resonating with voters, and this is an issue that we think is going to be a key wedge issue into the midterm elections. It started to move into Congress rhetorically, but we still think something like a federal ban or a federal moratorium is very unlikely. And that's because we see a different incentive structure for lawmakers in Congress from the state and local level. Principally, I'm talking about the U.S.-China relationship. So, when you look at the geopolitical backdrop to this debate, there are certain things that you can't ignore. And one of those things is that the U.S. and China are locked in this race for AI supremacy at the moment. And I think federal lawmakers have more of an incentive to respond to those policy demands and those policy needs, meaning they want to keep facilitating the build-out.So that's why you're seeing the national level still relatively supportive of this build-out. We're seeing permitting reform. We're seeing Defense Production Act being leveraged by the president. We're seeing still an overall very favorable environment trying to unlock, sort of, that power bottleneck, for example. So that's kind of what brings us to this conditional build-out. Now, what does that mean? We think that the hyperscalers in these companies are going to have to offer some concession to local communities to facilitate the build-out. And that could be a number of things. I think it depends on the state's concern or the local community's concern principally, but we see a few different options. One of those things is behind-the-meter power generation. So on-site power is one of the clear kind of offsets to this debate. Another thing would be improving utilization rates. So, our sustainability analysts found that the capacity utilization rates are actually quite low at some of these data centers in the range of 30 to 40 percent. So maybe that can be increased. We've got some potential new regulations or transparency requirements around water usage. So, the short of it is, there's not going to be a one-size-fits-all solution here. But we think there's enough on the policy side that these companies can do or offer essentially to local communities. So that the entire build-out doesn't get delayed or doesn't get stopped. And, and that's kind of why we still expect elevated AI CapEx, not just this year, but next year as well. We think that the risks are skewed to the upside for those numbers.Sarah Wolfe: Ariana, I want to touch back to the comment you made on low odds of a nationwide ban on AI data center build-out – and tie it to this broader competition between the U.S. and China, with global supremacy in AI. Can you talk a little bit more about how competition with China is going to prevent a nationwide ban and some of the national security concerns around that? Ariana Salvatore: This ties into the theme of sovereign AI, which is something that we've been focused on recently, especially with all these discussions of more tech restrictions and controls between the U.S. and China. And specifically, it's one of the reasons that we think the geographical build-out will be constrained to either just the U.S. domestically or countries that we are closely aligned with. And really the point I want to make here is that there's three geopolitical realities that are going to form, we think, the incentive structure for federal lawmakers and that are slightly different from the things that state and local policymakers tend to focus on. The first is that we're seeing China leverage its supply chain position to pressure the physical inputs required for AI infrastructure, right? So, we're seeing that tit-for-tat escalation in the context of a broader strategic détente, but there's still a competitive aspect there. The second is that we know China's accelerating its own physical AI build-out. Reporting indicates they're spending something like $300 billion over five years on its own domestic network, so very much full steam ahead in terms of its own domestic potential. And the third is that research has identified China-linked influence operations that use an American frontier model to generate social media posts, comments, and political cartoons linking the data center construction to rising energy prices. So, there's still a little bit of uncertainty as to whether or not those campaigns actually influence public opinion at scale. But in our view, it really underscores the linkage between national security and geopolitics and the AI data center build-out. All these developments together we think underscore the physical component of the AI race and make something like a national data center ban or federal legislation toward those ends really difficult to reconcile with the growing bipartisan strategic imperative around AI, which is something that we think persists past the midterms as well. But at the end of the day, the pace of the AI build-out will depend not just on demand, but on how well projects address the concerns of the communities hosting them. That's why we think this conditional build-out is probably the right base case for now. Michelle and Sarah, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Michelle Weaver: Great speaking with you both. Sarah Wolfe: Thank you, Ariana. Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.*****Sarah Wolfe is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why investors should favor quality as the market moves from early-cycle momentum to more disciplined, mid-cycle leadership.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the ongoing transition in the economic recovery from early to mid-cycle.It's Monday, August 3rd at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So, let’s get after it.Following on from my podcasts the past few weeks, I want to reiterate our key call that the economy and the market are moving from early to mid-cycle. That may sound like strategist jargon, but it has very real implications for leadership, positioning, and how one should think about the next phase of this bull market.For much of the past year, the market was rewarding early-cycle characteristics and behavior. Lower-quality, higher beta stocks, and the most explosive earnings revision stories led the way. That made sense. We were coming out of a rolling recession, operating leverage was improving rapidly, and earnings revisions were accelerating off of depressed levels. But as the business cycle matures, the market typically becomes more discerning. It starts to ask a harder question: not just who can grow, but who can sustain that growth with stable earnings, strong margins, and free cash flow generation.In other words, quality starts to matter again.That’s exactly where we are now. The rotation towards quality has begun, and I don’t view that as a bearish development for the broader market even if it’s bad for some of the former leaders. The S&P 500 is a very high-quality, large cap index. So, while the market may continue to consolidate in the near term, the quality rotation should ultimately support index resilience and help the S&P 500 work its way toward our 8000 year-end target.The big market event last week was the capitulation in the historic momentum unwind. Momentum sold off hard, and semiconductors were at the center of it. That shouldn’t surprise anyone who has followed our work over the past several months. We’ve been using the Silver stock analog to think about semis, and remarkably, the semi index bottomed almost exactly where that analog suggested.That argues for a tradable bounce in semiconductors over the next few weeks. However, the more important point is that semis may struggle to reclaim leadership for the rest of the year. Semis are a classic early-cycle group, and this is increasingly becoming a mid-cycle, quality-led market. The Silver stock analog would support the same conclusion.The provocative way to say it is this: the AI cycle is not over, but the easy money in the most crowded AI beneficiaries may be. The AI investment cycle still has plenty of runway, but the market is no longer rewarding capex blindly. It’s asking for evidence of return on invested capital, adoption, monetization, and operational discipline. Last week’s performance gap between Microsoft and Meta was a perfect example. It wasn’t random. It was about capex discipline. The market is rewarding more prudent spending, and that could translate into a real overhang for the capex beneficiaries, in line with my views for the past several months.That is why I still prefer hyperscalers over semis, with one important caveat: dispersion within the hyperscalers is rising. The group has already outperformed semis by 30% over the past four weeks, and I think it can continue over the next several months. Hyperscalers have resilient core businesses, exposure to the AI application layer, and an underappreciated ability to use AI to reduce operating expenses if needed. They’re both enablers and adopters. But the market will no longer treat them all the same. The winners will be the companies that can show return on investment, communicate capex discipline, and preserve earnings quality.This is also why AI adoption is becoming so important. The next leg of the story is not just about who builds the infrastructure. It’s about who can use it more effectively. Our work shows that companies where AI is material to the investment thesis and pricing power is neutral to strong, are already seeing margin expectations improve. Relative net margins for that group have expanded by 50 basis points in just three months, and they now sit nearly 400 basis points above the broader market. That’s not hype. That’s operating leverage with a new engine.The Fed is the other major piece of the puzzle. Chair Warsh stayed on hold last week, but he remains tight-lipped about his reaction function. Markets are still adjusting to a Fed that wants to rely less on forward guidance and more on unfiltered market signals. I think that’s a healthy development over the longer term, but transitions are rarely smooth. The biggest risk to this consolidation turning into a correction is if the 10-year yields rise above 5%. Such a rise could weigh on equity multiples and force the Fed to either revert to its old ways of guiding the markets or provide more liquidity to calm rate markets.Bottom line, the bull market is not over, but it is changing. As we move from early to mid-cycle in this recovery, the equity market wants higher quality. Semis may bounce, but they are unlikely to be the leader again. Meanwhile, hyperscalers will likely continue to trade better, with the best ones exhibiting more capital discipline. More importantly, AI adoption is moving from promise to measurable margin benefit. This is what mid-cycle looks like: less forgiving, more discerning, but still constructive for investors who follow the rotation rather than fight it.Thanks for tuning in, I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Our Strategist Michelle Weaver talks to Michael Zezas and Jessica Alsford, Co-Directors of the Morgan Stanley Institute, about how AI, energy resilience and industrial policy are changing investment decisions.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Michael Zezas: I'm Michael Zezas, co-director of the Morgan Stanley Institute and Deputy Global Head of Morgan Stanley Research.Jessica Alsford: And I'm Jessica Alsford, Morgan Stanley's Chief Sustainability Officer, and also co-director of the Morgan Stanley Institute.Michelle Weaver: Today: how AI, energy, geopolitics, and industrial investment are competing for scarce resources – and what that competition could mean for markets.It's Friday, July 31st at 10am in New York.Jessica Alsford: And 3 pm in London.Michelle Weaver: Mike and Jess, as co-directors, you speak with people across the firm to identify the biggest questions facing companies and investors, especially the important ones that may not have clear answers yet. And to understand how those questions are shaping client conversations. Mike, what's one of the questions that you think investors are wrestling with the most right now?Michael Zezas: So, one of the biggest questions is how several major investment cycles can happen at the same time. AI, energy infrastructure, manufacturing, and defense may all be competing for the same power, the same skilled labor, equipment, and capital. So, investors need to look beyond each theme in isolation and ask where constraints could delay projects, raise costs, or redirect spending, and which companies are best positioned to manage all of that.Michelle Weaver: Since the institute began, you've examined a number of topics, including AI, energy resilience, and geopolitical fragmentation, just to name a few. Jess, which topic has been the most compelling to you?Jessica Alsford: It's difficult to pick one because, to be honest, for me, it's really the way that AI, energy resilience, and geopolitics have all really become one story. If you think about the energy transition, which has been playing out for a number of years. But now we also have the AI build-out, and that depends on reliable and affordable power. And then geopolitical shocks, which are demonstrating the need for countries to have energy security.So, if you put all of this together and you can really see that there is a huge need to scale the global energy system, but using all types of power available to us, including renewables and nuclear.Michelle Weaver: Mike, how is that intersection that Jess spoke about between AI, energy, and geopolitics altering the way that companies are thinking about investing?Michael Zezas: So, geopolitical shocks, they're more norm than exception now. The situations in Iran, Ukraine, Venezuela, they all reflect an evolving international order where the U.S. is less interested than it used to be in preserving global security and trade standards.And that's a particular problem in a world where companies and governments spent much of the last 50 years optimizing to benefit from globalization. So basically, looking for the lowest cost way to produce things, sourcing materials and labor in the most efficient way possible, presuming that the frictions in international goods and services trade would just keep getting lower.That's obviously not the case now, and whether it's a good idea or not, the trend is toward governments leaning into industrial policy to prioritize supply chain security and protect whatever it sees as their national competitive advantages. And really that's correlated with higher trade barriers. So, that means that while companies are still focused on efficiency, they have to build resilience through more regional supply chains, greater redundancy, and investment in strategically important capacity. So, the practical message from our teams is to map critical dependencies, diversify where possible, and be realistic about the extra cost of resilience rather than assuming the old globalization model will simply return.Michelle Weaver: One of the clearest constraints on the AI build-out is energy. Our thematic research team is estimating a nearly 40-gigawatt shortfall in power needed for data centers. For context, this is multiple New Yorks worth of power. Jess, how significant of a limiting factor is power becoming?Jessica Alsford: Power is definitely becoming a strategic constraint. If you think about grid connections, these can take years to set up. And so, access to power really is going to determine where facilities are built and how quickly they're able to come online. And it looks like there won't be one universal solution.You've got natural gas, nuclear, renewables, storage, microgrids. They're all going to need to play a role. And for companies, that means that they really are going to have to be planning power alongside the site and financing. For investors, it means focusing on reliability, affordability, and permitting, not just headline demand.Michelle Weaver: So, AI, energy, and geopolitics can no longer be considered in isolation. As countries and companies rethink where they source, build, and invest, where do you see the biggest opportunities emerging?Jessica Alsford: The opportunity is likely to be broader than any single sector, to be honest. and the institute has shown that capital really needs to be flowing towards more resilient supply chains as well as new productive capacity and also the infrastructure that supports both of these. And this covers power, grids, automation, logistics, as well as data. I'd also say that location matters, too. And companies need to be able to weigh political stability as well as skilled labor, reliable energy, and policy support. And investors should be looking for markets and businesses that can turn those advantages into durable returns.Michelle Weaver: The institute has also looked at founders as a source of economic information. Jess, what can their decisions reveal before those changes appear in traditional economic data?Jessica Alsford: So, founders are often making decisions at the leading edge of growth and capital formation, and so their behavior can provide an early read on both at-risk appetite and also financing conditions. If we take the current macro environment as an example of this, the institute has shown that many founders are adapting rather than simply waiting, and this means extending fundraising timelines, spawning investor conversations, and considering private credit, structured equity or tender offers. For companies, the takeaway really is to preserve financing flexibility. And for investors, it's to watch how those choices can reshape private market liquidity.Michelle Weaver: Mike, to bring this back to where we started, if power, labor, and capital are all becoming more constrained, what should investors be watching most closely?Michael Zezas: Yeah. I'd watch whether capital spending plans are being delayed or resized or redirected in some way, and I think importantly, what the reasons would be for any of those things happening.Is there a constraint around power or labor or equipment permitting or financing? Those details help distinguish whether you'd be looking at temporary setbacks or a structural shift. So, something that would signal that we've built too much capacity in AI or manufacturing relative to demand. And that's the type of thing that would be a real headwind to the economic outlook and potentially create problems in the credit markets.But to be clear, we don't see demand flagging anytime soon. And so, for investors, it's less about whether to be bullish or bearish on the outlook for the markets and the economy, and it's more about looking for companies that are durable beneficiaries of these trends. So those are ones with secure inputs, flexible balance sheets, and realistic return thresholds.Michelle Weaver: Absolutely. As Mike said, we don't see demand slowing, and we're seeing a lot of encouraging data points around AI adoption. One analysis we did recently shows that around 25 percent of S&P companies are now quantifying the benefits they're seeing from AI adoption. And this diffusion story is only going to continue to grow.Mike, Jess, thanks for joining me.Michael Zezas: Thanks Michelle.Jessica Alsford: It’s great speaking with you both.Michelle Weaver: And to our listeners, thanks for tuning in. If this is all piquing your interest, you can find the institute's articles, roundtables, and future work on Morgan Stanley's website. And as always, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and share the podcast with a friend or colleague.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd explains why the recent AI infrastructure selloff may reflect technical pressures, not weakening fundamentals.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research.Today: Are investors misreading the AI infrastructure selloff?It’s Thursday, July 30th, at 10am in New York.The recent selloff in AI infrastructure stocks has raised a familiar question: Is the buildout running ahead of real demand? The market is pulling back and we think that reflects profit-taking, crowded positioning, and forced selling by investors. This is not about weaker fundamentals. But the selloff has brought to light three key concerns, which we think the market is overplaying.The first concern is how much enterprises are willing to pay for AI. The median enterprise employee currently generates less than $11 a month in token spending. That’s the fee paid when an AI model processes a request and generates a response.We think there is room for that to increase. From the employer’s perspective the economics are compelling. Across workplace applications, the cost to execute the economic task would be $2-$5. And that could save an enterprise $55. That to us suggests companies are likely to spend more, not less, on AI over time.The second debate centers on efficient models, including competitive models developed in China. And here, policy responses both from the U.S. and China can have an impact as well. Some investors worry that better efficiency means less computing demand. But we see the opposite risk. This is a classic example of Jevons paradox: When something becomes cheaper or more efficient to use, people use more of it. In AI, lower costs can attract more users, encourage more frequent use, and make complicated applications more economical. The scale is striking. Industry leaders estimate that compute demand could double every six months, which would amount to more than a thousand-fold increase in compute over five years. Hyperscalers could quadruple available power capacity to roughly 120 gigawatts by 2028, from about 30 gigawatts in 2025.And that leads to the third debate – whether data centers can secure enough power to keep expanding. It’s a valid concern. In the U.S., facilities under construction and contracted grid capacity cover about 30 gigawatts. That’s less than half the 68 gigawatts of power that data centers are likely to need from 2026 through 2028. Grid connections can take five to seven years in some regions. Skilled electricians, welders, and pipefitters are in short supply. And local opposition is increasing as communities debate electricity bills, tax incentives, and who should pay for grid upgrades.These are real obstacles, but we view them as delays rather than dead ends. Onsite generation, fuel cells, energy storage, natural gas turbines, and the conversion of existing high-power sites could close the gap, at least partially.We believe much of the recent weakness in AI infrastructure has been driven by technical factors rather than a change in the underlying fundamentals. As AI becomes more capable and cheaper to use, demand for intelligence, compute, and power is likely to keep rising. The global market is fragmented as policy decisions in the U.S. and China shape how growth unfolds. But strong economics should support continued investment.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.

How much runway does the world’s energy market still have? Our Head of Commodity Research Martijn Rats joins our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets to explain what’s causing pressure beyond renewed tensions in the Middle East.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today – talking about the recent volatility and the direction ahead for oil.It's Wednesday, July 29th at 2pm in London.Martijn, it's great to talk to you again. We haven't talked for a little while on this program. But oil is once again back in the headlines and it's moving around.So maybe to just jump right into things, as you look at the lay of the land in global energy markets at the moment, what's been happening? What are you telling clients?Martijn Rats: Okay. Well, we've had a large amount of volatility, over the last couple of weeks. If you roll the clock back, sort of, to the beginning of June. In the beginning of June, it started to become clear that already some more oil was leaking out of the Strait of Hormuz than perhaps, many of us anticipated at the time.But that data has been confirmed since then. And then, of course, in the middle of June, we got the memorandum of understanding. And after that, roughly 100-150 million barrels a day or so that was behind the Strait of Hormuz got cleared. And that…Andrew Sheets: These were tankers that were stuck there during the conflict, all came out.Martijn Rats: Absolutely. Laden tankers that were there; had just basically turned into floating storage for a good couple of months. They all cleared out, and that actually created a bit of a glut, in the sense that all of a sudden, the refiners of this world had a lot of crude to absorb. And we saw many indications of physical looseness in the market, physical differentials, calendar spreads.All sorts of indicators pointed that physically there was a lot of oil, temporarily to be absorbed. And the spot price of Brent fell to $70. And that looked to be the new direction of travel. In principle, the world is not short of oil if you take the geopolitics out of it.So, for a while it, it looked bearish. But then a new set of disruptions came, and the military conflict restarted, and we've had 13 days of overnight bombing. And with that also the flow through the Strait of Hormuz diminished again. And we are back in the last, sort of, week, 10 days to very, very low levels. The same levels we had in March.The flow through the strait is not exactly zero. But it's sort of 2-3 million barrels a day, sort of, down 80 percent to 90 percent of what it was before the conflict. And with that, prices have rallied. But on top of that, last week it looked like the military activity could really scale up. And for a couple of days, the markets priced that in.But then we have other choke points to take into account now. Not only Hormuz, but the Bab el-Mandeb, the CPC terminal, the issues in global refining. Altogether, it's been a tremendously volatile period. So, we're on the whole leaning towards the constructive side because there are so many disruptions in the system. But it's a very hard one to call at the moment.Andrew Sheets: So Martijn, let's talk about those other disruptions besides just the Strait of Hormuz. Because yeah, it's not just the Strait of Hormuz anymore. We have issues in the Red Sea. You have ongoing issues with Russian energy infrastructure that's being attacked by Ukraine. Just what are these other factors that are out there? And how much do they matter relative to, you know, how many ships are passing through the Strait of Hormuz?Martijn Rats: Yeah. They matter a lot, and you can see that expressed in the price of refined product more than the price of crude. If you look at the main global benchmark for the price of diesel, which is arguably the ICE gas-oil contract, which are diesel barges delivered in Rotterdam or in the wider ARA area, it's trading at about $1,200 a ton, which is sort of $150-$160 per barrel.That's where you see the tightness. And so out of the total end user price, the refiners are capturing more at the moment than the crude suppliers. But what end users pay is not $85 per barrel for Brent crude oil, it's $1,200 a ton for diesel. And that is a very high price. Now, that is a result effectively of four major issues that the oil market has to deal with.One of them is Hormuz, as just discussed. But then we come to these other three. And these other three are the Bab el-Mandeb, which is the strait on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula that provides entry and exit to the Red Sea. That strait has gained in importance because Saudi Arabia has been redirecting about 4 million barrels a day of crude oil supply that was previously exported via Hormuz. Now through the East-West Pipeline to a terminal near a city called Yanbu, from where it is loaded and mostly sails down south through the Bab el-Mandab to refineries in Asia.The Bab el-Mandab is a strait that is effectively controlled by the Houthis, which is an Iran-aligned group that controls much of Yemen. And already in [20]24, earlier in [20]25, they've been very effective, controlling tanker traffic through that strait. And in the last sort of week or so, they have said that they will no longer allow Saudi tankers to sail out. And also, that group has executed drone attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure near the Jazan refinery, near the Yanbu terminal, and overnight also the Abqaiq facility, which is a large oil processing plant.So, this whole Red Sea situation puts at risk something like an incremental 3.5 million barrels a day of crude.Then we've had to deal with issues at the CPC terminal, which is again, also a very large oil export terminal. About 1.5-2 million barrels a day of crude is exported from CPC, which is a terminal near the Russian city of Novorossiysk.Ukraine has been executing drone attacks on tankers that have been trying to load from the CPC terminal. Much of last week, the CPC terminal was out. Over the last 24 hours, a few tankers have loaded again, but it's very unreliable. It's on again, off again. It's a very disrupted flow. In and of itself, a single terminal loading 1.5-2 million barrels a day is very, very large. So, we care.And then the third issue that the oil market has been dealing with, and this also comes back to this issue about these refined product prices, is very severe tightness in the global refining system. That is an issue of some refineries can't export because they're behind the Strait of Hormuz again.So, you can say, "Well, isn't that; that's sort of the same problem?" But nevertheless, it expresses it somewhere else. It's partly a problem of, sort of, the Chinese refinery system running very low. But it's recently mostly been driven by Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian refineries. And by now, something like 60 percent of the Russian refining system is out.And with that, exports of refined products have declined very significantly. There's a gasoline export ban. There's a diesel export ban from Russia. Russia used to be a very large diesel exporter. That is now down to practically zero. And with that, refined product markets have rallied severely on top of the price of crude.Andrew Sheets: And I think that's interesting [be]cause when we think about the economic impact of oil, while, you know, the price of oil per barrel is often the most kind of visible marker that we have – it's often the refined product that we actually use. You know, a truck is running on diesel. It's not running on crude oil.And, you know, that cost of diesel, of jet fuel, of gasoline, you know, that is the thing that can often really affect business margins. And the ability to operate and move product around. So, I mean, just give a sense like how much have those diesel prices gone up? And how much further could they rise if you're operating, you know, a trucking company in Europe?Martijn Rats: Yeah. Look, when supply is inherently scarce, we often ask the question – what is the demand destruction price, right? If you can't supply the stuff quick enough, the physical oil market, be it crude or refined product, must balance.There are a finite number of molecules in the system, and we can store them for a bit. We can take them out of storage. But when you take storage into account, molecules can't disappear out of nowhere. And they can't create it out of nowhere either. So, the system must balance. And if you can't supply it quick enough, the only way to balance sometimes is through demand destruction.And then we ask the question, what is the price that effectively causes that to happen? And if you look historically, that is often expressed in crude, something like $140-$150 a barrel. We've seen that before. But those were occasions where refining was not an issue. And then crude needs to do the heavy lifting to drive prices higher.What we're having at the moment is that refined products need to do it. And so, from experience earlier in the year, back in 2022, some other occasions, the price that destroys diesel demand is probably in the order of $1,400 a ton. In the diesel market, we use tons rather than barrels for historical reasons. Just to make it easy.But it's about $1,400 a ton, which is about sort of, you know, like $180-$190 per barrel. That really stops diesel demand in its track. At the moment, we're $1,230-$1,240, that sort of level. And so, we are getting close. There is probably a little bit more to go, like another 5 percent, 10 percent, that sort of thing, before you really hit some exceptionally high levels.But the diesel price, I would argue, is doing exactly that. It's searching for this demand destruction price. It's just if you then take that sort of $160 diesel that we have at the moment, how much do the refiners get versus how much do the crude producers get?At the moment, the refiners are getting $65- $70 out of that, leaving comparatively little for the crude supplier. But the refined product price is the channel by which the economy is impacted and ultimately also by which demand is eroded.Andrew Sheets: When we're talking about demand destruction, we're talking about at what price does a trucking company not operate, does not drive as much, you know, does not, you know... We're talking about less activity. And inherently that is, I think a risk to growth. But especially risk to growth in Europe where the starting point for growth is already pretty weak.Martijn Rats: Yes. So, we are watching as much, how the Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian refiners are playing out as we are watching, sort of, the Strait of Hormuz.Andrew Sheets: Martijn, the last thing I wanted to talk to you about is, you know, we've been talking about the Iran conflict since late February. And, you know, we're sitting here in late July. And it's clear that, you know, there was a small normalization in flows as you talked about. But we're back to a place where those flows are nowhere near normal.And I think the question on everybody's mind is how much longer can this go on before there's a much larger shock to energy prices?Now, again, you've mentioned we're already seeing some of that shock to diesel, but, you know, a much bigger disruption. What's your current thinking on how much runway the energy system still has?Martijn Rats: Yeah. It's an excellent question, and it's turned out to be fiendishly hard to answer. My gut feel based on how the data is behaving, based on what we know from history: If this lasts another, sort of, month or two, three, then it's hard to argue that by then the buffers in the system will not have been completely exhausted.The reason why I think oil analysts have lost a degree of confidence in forecasting this accurately is that there's a lot of unexplained oil that does require some explanation. If you look at the cumulative amount of supply loss from the Middle East since the start of this conflict, easily over 1.5 billion barrels. 1.5 billion barrels in 150 days is an enormous amount.And yet, the inventory draws that we can find in observable data, they are at best a third of that, maybe 0.5 billion barrels. And so, there's another billion barrels where you say, "Yeah, we had that last year, but we don't have this this year.”How did we solve that billion-barrel problem? And you can say, "Well, we were a bit oversupplied going into it," and a few other things. But you, sort of, have to conclude, and I think this is also, you know, talking to clients and investors, other market participants. I think this is sort of collectively we're discovering this is that this system of, like, unobservable inventories has to be way bigger.That is either inventories like in the supply chain, inventories at customers end, or in countries where we generally just have very little data anyway, like in China. And so, the system has been behaving as if already in [20]24 and [20]25 actually, we were putting a lot of oil into these, in storages that are hard to observe – because in that period we had the opposite problem.We were forecasting large inventory builds, and we couldn't find them all. And now we're forecasting large draws, and we haven't been able to find them all. And so, the system has been behaving as this; the unobservable part of the inventories are way larger.And… But at some point, they also run out. But because they're hard to observe, we don't know when. And I would guess if we're getting towards the end of the summer by August-September, and we're still in this situation? Yeah, then we're going into the winter. Like, you know, German households objectively have little storage of heating oil.Andrew Sheets: Mm-hmm.Martijn Rats: And they need to be rebuilt. And there are a few examples where we do know what customers are doing with their inventories, and they point to a picture where, yeah, by the end of the summer, like, we're running on fumes. And so, look, this – we've been able to patch this up. But it can't go on forever.Andrew Sheets: Well, Martijn, always a pleasure to, to catch up with you and talk energy markets.Martijn Rats: Nice to talk to you.Andrew Sheets: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us.And please share with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen unpack what is likely to influence this week’s interest rate decision by the Fed.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, will the Fed hold or hike? It's the question in the market right now. It's Tuesday, July 28th at 9:30am in New York. Will the Fed display patience, or has it run out of patience? That's the question hanging over the July FOMC meeting currently underway. We believe the former. We expect the Fed to keep the target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 3.5 to 3.75 percent. The statement will probably also remain unchanged, reiterating the ample reserve policy, economic activity expanding at a solid pace despite elevated uncertainty. So, Mike, what's your assessment of the situation beyond that? Michael Gapen: Our assessment of the July FOMC meeting is actually the case for hikes is not as persuasive now as it was in June. And I think when we say that and when we come to the decision the Fed will stay on hold this week, we're basing it mainly on the data that has come in since the June FOMC meeting. And two important pieces on that front are employment growth moderated. So, in the June meeting, the three-month average payroll gain was running at about 188,000 per month. And I think it gave the sense that the labor market was really accelerating and there was downside risk to the unemployment rate. The subsequent employment data changed that view. Now it looks like there is much less of an acceleration in hiring and momentum has slowed. So, the labor market doesn't look quite as robust. Second, there was a lot of information, we think, a lot of signal about disinflation. So yes, recent volatility in the Middle East did push oil prices temporarily higher. We'll see where that goes. But underneath the hood, there was significant softness in goods inflation and services inflation, particularly related to housing. So, we do think that there was a lot of evidence that disinflation is here. So, with those two things in mind, we think there's less of a case to hike in July than there was in June. So, we think the right thing... Or what we think the Fed will do is to skip July, try and buy a little more time, get a little more information. If disinflation is indeed here, the Fed stays on hold. If not, and inflation stays firm, well, they can move to rate hikes later this year. But we think the case to hike in July is less compelling than it was in June. Matthew Hornbach: Well, they certainly will get a lot more information between the July meeting and the September meeting. If memory serves, at least two more rounds of all of the major economic data points… Michael Gapen: That’s right. Matthew Hornbach: Payroll, CPI, and so on. Michael Gapen: That's right. The gap between the July FOMC meeting and the September FOMC meeting is the longest on the Fed's calendar. Of course, in part, that makes room for Jackson Hole in August, which if the Fed were moving to a tightening cycle, could be a venue to lay out the case for that. But you're right, they will see multiple employment and inflation reports before they meet again in September. Matthew Hornbach: If they really wanted to get ahead of that data and move at this meeting, what is the case for hiking rates in July? How would you think about that perspective? Michael Gapen: I think you could make a couple of cases to hike now. One is recent volatility and conflict in the Middle East has pushed oil prices higher. Maybe it convinces you – you're in a prolonged oil risk premium scenario, and inflation will not dissipate. Second, I think you could argue, well, it's a balance of risks argument. And we think risks have just shifted in the direction of inflation, where last year they were in the direction of a weaker labor market. We eased last year. Let's just reverse those risk management rate cuts this year. So, it's not about inflation in hand, it's about your view of risks around inflation. Another, I think, and to me, this is the most important one, is maybe Warsh wants a regime change in the reaction function. In other words, he emphasizes price stability and achieving the 2 percent target. Well, at some point, words are words and actions are actions. And maybe what he desires is a more hawkish reaction function and kind of a higher interest rate all else equal to guide inflation down to 2 percent more quickly. So, I think, Matt, if we're wrong this week, I think the main reason we're wrong is I'm thinking under an older reaction function, and Warsh is bringing a new one. And right now, we don't exactly know what his reaction function is. And he could reveal it this week as being in a direction where he really wants to concentrate on the inflation side of the mandate to the exclusion of nearly everything else. Matthew Hornbach: Well, I don't think that's lost on markets at all. And in fact, I think that the rise in yields we've seen in the bond market concentrated in the real yield component of the 10-year Treasury bond tells you a lot about how investors are thinking the Fed will react to higher energy prices. As energy prices have gone up, so have bond yields. The relationship between those two asset prices are very strong. And usually what that suggests is if the real yield is going up more than the break-even inflation rate is going up as energy prices rise, it's telling you that investors think the Fed will not look through the rise in energy prices. If you have the opposite happen, where your break-even inflation rate is going higher, more so than the real interest rate is going higher, that would suggest investors think the Fed will look through the energy price increase. That just hasn't been the case, and so I think investors are very much attuned to what they think is the right reaction function for the Fed. But I guess we'll see. Only time will tell. And I think in order to help us tell what the right reaction function is – we'll need some communication from the Fed. And maybe that's where I want to go next with you – is on communication. It does seem like there have been fewer FOMC participants speaking to the public since Chairman Warsh began his tenure as chairman. Is that your impression? How do you think about communication? And since we are in the midst of this FOMC meeting, the press conference… What do you think about press conferences going forward? Michael Gapen: I do think you're right. I haven't counted up the literal official FOMC communications. I do think there have likely been fewer speeches and/or interviews given recently. And whether or not that's a function of Kevin Warsh as the chairman or it's summer and things move a little slower, I don't know. I will say, though, that when participants have spoken, I think we're getting the same, say, normal communication that they brought in the past. So far, I don't read participants as unwilling to provide their view about the outlook for the economy and for monetary policy. On the press conference, boy, would that be a change. I've been of the view that you probably will not get what I'll call a major change to the SEPs or the press conferences in terms of their frequency until the task force on communications has run its course, where I think the deadline is ultimately later this year. So, I don't think the schedule of press conferences will change until 2027, if it changes at all. But if we don't have them… The way that I would look at that, Matt, is to say, if the Fed's speaking less, there will be a vacuum out there to some degree. So, if the Fed's giving its view on the outlook and monetary policy less frequently, something else will fill that narrative, whether it's markets or the private sector or whatever it is. Vacuums are going to get filled. The Fed's speaking less, somebody else will speak more. Maybe that drives volatility more. I guess it would depend on the situation, but I think pulling press conferences would be a major surprise. I don't think it's in market expectations, and my belief is it would probably lead to some increase in volatility over time.How would you read it? Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. I think the void has already begun to be filled by investors and how they think about the Fed's reaction function, rightly or wrongly. Which is why I think we've seen real yields move in a very positively correlated way with energy prices. Investors are intuiting a certain reaction function to higher energy prices. Whether or not that is the correct view, only time will tell. If we do have a press conference at this upcoming meeting, which looks very likely, investors are going to pay attention to every nuance and every shift in the chairman's tone. How he chooses to address certain questions versus others—or whether he chooses to address them at all—will be important for market participants and how they invest in the bond and currency markets. With that, Mike, thanks again for taking the time to talk. I look forward to catching up with you again in late August around the Jackson Hole symposium. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Thanks for having me on. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he thinks the bull market has entered a new phase, with more focus on quality.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the transition from early- to mid-cycle and what that means for your portfolio.It's Monday, July 27th at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.Our broadening call for the market has been about moving beyond the narrow leadership of the mega-cap winners and into more economically sensitive areas. That made sense in the context of our rolling recovery thesis, a period when revenue growth returns to lean cost structures, and operating leverage emerges across many sectors of the economy.But now, I think that early-cycle phase of the rolling recovery is ending, and the market is starting to rotate toward quality. That’s not bearish, but it is different and can affect portfolios at the stock level. As the cycle matures, investors stop rewarding low quality beta and start focusing more on free cash flow, balance sheet strength, margins, and earnings stability. The market is not abandoning the recovery. It is becoming more selective about the best way to own it. This setup reminds me of early-to-mid 2021. After the initial post-COVID rebound, leadership shifted away from lower-quality and more speculative areas and toward higher-quality companies. The S&P 500 kept rising, but the leadership changed. I think we’re seeing something similar today. The S&P itself is already a quality-heavy benchmark, with high-quality cohorts representing roughly 42 percent of the index versus about 28 percent for low quality. That should help keep the index resilient, even as the market continues to digest this transition. Could we still see near-term volatility? Absolutely. If the war escalates further or the Fed surprises us with a rate hike this week, the market can continue to correct. I continue to think 7000 on the S&P 500 is important support if investors remain uneasy about the Fed transition or the geopolitical backdrop. However, the bigger message is that leadership is changing, not that the bull market is ending.One of the most important drivers of this shift is AI adoption. Earlier in the cycle, margin expansion was about classic operating leverage: sales recovering faster than costs. From here, margin expansion will depend more on companies using AI effectively, running leaner, and turning productivity into revenue growth as well. This is why quality matters. Companies with strong pricing power, strong balance sheets, or the ability to translate AI adoption into real growth are likely to be rewarded disproportionately.Companies where AI is material to the investment thesis and pricing power is neutral to strong are seeing forward net margin expectations improve nearly 400 basis points above the median stock. Our transcript work also shows that roughly 25 percent of S&P 500 companies cited measurable benefits from AI adoption in the second quarter, up from 14 percent a year ago. That’s operating leverage with a new engine. This also feeds into the AI leadership rotation. I still think semis are likely to underperform hyperscalers from here, even if both can be under pressure during the next leg of consolidation. Semis are a classic early-cycle group, and they’ve already seen a peak rate of change in earnings revisions. The hyperscalers, by contrast, have high quality core businesses, exposure to the agentic application layer, and an underappreciated ability to take costs out through AI-driven efficiencies.  In terms of the overall S&P 500, the two variables I’m watching most closely are interest rates and oil. The bond market is pricing a meaningful probability of a Fed hike, but my base case remains that the Fed stays on hold. A hike would be a hawkish surprise and a risky maneuver, but I think even that would delay rather than derail a positive finish to 2026 with earnings growth remaining strong.  Oil is the other wildcard. A sustained rise in oil is not priced into equities, and just another reason to move one’s portfolio up the quality ladder.Bottom line, the broadening is not over, but it is changing shape and leadership. We’re moving from early-cycle beta toward mid-cycle quality as the market seeks not only growth, but companies that can convert that growth into durable free cash flow and margin expansion. The recent elevation of quality factors has been evolving for the past month and now it’s time to fully embrace it.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Looking at clues from the past, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets examines how the recurring themes – from deregulation to volatility – are shaping markets and why every cycle still takes its own path.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, what can Odysseus teach us about investing? It's Friday, July 24th at 2pm in London.Like many of you, this week I saw The Odyssey. The enduring appeal of this story more than 2,700 years after it was composed is a reminder that some themes are universal. Pride, resourcefulness, determination, self-control, or the lack thereof, mattered to both an ancient Greek dinner party and resonate with anybody investing today.But drawing lessons from the past is also tricky. We do not have that much financial history, and markets contain too many variables for the same combination to align twice. Some judgment, art, and dare we say storytelling is always involved in deciding which historical periods best describe the present. Those disclaimers aside, we've argued in our year ahead outlook that 1997 to 1998 and 2005 to 2006 are some of the most useful templates for the current backdrop.That remains our view. They suggest a cycle that has further to run, equities outperforming credit, and a preference to own volatility. Both of these periods were defined by a sharp rise in corporate activity. That is certainly what we're seeing today.We forecast U.S. capital expenditure to rise 23 percent in 2026, and 26 percent in 2027. AI is the biggest driver of this spending but build-outs in energy infrastructure are also playing a role. And increased corporate CapEx is certainly a global story, especially in Asia.Then there's M&A, which also rose significantly in these two past historical periods. As recently as early 2024, global M&A volumes were unusually depressed, some of the lowest levels in over 30 years, adjusted for economic size. But that's no longer the case. And more recently, M&A is currently running up 64 percent relative to a year ago.Important current macroeconomic data also looks somewhat similar to these past two periods. The current levels of U.S. core PCE inflation, the unemployment rate, and the 10-year yield are pretty close to the averages seen in 1997, 1998, 2005, and 2006.And the U.S. 2s10s yield curve, well, it broadly flattened then, and it has broadly been flattening today. A third similarity, maybe less obvious but no less important, is deregulation. Both 1997 and 1998 and 2005 to 2006 saw significant financial deregulation. And we're seeing that again now. From the Basel Endgame to NAIC risk weights to Solvency II changes to savings reforms in Europe, Korea, and elsewhere, the current trend appears to be on a firmly deregulatory path.Even more simply, 1997 and 1998 and 2005 to 2006 provide interesting narrative bookends to two ways that I often hear the current environment being described. The late '90s? Well, that was defined by rising excitement around a transformational new technology – then the internet – and the prospect of a more productive future. Sound familiar? And the mid-2000s? Well, that was defined by a very unequal economy and rising consumer stress – but growth that was still supported by a seemingly inexhaustible investment demand from a rising market force. Then that force was emerging markets. Today, it's AI. Again, somewhat familiar. If these periods serve as a guide, the cycle probably has further to run, and corporate aggression should favor equities over credit.But if we learn anything from the trials of Odysseus, the journey can throw up plenty of surprises along the way. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Despite growing political resistance, investment in data centers isn't slowing. Ariana Salvatore explains why supply constraints may actually accelerate AI capital spending.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about why we still expect robust AI capital spending in spite of some rising political pushback. It's Thursday, July 23rd at 10am in New York. It should be no surprise to our listeners that data center pushback, a topic that we've been following for some time, has been growing louder. But in 2026, it's accelerated meaningfully. Data we track suggests that an estimated $156 billion of projects were canceled or delayed in 2025. This year alone, in just the first quarter, we've seen almost that same exact number. The opposition is coming from several directions.Communities are raising concerns about rising electricity bills, environmental pressures related to water use, and the local quality of life effects of large-scale construction. But it's also coming from lawmakers across the aisle. State legislatures with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been advancing this type of policy.At the same time, we're forecasting a little less than a trillion dollars of AI CapEx this year alone, and we think it's an increasingly important component of the macroeconomic growth outlook.So how do we square that circle? First, and most importantly, we think this is primarily a supply-side risk rather than a demand-side one. We don't expect the backlash to materially reduce projections for compute demand. Instead, it could widen the gap between that demand and the industry's ability to bring new capacity online through things like permitting delays, grid interconnection constraints, and local opposition.Despite that more difficult political and infrastructure environment, our internet team, led by Brian Nowak, remain constructive on AI capital spending. Our broader thematic estimate for total AI CapEX, including the neo cloud providers, stands at approximately $870 billion in 2026, and we actually see risks skewed even higher from here.So why is spending still increasing as the environment for building data centers becomes more challenging? There are a few reasons.First, the AI ecosystem remains compute constrained. The urgency to invest has not diminished. In fact, growing social opposition and political uncertainty ahead of the 2028 presidential election may actually be encouraging hyperscalers to begin projects earlier, which our credit strategists outline as a potential scenario here. A pull forward of demand before the political and execution risk grows even louder.Second, the timelines associated with data center construction have become longer. From groundbreaking to operational launch, projects can now take as long as three years or even more. That gives companies a strong incentive to begin developing future capacity well in advance, even if the political pushback is strong.And third, the underlying demand signal is not slowing. Global weekly token usage, which our analysts view as an important proxy for compute demand, has increased since early January. It's rising and continues to do so throughout the course of this year. So, in short, the pushback is real, but it appears to be reshaping the build-out rather than stopping it. That's why our base case is for a conditional build-out. We think projects are likely to face greater scrutiny, we think projects are likely to face greater scrutiny, longer delays, and more requirements related to environmental impact and community benefits.But ultimately, we still think they cross the finish line. That could mean higher costs, it could mean longer development timelines, and greater geographic dispersion of projects away from the largest existing data center markets. It could also accelerate the shift toward on-site and behind-the-meter power generation. Fuel cells, turbines, and energy storage are becoming increasingly important as operators look for ways to reduce their reliance on these lengthy grid interconnection processes, and that can benefit companies that are able to bring those solutions to the forefront. Meanwhile, our U.S. equity strategy team maintains a relative preference for hyperscalers over semiconductors over the next several months. As you heard our CIO and Chief Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explain yesterday, that's because the team sees the hyperscalers as early in discounting the market's renewed focus on CapEx discipline. Putting it all together, we see the growing pushback against data centers as representing a genuine risk to the pace, cost, and geography of the AI infrastructure build-out. But again, this isn't just a demand story, it's a supply story. And somewhat paradoxically, the scarcity and the uncertainty created by these constraints could actually end up pulling capital spend forward rather than reducing it.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 why market leadership is rotating beyond semiconductors and where investors may find opportunities despite near-term volatility.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 will explain why the recent volatility in markets makes sense. It's Wednesday, July 22nd at 2 p.m. in New York. So, let’s get after it. The broadening trade is back and it’s gaining steam. We established this thesis last week. Importantly, there’s a key reason this broadening trade is likely to continue. One of the more crowded areas of the market—semiconductors—has lost its momentum. As I’ve also noted before, this is not a call that the AI cycle is over. However, stocks do trade on the rate of change in growth, and expectations often reach a place where they can no longer surprise on the upside. Earnings revisions tend to get too stretched, and capital starts looking for the next place where fundamentals are improving but positioning is still light. This is no different than what happened to other leadership groups earlier this year in areas like precious metals and energy stocks. Remember, I first made the call for market broadening in our November outlook. My view is that the economy had moved into a new expansion after the rolling recession ended in April 2025. Markets were starting to catch on before the Iran conflict interrupted that trend. Investors piled back into the AI trade—especially semis—as oil prices jumped and Fed expectations shifted more hawkish. Back in June, I noted that those earnings revisions were likely nearing their peak. Hyperscale stocks starting to lag was the first indication. Since semis ultimately depend on hyperscaler spending, that divergence usually doesn’t last. It doesn’t mean the buildout is ending. However, the spenders may be moving from blind enthusiasm to a more disciplined phase as a means of addressing the market’s concerns about falling cash flows. We’ve seen this pattern before. Since ChatGPT launched, this ebbing and flowing between the hyperscaler and semiconductor stocks has happened three times. This is the fourth such adjustment, during which the hyperscaler stocks are likely to outperform the semis. Since a few weeks back, hyperscalers have outperformed semiconductors by almost 30 percent. Another consequence is that the major averages may trade lower in the near term. When a crowded, large-cap leadership group is unwinding, the index can look choppy even as the market underneath is improving. That’s the key distinction. The index may struggle, but the broadening can still work. Over the next month, don’t be surprised if the S&P 500 trades as low as 7000 before it makes a move to 8000 by year-end. Use this weakness to add to equity positions. I continue to like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Biotech. Discretionary Goods remains one of the cleaner expressions of the broadening thesis. Wallet share is shifting from services back toward goods, goods pricing is improving, and earnings revisions are strengthening. Transports continue to show improving revisions as volumes stabilize and pricing gets better. Biotech is one of the more attractive lower-rate beneficiaries, especially if policy expectations are too hawkish, as I think they are. On that last point, the Fed backdrop matters. The June FOMC meeting told us forward guidance is going to be limited, and the inflation path is going to drive policy. The softer-than-expected inflation data last week should allow the Fed to stay on hold rather than hiking. It may take the bond market a few more data points to fully re-price this view. Bottom line, the broadening is in gear, but it may not feel comfortable because it’s happening while the crowded momentum trade unwinds, a process that is likely unfinished. That’s usually how rotations in market leadership work. Like spring, it’s often: in like a lion and out like a lamb. Thanks for tuning in. I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

In the second part of our economic roundtable, Michael Gapen, Jens Eisenschmidt and Chetan Ahya join Seth Carpenter to discuss how central banks are balancing sticky inflation, resilient growth and regional policy trade-offs.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And once again today, I am joined by Morgan Stanley's chief regional economists: Michael Gapen, the Chief U.S. Economist, Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist, and on the other side of the world, Chetna Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist. Yesterday, we talked about what's supporting growth around the world, especially AI spending in the U.S. and some government spending in Europe, and Asia's role in making all of this happen. Today, we're going to try to dig deeper and go into policy. It's Tuesday, July 21st at 10 am in New York Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Since the last time we did this in mid-April, I will say the debate around central banks has probably become more complicated. Global growth has held up, probably better than many people expected. And inflation, which picked up a lot, started to recede. But it has not gone away. And some of the forces helping to shape the economy, the AI spending, government spending, that possible upswing in manufacturing, that could keep demand strong, and it might keep pushing inflation higher. So, the question today is, if growth remains resilient, how much room really do central banks have to navigate? Mike, let me start with you because your call for the Fed here in the U.S. is out of consensus, or at least at odds with where the market is pricing things. We talked about the demand going from AI. You pointed out that imports are actually limiting how much domestic demand there is. So, what is the underlying story for inflation in the U.S.? And what does it mean for the Fed? Michael Gapen: So, our view is that inflation will come down in the U.S. So, we think disinflation will be driven by some payback in energy prices. Some payback from tariffs, which have pushed up goods prices over the last year. And some further diminishment in housing-related inflation, namely shelter. So, we think on a broad-based perspective, inflation has already peaked and will start moving lower. And we think we've seen evidence of this in recent inflation prints. A risk to that, though, is from the demand side of the economy and AI-related inflation in two parts. One, higher software prices, chipflation. So, the pass-through of some of the AI pricing components. Fortunately, here, they're about less than 1 percent of the consumer basket. So, we don't think that there's a great risk, a strong risk, a high risk of AI-related inflation in the consumer bundle. I think the real risk is that maybe we underestimate broad-based demand, animal spirits. And so, you might just see a broad-based increase in inflation from stronger demand. That'll be a little bit harder to see in real times. But our expectation is that inflation moves lower to about 3 percent, by the end of this year and closer to 2.5 percent next year. Seth Carpenter: All right. Thanks, Mike. And in fact, the most recent inflation report that we just got confirms your perspective that inflation should be coming down. And so, I guess the question then remains: What would it take for the Fed to hike this year if inflation has come down like we've seen? Michael Gapen: Well, I think that the answer there is that inflation wouldn't come down in line with our expectations. So, if the view is that energy prices, tariffs, and shelter inflation should provide plenty of offset and bring inflation down, I think the answer is you don't get payback. Explicitly, core goods prices stay elevated. Maybe we get ongoing disruptions in the Middle East that push energy prices higher and create second-round effects. So, I think inflation just lingering at elevated levels could mean the Fed gets brought in to raise rates in September or later this year. We think if they're patient enough, they'll see enough disinflation to keep them on the sidelines. But the risk is disinflation forecast is too optimistic, inflation stays firm, the Fed needs to raise rates. Seth Carpenter: All right, Jens, what about for you and the ECB? They've already raised interest rates once this year. I think you've got a forecast for them raising interest rates again in September. What could make you wrong about that forecast? What's going to make you convinced that you're right about that forecast? And is there a similar tension that the ECB is wrestling with that Mike talked about for the Fed? Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah. I mean, starting with the last part of your question, I think no doubt, very similar tension. Just that, of course, it's less obvious. It's essentially a nuanced European version instead of the loud American version that we always stereotypically think the world looks like. So, essentially, we have here clearly not an AI boom. That, I mean, there's no question. And we have discussed that yesterday. Still, there is certainly the notion that the world demand is not really weak, and some of this will also arrive in Europe. And so, you have that tension between maybe there's more resilience than we had thought, and so inflation will not come down through to slack as much. And so, we might actually add something here in terms of monetary restrictiveness. Now, the other thing that is often forgotten, even though it's blatantly obvious, the starting point is just different. The ECB is running neutral monetary policy by all accounts. I mean, you could say 2 percent is neutral, and now they are 2.25. But, you know, there are ranges of uncertainty around any estimate. And the latest that they published runs – goes from 1.75 to 2;2.5. So basically, even if they were to increase rates to 2.5 in September, you could go with the microphone around the governing council, and you would probably find a lot of people saying, "Well, this is still a neutral policy." That's probably not the case for the U.S. So, I guess this matters here for that debate too. Seth Carpenter: All right. Yesterday we talked about lots of different things, but for Europe, we brought up fiscal policy. How do you think about fiscal policy and how it affects monetary policy? And so, I'm thinking about two channels. One, how much does the ECB care that if they keep pushing up interest rates, they're going to increase the debt service burden for countries that are already facing high debt costs? And second, is fiscal policy going to be the extra impetus for inflation that forces even more rate hikes from the ECB? Jens Eisenschmidt: I guess it depends on who you ask. Certainly, more concerned members in the governing council that would point to exactly that fiscal stimulus as a reason why interest rates have to be increased further from here. The other answer I would give is – probably for now at least, the view on fiscal policy is really model-based. You look at what type of increase in interest rate gets you essentially more fiscal restraint because there's an increase in interest rate bill and so less spending somewhere else. And that gets you basically less stimulus or less growth, I mean, very roughly speaking. I don't think it's a major concern for now. We haven't reached yet interest rates where this would start to play a role. I guess, again, Europe being fragmented as it is, with all the political risk that's around the corner. Think about the elections in France and Italy and Spain next year. That will very likely find itself expressed in spreads. And so, the higher the interest rates are, the larger the spreads could become. Seth Carpenter: So, for each of you, there's clearly a role for inflation. One of the risks we'll talk about maybe is inflation expectations and how maybe there's a big shift in what's going on with inflation. But Chetan, that brings me to you and Asia, because one economy where there unquestionably has been a fundamental shift in inflation and inflation expectation over the past several years is Japan. The Bank of Japan is on this normalization path where they're raising interest rates. Interest rates had been negative and then zero, and now they're gradually raising things up. Inflation has come back to Japan. Markets are looking at what the Bank of Japan is likely to do. Can you tell us a little bit about what our view is for the Bank of Japan this year and next? And what might make them hike interest rates faster than we think? And is there any risk that in fact they hike interest rates slower than we think? Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, we are expecting BoJ to hike twice from here. The first rate hike is coming up in December of this year, and then another one coming up in June of next year. And then we think that, you know, the underlying inflation trend in Japan is not really that strong. So, while market pricing is for about three more rate hikes instead of two that we are building in our base case. And some of the macro investors are even talking about four more rate hikes. We think the underlying inflation trend warrants a caution and BoJ to go slowly than what the market is pricing in and what the macro investors are saying in. And the key part of our framework on thinking about Japan's inflation is that bulk of the explanation to inflation rise in Japan lies in currency moves. And secondarily, you can look at also the other drivers are more from supply side, which is higher energy prices or food prices. Whereas it's not driven so much by demand. To elaborate further on why it is not driven by demand, when you look at Japan's consumption trend, and if you index it to hundred at pre-COVID levels in September [20]19 then it's currently about 101; i.e., that it's just about 1 percent up over the last seven years. So that's a very tepid trend of consumption demand. And therefore, we don't think that BoJ needs to rush into hike in a more aggressive pace going forward. Seth Carpenter: So, there is this fundamental shift, but boy, it's not on a tear, and so the BoJ can take its time. You know, Chetan, it's hard to wrap up a conversation about the global economy without talking about China. I get the sense that there's not a lot going on with monetary policy, but we did just see a soft Q2 GDP print. So, against that backdrop, what should we be expecting in terms of policy? Is there any monetary policy coming? Or is there going to be some fiscal expansion? Or is China just sort of stuck in this lower gear? Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, we were also surprised by the soft GDP print. But when you look into the data, actually, it was interestingly doing well on exports. And I mentioned earlier about how the global CapEx trend is helping Asia. It's definitely helping China too. But at the same time, China's domestic demand turned out to be quite weak. And particularly in the areas where we think that the policy response can be providing some help, i.e., infrastructure spend, was also very weak. And therefore, we are expecting that in the back half of the year, you will see the government taking up some fiscal expansion. Not new stimulus announcement, but whatever they had budgeted. They have enough room within that to utilize that budget and actually increase that fiscal spending towards infrastructure. We have about 2 trillion RMB worth of funds available for the government to go ahead and spend in the second half. And then lift that growth trend, which has dipped to 4.3 percent in second quarter to back to 4.6 percent in the back half of the year. Seth Carpenter: You know what? Maybe that's a great place for us to leave it. We've gone around the world again today, but this time focusing much more on policy. In the U.S., the Fed is facing this interesting situation. We think inflation is coming down. The last CPI print went in our favor. And so as a result, our forecast is that the Fed doesn't change policy at all this year. But it's going to come down to the data, and in particular, whether or not Mike and his team are right in terms of where inflation is going. In Europe, the ECB has already raised interest rates once this year. Jens and team are looking for another interest rate hike. The ECB really does seem more sensitive to inflation coming from the energy shock, but there are lots of other crosscurrents that they're paying attention to as well. And then the other major developed market central bank, the Bank of Japan, is on this normalization path. They are in the process of raising interest rates, but Chetan pointed out to us that the growth rate is such that they don't have to be in any sort of hurry, and they can take their time. So, with that, Mike, Jens, Chetan, thank you so much for helping us connect all of these dots. And to the listeners, thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

AI investment is reshaping the global outlook. In part one of this economic roundtable, our panel explores where the momentum is strongest — and where investment still needs to catch up.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist. Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe Economist. Seth Carpenter: And today is going to be our third quarter economic roundtable taking a wide-angle view on the global economy and all the key forces shaping our outlook and the economy. Seth Carpenter: It's Monday, July 20th at 10am in New York Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Since our last roundtable in April, the global economy has continued to face all sorts of shocks, a mix of resilience and friction. Inflation pressures have not disappeared. Energy and geopolitical risks have come up, they've receded, they've come back, they've receded all over the place But there is one underlying source of momentum that we have to talk about. And that is the AI-driven CapEx cycle. Michael, let me turn to you because the U.S. is a real focal point of all of this. Tell me a little bit about where Morgan Stanley Research is thinking about hyperscaler CapEx. How big it is? And then for you, when you think about the U.S. economy, just how big of a driver is it for what we're looking for in the U.S.? Michael Gapen: Yeah, we continue to revise higher our estimates for hyperscaler and AI-related CapEx in the U.S. economy. We were thinking a little over a trillion for 2027. Now we're more like 1.2 - 1.3 trillion, maybe as high as 1.4 trillion in 2028. So, the level of hyperscaler spending continues to keep rising. The growth rate and its effect on the economy is likely to slow. But as you noted, it's still a major driver of momentum in the U.S. You would look at that headline number and think, "Wow, that's, you know, 3.5 percent or so of GDP. Must be a massive source of momentum for GDP growth." But roughly about 60 percent of that hyperscaler CapEx spending goes to items like computers and peripherals, equipment spending categories that have a very, very high import content. We still get a significant number that AI CapEx is probably contributing around 40 basis points to growth this year. Be a similar-sized amount perhaps next year.So, for an economy that's growing somewhere a little bit above 2 percent right now, maybe closer to 2.5 percent next year, that's a non-trivial amount. We just have to remember it's fueling growth around the world, just not here in the U.S. Seth Carpenter: Yeah, that's a really great point because I have seen some estimates where people say, "Well, if it wasn't for AI CapEx, the U.S. economy wouldn't have grown at all." And that's clearly wrong, as you point out. But U.S. imports are necessarily exports from somewhere else. And, Chetan, if I can pull you into the story then, U.S. firms are buying a lot of AI-related equipment from Asia. What does that mean in your part of the world? And in particular, I'm thinking about Korea, Taiwan, and maybe some other economies in Asia. What's the critical story there? Chetan Ahya: So, for Asia, this has definitely been a big boon. If you look at Asia's exports, they have been booming, and particularly for the ones which are exporting semiconductors to the U.S. They are seeing semiconductor exports growing by 90 percent. And when we go back in time and compare Asia's semiconductor exports, it's very tightly linked to the U.S. IT CapEx. And it's not surprising when Mike Gapen mentions about the imports going up. It's on the other side, helping Asia's exports quite meaningfully. So, so far, we've seen this benefiting Korea, number one, Taiwan, and also Japan. All these three are big beneficiaries of U.S. AI CapEx. And of course, also not just U.S., but the other countries which are doing any little amount of CapEx on AI front, that's also helping these three economies in the region. Seth Carpenter: You've been doing a lot of work, Chetan, recently about how much the story can actually broaden out, that the AI CapEx cycle has really contributed to Asian growth, but it doesn't tell the whole story that there's a broader industrial cycle. Can you give us a little bit of a flavor of that story? Chetan Ahya: That's right, Seth. So, we are actually highlighting that there is a CapEx and industrial super cycle that is underway in Asia, and there are four components to this story. AI and semiconductors CapEx, which we just briefly discussed. Number two is energy. Number three is defense. And number four is industrial supply chain onshoring related CapEx. I know that everybody still thinks that AI is the most important part of this story, but when I give you the numbers and the breakup of that... So, for Asia, AI and semiconductor companies CapEx is about $380 billion in 2026, but energy CapEx is going to be $900 billion. So, this is a far broader story than just AI for Asia. Seth Carpenter: Mike, let me come back to you and to the U.S. then. So, isn't the growth story also broader than that as well domestically? So, what's going on in terms of consumer spending in the U.S., and is there a broader CapEx story in the U.S. as well? Michael Gapen: I would say, is it broader than that? I think maybe you could argue also it's narrower than that. Here's what I mean by that. As I noted AI CapEx contributing about 40 basis points to growth, it's certainly underpinning equity valuations in the U.S. and underpinning strong wealth creation. So about [$]180 trillion in household net worth in the U.S. About [$]55 trillion of that has been created in just the last five years alone, underpinned in part by AI-related spending and optimism about future profitability. That's really supported spending by upper income households. So, I think it's both investment-led and consumer-led, but they're inextricably linked. So, the positive for the U.S. is that it's providing a lot of resilience. The negative component of that is it feels like momentum in the U.S. is narrowly driven. Jens Eisenschmidt: Let me maybe jump in here from Europe to provide some perspective from the other side. So, I think it's a fair summary to say that AI investment is not yet, or maybe will never get there, dominating the business cycle. What we do have instead is an unusually consumption-driven expansion. That has to do not so much with an extraordinary strength of consumption, but more of an absence of other factors. Now, prospectively looking forward, we think the fiscal expansion might help lifting us a little bit. And then it is really the debate how much AI investment can arrive in Europe. For now, I would say it's probably a factor of 20 that separates European investment plans from the plans we know that exist for the U.S. Seth Carpenter: Let me stick with you then in Europe because you brought up fiscal as one of the factors going on here and where it's going… You and your team recently wrote a blue paper talking about what the outlook is for fiscal policy in Europe, and in particular, we had this era of cheap debt. Interest rates in Europe were low, at times negative. It was super easy to borrow. Not as much happened then. There's been a shift towards more fiscal expansion at the same time that interest rates have gone up, causing the cost of debt to go up. Feels like there's a lot of push and pull going on. Can you unpack for us a little bit what was in that paper you wrote, what's going on with fiscal policy in Europe, especially in Germany? And what it might mean over time for Euro-area countries? Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, so I think fiscal policy in Europe really is looking at a regime shift. So, there is this very famous, probably in the U.S. even more so than here, notion that the Europeans have built a very comfortable welfare state. And that's true if you just look at the accounting from a GDP perspective. It's close to 50 percent that, you know, budgets are actually extended on welfare spending. And now you have three structural headwinds for any type of fiscal spend. So, one is aging related costs, you mentioned it already. Defense spending has to increase significantly, and the interest rate costs will also rise significantly. All of that means there will be very hard choices to be made. The one thing that actually could help here is growth. Growth is the one thing that's, for now at least, missing, at least in comparison to the U.S. It's probably half what we expect, what the U.S. colleagues think is in stake for the U.S., and a quarter or even less than that of what is there in Asia. So, growth is really the key, the solution, the answer to everything in Europe. More growth than just 1 percent, which is potential, would help solving that fiscal challenge. For now, it looks really, really like an uphill battle. Returning to Germany, it's the one country that has a very good fiscal starting position. They are pushing a lot but they're to some extent pushing a string. So, even with the German huge fiscal package, given that private sector investments so far are absent, doesn't get us a ton of growth. Seth Carpenter: Chetan, maybe I'll come back to you before we close part one of this roundtable. The AI CapEx cycle started with AI, broadened out further. How long do you expect this cycle to last? How durable can it be? And how might it compare to previous CapEx cycles? Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, we think this will be a multi-year CapEx cycle. And when we are thinking about the duration of the cycle, there are two things that I would keep in mind. Number one is that most of the drivers that we just discussed – the CapEx on AI, energy, defense, and industrial supply chain onshoring related investments – these are all structural drivers. So, we think these are going to continue for some more time. At this point of time, we have the visibility for this cycle to be lasting for three-four more years. And then the second point of framework that I would keep in mind is that the corporate balance sheets are in a pretty good shape. So, when you are thinking about the leverage in the private sector, you can look at both households and the corporate sector balance sheet. But since the cycle is CapEx driven, we are looking at the corporate balance sheets, and they are in a pretty good shape. Across the region, corporate debt to GDP is below where it was in 2019. Seth Carpenter: Mike, let me, let me wrap up quickly with you. We talked about AI, AI CapEx. For now, that's a very strong demand story. When are we going to see a supply side of things coming from AI? Are you already seeing a big contribution to GDP and growth from productivity coming from AI? Michael Gapen: We are, but not outside of the high-tech sectors, and we're seeing limited, what I'll call labor market restructuring of tasks and occupations beyond high AI-exposed occupations. So right now, everything is still very isolated I think maybe as we get into 2029 and beyond, so as Chetan says, we probably have a three to four-year super cycle here around a build-out phase. Then we might see some of that broader-based diffusion to other non-tech sectors in the economy. Seth Carpenter: All right, Jens, for you, let's wrap up here. So, what is the state of play for the build-out in the CapEx cycle for AI in Europe? Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, it's very early stages. As I said before, we really; we connected to all the industry experts or analysts covering the sector and the total plans are a factor of 20 below what we see in the U.S. by just the seven hyperscalers. So, I would say very fragmented, very small, in general. Not only AI. I think the one thing I would be looking at for any type of sign of revival, sign of growth is investment. The second would be investment. And you can guess what the third would be… Investments in the core countries. That's really what we need to see, and we haven't seen much in Germany or France on this front. Seth Carpenter:That's a great place for us to stop today. We talked about the real side of the economy, AI, CapEx, trade. Tomorrow we're going to come back, and we'll talk about how that growth outlook affects inflation. And once you start talking about growth and inflation, you got to talk about policy, and that's where we'll be tomorrow. Mike, Jens, and Chetan, thank you for joining today. And for the listeners, thank you for listening. Be sure to tune in tomorrow for Part 2 of our conversation. And I have to say, if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Mark Schmidt unpack why U.S. healthcare feels so expensive and the potential impacts of rising hospital costs.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Mark Schmidt: And I'm Mark Schmidt, Head of Municipal Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, a discussion into one of the biggest mysteries in one of the biggest sectors of the economy. We're talking about healthcare costs. It's Friday, July 17th at 2pm in London. Mark Schmidt: At 9am in New York. Andrew Sheets: So, we're talking today about healthcare, which represents roughly a fifth of the U.S. economy, the bulk of job creation over the last several years, and in my view, honestly, one of the biggest inflation paradoxes that we see in the market. On the one hand, the high cost of healthcare is taken as a given, and it's something that many Americans still struggle with financially. But if you look at the official inflation data in the U.S., healthcare costs have been lower than normal, and that's been true now for a number of years. So, what's going on? How do we tie this together? And Mark, you just wrote a report that tries to do exactly that. So, what did you hope to accomplish with this report? Mark Schmidt: You're absolutely right. It's hard to underline enough just how large healthcare is to the U.S. economy overall. Americans spend nearly $6 trillion on healthcare. That's more than the GDP of the entire country of Germany. And if we think about prices, Americans pay more. A knee replacement, for example, costs $25,000 in the United States. That same procedure costs just $6,000 in France. Common heart treatments that would cost $3,000 in Germany or $10,000 in Australia cost $34,000 in the U.S. It also matters for everyone's local community. Healthcare jobs have been growing twice as fast as the rate of job growth in the economy overall. And those are good jobs. They pay above average wages. For many Americans these days, the most secure path to the middle class is a career in healthcare. Now, this may seem a little bit arcane, but it probably hits close to your portfolio as well. Earlier in the year, when we took a look at how equity separately managed accounts invest, they typically have a core overweight to healthcare. And even though American prices may seem like an American issue, many of the largest and most profitable healthcare companies in the world are actually headquartered in Europe. So, whether you're sitting in New York or sitting in London, the price of American healthcare probably matters to you. But as you noted, Andrew, it does feel like a paradox because although Americans cite healthcare costs as one of their top concerns, and although healthcare spending is growing at 6 percent a year or more, the official inflation data says that healthcare prices are in check. And at one point earlier in the year, healthcare inflation, according to official data, even dipped below 3 percent. It just didn't make a lot of sense, and that's why we got together with our colleagues across equities, fixed income research, public policy, and economics to dig into what was actually going on. Andrew Sheets: So, Mark, let's dig right into that. I mean, it seems like a perfect encapsulation of the so-called Main Street versus Wall Street perception of the economy. So, what's going on? How does one kind of square those two numbers? Mark Schmidt: The easiest way to understand it is that you can't walk through a grocery store and figure out the price of a knee replacement. And that's true both for you and me. It's also true for the government. They have to survey hospitals and health insurance companies. The trouble is that the prices that health insurance companies pay hospitals, well, those are trade secrets. So, at any given point in time, even for the best government economists, it's not entirely clear what the price trends are. And that's why when you look at the official data, healthcare inflation typically has relatively lumpy jumps in the series. You could see several months of 0.1 or 0.2 percent official growth in healthcare inflation. Or as earlier this week, you could see certain categories jump to 0.4 or even 0.8. Andrew Sheets: Another element, Mark, that you talked about in the report is that people are also consuming more healthcare. So, talk a little bit about that. How that factors into this dynamic, and again, is that just going to be the new normal as the population ages and we tend to spend more on healthcare as we get older? Mark Schmidt: That's right. The good news is that we're living longer lives. The bad news is that means that we have more chronic healthcare conditions to deal with. The good news is that more procedures can be done in outpatient settings, and those, generally speaking, are cheaper. The bad news is that inpatient care, inpatient prices go up as the complexity of procedures that actually happen in a hospital setting increase significantly. When you balance it all out, it's a situation where, thankfully, the United States and most Americans have the means and the wealth to pay more for healthcare. The flip side of that is that they are paying more for healthcare, and that's why we think that the recent softness in healthcare inflation is actually too good to be true. Andrew Sheets: Something that jumped out at me from this report, Mark, was just how important hospitals are in this equation. And the experience of the patient and the experience of the hospital can be different economically. And that difference can also matter for how this shows up in official inflation and government statistics.So, you know, it would be helpful maybe just to walk the listener through. If I go into the hospital and I need knee surgery. You know, how does that look like from my perspective in terms of paying for it, assuming I have health insurance through my employer? How could that look like to the hospital? And how could that look like coming out the other end into the official government statistics? Mark Schmidt: Well, of course, Andrew, the first thing that you do when you break your leg is you call six hospitals and shop around for the cheapest price, right? Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Of course. Mark Schmidt: So that's actually the problem because when you get care, you're not in a place to ask about the price. And frankly, even if you asked your doctor or nurse what the price is, they probably wouldn't know. Not only is it not their job to know the price, but all of those negotiations happen after the fact – with the prices that the insurance companies negotiate with the hospitals. After COVID, hospitals had a lot more costs to spread out among the people who were coming in the door, and so they raised prices across the board, not just for procedures that were related to respiratory illness. Naturally, insurance companies noticed that, and they started to push back. So long after you get a cast for your broken leg – and by the way, I wish you a speedy recovery – insurance companies end up going back and forth negotiating with your doctors for exactly how much they should pay you. And although these prices were loosely set well before you walked in the door, the exact way it gets billed and coded? Well, let's just say there's a lot of back and forth. For a well-run hospital, the cost of talking to and ultimately getting reimbursement from your insurance company, that alone could be 2 to 4 percent of revenue. And in especially complex cases, that whole negotiation can eat up 5 to 7 percent of the total bill. You're also right to flag that hospitals really are still the central point of the U.S. healthcare system. Americans spend $2 trillion in a hospital setting. And hospitals overwhelmingly coordinate care for both primary, specialty, and pharmacy services. Andrew Sheets: Mark, another issue I wanted to ask you about was the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and how those programs fit into the story? Mark Schmidt: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act included a variety of measures to slow the overall growth rate of healthcare. Now, for all the reasons we just discussed, that's probably warranted. The Affordable Care Act is another wrinkle. Enhanced subsidies, which were already set to expire – did in fact expire at the end of last year. And as a result, more Americans are now uninsured. It remains to be seen how that impacts overall costs. In the United States, when you have a health emergency, a hospital is legally obligated to treat you because of a 1990s law called EMTALA. Even if you can't pay, the system eventually does. Historically, uncompensated care costs have been passed on to individuals and companies with insurance. For now, however, it remains to be seen whether these changes in law and in the overall number of people with insurance will cause healthcare prices to rise or fall. Andrew Sheets: And Mark, just for the broad-based implications of this, right? It's fair to say that in any health insurance system, there are some people who consume a lot more healthcare. They're unhealthy or they're unlucky. And there are some who consume a lot less. And, you know, this is something where that overall coverage question matters. Because if you have things that reduce the number of otherwise healthy people who are in those healthcare pools, it can raise the cost for everybody else. Those people who were in some ways subsidizing the higher consumers of healthcare are no longer there. Is that a fair way to frame it, do you think? And are there potential changes given some of these legislative actions that could lead to changes of what the pool looks like – and what overall costs could look like? Mark Schmidt: That's a great point. And healthcare is probably the only part of our economy where you would say, "Thank goodness I did not get my money's worth." As we think about it… Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Very true. Very true. Mark Schmidt: As we think about it, most young and healthy people are going to be paying more for their health insurance than they receive in healthcare. Again, that's a good thing. Because American healthcare prices are so much higher than anywhere else in the world, paying in more than you get back? Well, that hits the wallet harder in America than it does in other countries. And that's why for many people – choice – choosing how much health insurance to have and how much to pay for it, really is central to keeping the American economy dynamic. The flip side, however, is that as Americans get older, more people have Medicare. Now, Medicare is pretty good if you have it. But the catch is that Medicare prices, according to most independent estimates, do not fully reimburse for the cost of care. So, as more seniors take up more beds in a hospital, that means that commercial prices, the prices for people who have private insurance through their employer, are likely to rise even faster. Andrew Sheets: So, Mark, I think a good place to close it out and kind of bring this all together is a really important conclusion of this report – is that hospitals have been absorbing a number of these rising costs of healthcare through lower margins for the hospital. And that has resulted in lower ultimate inflation because the inflation is measured out the other side, out ultimately what the hospital earns. And if you could just maybe talk a little bit more about that. To what extent have those margins been compressed? And what that might mean for things going forward? Mark Schmidt: That's right. We dug into the finances for hundreds of not-for-profit hospitals in the United States. They are facing higher costs and shrinking margins. Historically, hospitals have partially passed on expense increases of this magnitude. Now, in their conversations with insurance companies, the biggest benchmark setting of prices happens once every two to three years. So, we're not going to see hospital prices show up in the inflation data overnight. But when we look at hospitals across the country, their budget information and their guidance is consistent with firming prices. Andrew Sheets: Great. Thank you so much, Mark. I've really enjoyed the conversation. Mark Schmidt: Thanks for having me, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please share it with a friend or colleague today. And rate and review us on wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.

Credit markets are stepping in to fund the surging demand for AI. Our experts Lindsay Tyler and Anish Shah explore the opportunities and risks behind this record financing wave.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Lindsay Tyler: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lindsay Tyler, TMT Credit Research Analyst at Morgan Stanley. Anish Shah: And I'm Anish Shah, Global Head of Debt Capital Markets at Morgan Stanley. Lindsay Tyler: Today, how issuers and investors are approaching the rapidly evolving world of AI financing. It's Thursday, July 16th at 10am in New York. As AI demand accelerates, credit markets are being asked to finance infrastructure on a scale that used to be associated with utilities, telecom, or energy. That raises a central question for issuers and investors: How much debt can the AI ecosystem absorb? And at what price? Anish, can you walk our listeners through the key products in your purview? Anish Shah: Certainly, in my nearly twenty years at Morgan Stanley, this is probably the most incredible time period I've ever seen in the credit markets. I've had the privilege of working across a number of different roles in capital markets and lending. And a couple of years ago, we integrated the debt underwriting business across both investment-grade and leverage finance franchises in recognition of how interconnected the whole credit ecosystem has become. In addition to our core activities helping clients raise capital for their strategic priorities, two of the big focus areas that we've had have been finding ways to harness the power of the private credit universe and also delivering best-in-class capabilities in funding this incredible growth in AI spend. Lindsay Tyler: AI financing has certainly been a theme we've also been focused on in research. Our equity research colleagues project that a handful of key players could add more than 30 gigawatts of capacity over a two-year timeframe, driving around [$]2 trillion of aggregate cash CapEx in that period. And to put that into context, a single gigawatt of data center capacity can require roughly $12 billion for the shell, and then often more than double that for chips and racks. So, from your vantage point, what inning are we in? And what gives you confidence that credit markets can continue funding this opportunity at scale? Anish Shah: I mean, Lindsay, the numbers certainly are staggering, as you note. And if you just observe the CapEx estimates for the hyperscalers and broadly for AI infrastructure, we're certainly in the early innings. Lindsay Tyler: Mm-hmm. Anish Shah: The largest tech companies have historically, as you know, raised very little debt. In fact, many of these companies have not even needed a credit facility. As CapEx projections were materially increased in the second half of last year, we saw the beginning of scaled capital raises. Hyperscaler issuance has quickly gone from less than one percent of the investment-grade market to more than 10 percent of the market. You know, as I look ahead, based on what we're seeing on the ground, we think that AI-related funding, whether it's for data center development or financing compute capacity, could top 15 percent of the total issuance across all credit products. This has been an unprecedented test for the capital markets, both in terms of the depth of capacity and the breadth of product. The teams have been on the forefront of deep investor dialogue and product innovation. This spans corporate investment grade, first of their kind financings in high-yield and leveraged loan markets, and new takes on asset-backed financing. And each of these areas has seen material issuance both in public and private markets. Lindsay Tyler: Great backdrop. Let's dig first into investment-grade corporate debt, an area you know well from your time previously leading the investment-grade team. Can you help frame the scale and the significance of this financing bucket and how AI-related debt is scaling within it? Anish Shah: Well, you know, as you know, the investment-grade bond market, specifically in dollars, is the deepest, most liquid pool of capital in the world. Volumes have grown materially over the last few years and are likely to eclipse $2 trillion in issuance this year. Hyperscalers are among the very best credits in the world, and they have the ability to come in and out of markets with relatively quick twitch, little to no pre-marketing, and in fairly large size. You know, $20 billion-plus deals used to be rare in the investment-grade market, now happen multiple times a quarter. This is why we've seen the predominance of AI-driven capital raising take place in the investment-grade market. For the most part, investors have digested that supply very well. While we've seen some modest widening credit spreads for hyperscalers and some of the other tech issuers, I'd say it's de minimis relative to their expected ROI. Lindsay, I've talked a lot about supply dynamics and issuance. What other factors are you and investors considering when assessing fair value for investment-grade rated technology bonds? Lindsay Tyler: Sure. It's prudent to really weigh a mix of technicals, fundamentals, and relative value. You know, as you discussed on the technical side, and related to my discussions with debt and equity investors, I've been focused on scale of buildouts, market capacity, digestibility across currencies, positioning along the curve, implications of equity issuance, and whether AI financing could crowd out other areas of TMT credit. But moving more to the fundamental side of things, you mentioned ROI, and for the players that are scaling compute capacity, there are a handful of key monetization and return questions that keep coming up. How quickly can these companies bring new capacity online? Once it's live, how does it translate into durable revenue and cash flow? Is that capacity supporting internal products, proprietary models, broader cloud offerings, or compute leased to third parties? And then how fungible is the capacity across those use cases if demand or returns shift? Further on the fundamental side, we've done some differentiated work around growing long-term commitments. We've seen that high-quality hyperscalers and a few of the semis companies are anchoring the AI ecosystem through leases, guarantees, other obligations. These commitments really extend beyond vanilla bond issuance. So, I encourage investors to look beyond the funded debt and really understand the accounting and the ratings implications here of some of those commitments. And this ties nicely into the next topic that I wanted to raise, which is project finance debt. I've noticed that, you know, a lot of the commitments that we're seeing from IG players support another layer of financing. Lease commitments can underpin project finance debt, an area of sizable issuance and innovation. The public high-yield market has emerged as a new funding source in this way for data center construction, with more than 30 billion priced across 15 deals, since fall 2025. Can you walk us through, Anish, the innovation behind these structures, and how are these high yield deals different than other ways to, kind of, raise project finance debt? Anish Shah: Yeah, it's incredibly interesting. I mean, the bulk of the issuance, as I noted has come in the investment grade market, but I would say the bulk of the innovation has come in the sub-investment grade market. You know, historically, for very capital-intensive sectors like energy and power or real estate, the project loan market was the most efficient source of initial funding. The developer would tap banks to underwrite a highly structured construction loan. Once the project is up and running, you could then refinance that loan with the predictable cash flows into a more institutional financing, like the investment grade bond market or the term loan B or securitization markets.That product may still be very viable in many sectors, but we felt early on that bank-provided construction loans would not meet the capacity needs of the AI investment cycle. The market really needed an institutional credit product that bypassed the need for construction loans. The key innovation came in the form of first-of-its-kind high-yield bonds that funded the development of a new data center complex. Given the relatively short construction period and the "offtake" supported by some of the highest quality credits in the world, we felt like this financing structure would be incredibly well-received in the high-yield market. The win here is that the developer accesses fixed rate long-term capital and maintains flexibility to call the bonds and refinance at a lower cost. Judging by how these financings have gone, there's a strong level of investor enthusiasm. I think that they've only scratched the surface, and I would expect that we see much more of this. And potentially even expand it to other products in the leverage finance markets given the tremendous level of investor demand. Lindsay Tyler: Yeah. It's certainly been exciting to follow many of those deals. Beyond the public space, we're also seeing a wave of innovation in private credit and asset-backed finance. Anish, how do companies decide whether capital is best raised in the public or the private markets? Anish Shah: Well, I'm glad you raised the whole avenue of private markets because it may be the most significant change in the credit markets over the last few years, broadening the scope of private credit from directly lending into leverage buyouts to now financing large investment-grade projects. There are great examples in the world of GPU and TPU financing, where we structure loans secured by the asset and the cash flows, or in data center development.Lindsay, from your perspective, what are investors focused on when these private structures intersect with public credits? Lindsay Tyler: Sure. Many of these asset-backed private financings have prompted investors to look more closely at any of the public companies involved, whether as issuers, tenants, customers, or support providers. This ties back to the point I raised earlier. Where does the risk reside, and who ultimately is on the hook? These financings have also sparked broader discussions around circularity, vendor financing, and technology obsolescence risk, even when amortizing structures are in place. I do think those are fair concerns to weigh, and they really speak to how quickly the AI financing trend is evolving and how much credit work there is to do. So, Anish, with that balance in mind, relatively strong demand, rapid innovation, but also some real credit questions, let's end with a quick lightning round. Anish Shah: Lindsay, let's do it. Lindsay Tyler: First, what is the biggest risk that could test investor appetite for AI-related debt? Anish Shah: I would say investors are acutely focused on construction delays. Don't underestimate the level of diligence being done by the breadth of capacity you're seeing in the markets. Investors are doing their homework, and we're spending a lot of time trying to mitigate any of their concerns with structural protections. Lindsay Tyler: Got it. Second, beyond data center shells and chips, what is the next potential AI financing opportunity? Anish Shah: It most certainly is energy and power. We're going to see a ton of capital being raised in utilities. It's going to be a little different than what the hyperscalers are doing, just given the nature of their balance sheets. You're going to see more junior capital. We've seen a wave of junior subordinated debt issuance out of the utilities. We're also seeing a lot of activity from our project finance and tax equity team, just given all things energy infrastructure. Lindsay Tyler: Great. And third, if we're sitting here a year from now, what do you think could be the biggest AI financing story we're talking about? Anish Shah: Well, we certainly underestimated the level of financing activity that we saw in the past year. I think when we look back a year from now, we will probably see that the AI labs were much more ready to finance on their own on a standalone basis. That's going to alleviate some of the pressures in the market, but I think it's going to create a whole new set of considerations and structural innovation. Lindsay Tyler: Well, it's certainly been remarkable to watch this financing theme take shape in real time, and the next chapter sounds like it could be even more interesting to follow. Anish, thanks for joining us and sharing your insights. Anish Shah: Great to join, Lindsay. Thanks. Lindsay Tyler: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.*****Anish Shah is a member of Morgan Stanley’s Global Capital Markets Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, his views are his own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

AI has become a strategic policy priority as governments race to secure their technological future. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explores what’s driving the shift and the implications for markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley.Today: Why sovereign AI is becoming a policy priority around the world.It’s Wednesday, July 15th, at 10am in New York.The AI controls debate used to be focused on chips. Cutting edge semiconductors are essential to train large AI models, after all. But over the past year, the debate has moved well beyond that narrow focus. The policy conversation has broadened beyond things like which advanced semis can be sold to China.The bigger question now is who controls the full AI stack — chips, cloud infrastructure, frontier models, data centers, cybersecurity standards, and the energy systems that support all of it.That’s what we mean when we talk about sovereign AI. At the simplest level, it's a country’s ability to develop and deploy artificial intelligence using its own infrastructure, data, workforce, and technology ecosystem. But sovereign AI is also about reducing strategic dependence on foreign platforms and foreign-controlled supply chains.That echoes a trend toward multipolarity that we’ve been writing about since back in 2018. Countries around the world are prioritizing national security over economic efficiencies. We see that theme applying to AI as well.So, what does this all mean for markets?First, sovereign AI turns AI infrastructure into a matter of national industrial policy. Data centers, power availability, and grid reliability are just a few examples of components that are becoming strategic assets. That means governments are likely to play a larger role in deciding several aspects of the AI buildout. Where it’s built? Who finances it? And which countries get access to the most advanced parts of the stack?Second, sovereign AI reinforces the shift toward derisking and a more fragmented international order. The U.S. is trying to promote the export of an American AI technology stack to allies and partners. At the same time, it’s preserving national security guardrails around the most sensitive capabilities. Meanwhile, we see China trying to indigenize as much of the technology as possible, from chips to cloud to model deployment. Other countries are navigating between the two.Third, and importantly, sovereign AI is also an energy story. Who gets to build and benefit from AI increasingly depends on access to low-cost, reliable power. That makes energy availability a competitive advantage — and it also makes energy affordability a political constraint.That dovetails with one of our thematic predictions heading into this year: the politics of energy. We see rising power costs as a more visible political issue. That’s led to backlash against data center development. There’s more local opposition to new projects, and greater pressure on policymakers and utilities to make sure that existing ratepayers are not subsidizing AI-driven grid investment.We think that could push AI infrastructure in a few directions. One is toward a conditional build-out. Here, offsets like large-load tariffs and other cost-allocation mechanisms are designed to protect households and small businesses.Another direction is policy support for the lowest-cost sources of energy, even where that might create tension with emissions objectives. And the third direction is more off-grid or behind-the-meter power solutions. That would include things like fuel cells, storage, and other time to power strategies — so data center developers can secure electricity without intensifying local affordability concerns.The pursuit of sovereign AI comes with many questions around inflationary impacts: compute & power are both constrained, regulation remains uncertain, and there could be more limitations on things like tech transfers if the government sees a national security edge. So, to the extent that countries want to reduce their dependencies, it may cost more to get there. There are, however, companies that can benefit in this environment.But there’s also a policy risk. We are left with a more reactive policy environment. Selective access in some areas, tighter controls in others, and ongoing uncertainty around how Washington will treat advanced chips, cloud infrastructure, and frontier model deployment. Now that uncertainty matters because it affects corporate planning, cross-border investment, and the shape of global AI alliances.So what does this all mean for investors?More and more, governments view AI capability as a source of economic power and geopolitical leverage. That means the AI race is moving from a question of who builds the best model to who controls the infrastructure, standards, supply chains, and energy systems that allow those models to scale.In our view, that means sovereign AI is one of the most important themes to watch in the next phase of the AI buildout.And we’ll be coming back to this topic soon. In the coming weeks, Stephen Byrd and I will talk about sovereign AI in more depth, particularly around what it means for power demand, data center investment, energy affordability, and the broader infrastructure required to support the next stage of AI adoption.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 discusses where investors may find opportunity beyond the AI sector and risks that could slow market gains.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 our broadening thesis and the near-term risks to monitor. It's Tuesday, July 14th at 11:30 am in New York.   So, let’s get after it. The broadening trade is now playing out. It’s showing up in stock prices, relative performance and earnings revisions. It’s also making investors question the sustainability of the most crowded areas of the market, and consider other near-term risks.  I first made the broadening call late last year based on my view that the economy had entered a new expansion after completing the rolling recession in April of 2025. In a new expansion, earnings growth tends to be much better than expected because revenue growth returns to companies that have already become more cost efficient. That’s classic operating leverage. The market began to anticipate that dynamic late last year, but then the Iran conflict interrupted the move. Oil surged, rate-cut expectations disappeared, and investors crowded back into the most obvious AI capex beneficiaries led by semiconductors and memory, in particular. Since mid May, that interruption has faded with oil prices falling sharply and the broadening trade has begun to work again. Importantly, the market is not abandoning AI. It is simply rotating within AI and beyond AI. And that distinction matters. Semiconductors have had a historic run, supported by earnings revisions. But even great stories get exhausted in the short term. When earnings revisions breadth is pressing against historical highs and the trade becomes one of the most crowded areas of the market, the bar for upside gets very high. At that point, the issue is not whether the story is good. The issue is whether the rate of change can keep improving. That is a very different question. The underperformance of the hyperscalers was probably the first warning sign. Semis depend on hyperscaler capex. So when the spenders start lagging the beneficiaries, that divergence usually resolves one way or another. And now we’re starting to see it. Meta’s decision to sell excess capacity to outside customers may not mean the AI capex cycle is over. But it does tell you the market is beginning to ask harder questions about the path and pace of that spending. Credit spreads and stock prices of these hyperscalers provide the feedback loop to managements that maybe they should curtail the pace of spend. We’ve had multiple corrections inside this AI cycle already. This looks like another one – not the end of the cycle, but a reset. That reset is what gives the rest of the market room to work. Our preferred ways to express the broadening remain Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Biotech. These are not the areas investors have been excited about. In fact, positioning and sentiment remain subdued. But that’s exactly why I like them. The risks to the story in the short term are two-fold. First, uncertainty about the full re-opening of the strait remains high, with pivots on both sides. This is keeping oil prices volatile in the short term even if the primary trend remains lower.  Second, interest rate volatility is picking up again with the entire curve shifting higher in both nominal and real terms. If this doesn’t stabilize, it will have a negative impact on stocks both at the index level and even for stocks that should benefit from our broadening call. With the inflation data coming in today softer than expected, this should reduce some of the recent upward pressure on rates.  However, the new Fed Chair and board remain resolute to make sure inflation doesn’t rear its head again. In the end, dealing with this risk up front is a good thing in my view even if it means uncertainty for markets. Bottom line, equity markets have been consolidating and correcting for the past several months. This is the result of the peak rate of change in earnings revisions and a reaction function shift at the Fed to focus more on the inflation mandate than growth.  With the recent rollover in semiconductors, heavy supply of equity and credit issuance, and a transition of leadership at the Fed, expect more volatility and corrective activity in stocks before the next leg of the bull market resumes.  Don’t chase momentum. Instead, add to risk on down days to areas that will benefit from a broadening in the economy and earnings growth.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Cheaper obesity medicines could unlock broader demand, while supply-chain bottlenecks and premium-drug innovation may also shape how the market evolves. Our analysts Terence Flynn and Thibault Boutherin break down the investor implications.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst. Thibault Boutherin: And I'm Thibault Boutherin, Morgan Stanley's Europe Pharmaceuticals Analyst. Terence Flynn: Today, how cheaper GLP-1 obesity medicines could reshape access, pricing, and supply chains; and what the first generic markets may signal for Europe and the U.S. It's Monday, July 13th at 10am in New York. Thibault Boutherin: And it's 3 pm in London. Terence Flynn: Around one billion people live with obesity worldwide, including over a 100 million in the U.S. Right now, the introduction of the first lower cost generics of semaglutide, a GLP-1 medicine, in some international markets, could have consequences on affordability and demand. Thibault, what are the first countries seeing the introduction of sema generics? What are the current dynamics, and why should global investors pay attention? Thibault Boutherin: Sure. So, so far generics are being introduced this year in three countries: in India, Canada and Brazil. And if we look at India, this is the first market where the generics are being introduced. The patent for semaglutide expired in March 2026, and 13 companies have launched 26 generics across different formulations: autoinjectors, vials, and pills, which price is lower than the branded drug. And because the India market was quite under-penetrated for GLP-1, we are seeing affordability driving volume expansion. In Canada, two generics have been launched so far. Four other generics are waiting for approval, and more are being filed. And finally, in Brazil, one generic was approved last month, and we are expecting these generics to be launched in Brazil in July. And 17 other generics are in different stage of regulatory review in Brazil, and we would expect more to enter the market by the end of this year. And the reason why we focus on these markets is because we believe they could provide a blueprint for what could happen later in the U.S. and in Europe; in particular for Canada, which shares some characteristics with Europe and the U.S. And the patent for semaglutide will expire in Europe in 2031 and in the U.S. from 2032. Terence Flynn: Great. Maybe on the India front, I know that's at the leading edge. What happened with patient demand when price came down? Thibault Boutherin: Sure. So, what we saw in India is a surge in volume when generics were launched, and the volume in April 2026 were already six times higher than the volume in February. And that expansion has been driven mostly by these generics launch, which captured 80 percent of semaglutide volume in April. And our India team expect that the GLP-1 market in India will actually expand in value from $125 million in [20]25 to more than $1 billion by 2030, despite lower prices as we see better, you know, greater volume and greater adoption of GLP-1s in India. Terence Flynn: The other thing, you know, you and I have discussed is the supply chain, and one of the questions is the ability of some of the generic manufacturers to scale semaglutide. So, maybe talk to us about the current capabilities. And could we see bottlenecks in the supply chain formation here? Thibault Boutherin: Yeah, sure. So, there are three key elements to watch on the supply chain. The first is the active pharmaceutical ingredient or API, and that's the semaglutide molecule itself. The second element is the device and the device components, and the third element is the fill and finish, which is basically putting all of these things together. On the API side, so semaglutide molecule, we believe there will be no bottleneck in supplying for generics as we see a handful of large Chinese companies, out of China, building multi-ton capacity for semaglutide. So, we believe there will be no shortage of API to supply the generic supply chain for injectables. On the device, these are the same device companies that are supplying the branded version of semaglutide, and other GLP-1s for the device that are also supplying the generic makers. And we are seeing meaningful investments being made, so we don't believe there will be a bottleneck here. Where we could see a bottleneck emerging is on the fill and finish side. Fill and finish requires highly controlled clean room space to minimize contamination. It requires regulatory approval, and it takes up to three years to build fill and finish capacity. And so, that's where if there is not more investment being made over the next few years, there could potentially [be] a bottleneck emerging for the generic companies. Terence, while semaglutide generics will definitely represent a challenge for the existing branded version of this GLP-1, there are some insights in these emerging dynamics that suggest that tirzepatide, the other GLP-1, could be less at risk. Can you touch a bit on some of these dynamics? Terence Flynn: Absolutely. So, just to remind listeners that semaglutide targets a pathway called GLP-1. Tirzepatide actually targets two pathways. The first is GLP-1, and the second is GIP. And there are some data comparing these molecules, both in Type 2 diabetes and obesity. And tirzepatide gives not only better efficacy but also improved tolerability. And so, what you're seeing in some of the ex-U.S. markets is segmentation, where there are some consumers that are willing to pay a premium price for tirzepatide. Our team in Brazil has done a lot of work on this front looking at this dynamic and, you know, we expect that to play out in many geographies. So, despite the entry of lower-cost generic versions, we think you will still see segmentation of the market between differentiated brand and the lower-cost generics. And that as a result, you will continue to see branded growth.In the U.S. right now, market share is about 60 percent in favor of tirzepatide. And so again, you're seeing a differentiation between these two molecules. Thibault Boutherin: And beyond the introduction of generics GLP-1s, there are other dynamics in the industry that are driving this market. And the introduction of oral drugs this year has been a big topic. Terence, what are your views on the role that orals could play on the market? Terence Flynn: Yes, as a lot of people are probably aware, the many of the existing GLP-1 medicines are injectable. And so those are delivered once a week with a needle. But there are now additional oral options of these GLP-1 medicines. They started off first for Type 2 diabetes, but they have now broadened into obesity as well, following some recent FDA approvals. And what we're seeing is that the introduction in the U.S. so far is expanding the market. So, the majority of people that are taking the oral versions of these medicines are new users to GLP-1s. So again, you're getting market expansion. When you think about the orals as well, one of the other questions is capacity. I know, Thibault, you were talking about the supply chain. There are similar questions for these oral medicines because not all of the oral medicines are the same. Some are easier to manufacture than others, and as a result, that's another variable to consider. So, some of these are what's called peptide-based orals, and some of these are non-peptide-based orals. And the non-peptide-based orals are much easier to scale, for a larger global market. And so that's definitely another variable that we're monitoring and that I think investors need to consider. Thibault Boutherin: And beyond the pill versions of these GLP-1s, we are seeing more innovation in the drug pipeline of the industry, which could be a key driver of differentiation against the competition from the generics. So, what are we seeing emerging today from diabetes and obesity pipelines, which could be exciting for the future of the category? Terence Flynn: So, as we see time and time again in pharmaceutical markets, the key players continue to innovate to try to improve profiles of the existing medications. So, there are, you know, kind of two areas. One would be efficacy; another would be safety tolerability. And so, there are a number of players that are working first to develop longer acting medication. So, as I mentioned, the existing injectable drugs are dosed once weekly. But there are a number of companies that are working to develop potentially monthly or less frequent injections. So, that's one area that we're monitoring closely. And then the second, and again, this plays into what I discussed on tirzepatide, is additional pathways that are involved here in diabetes and obesity, and a number of players are working to target additional pathways beyond GLP-1 and GIP. And so, some of the leading pathways that are being studied are something called amylin and glucagon, and there are a number of medications that are in the late-stage pipeline that are coming along, which have some pretty interesting data. And so that's another area that we're watching. And again, the goal there would be to either improve efficacy and/or improve tolerability versus the existing medications. Thibault Boutherin: Great. And maybe we can also take this opportunity to talk about some of the short-term drivers in the market that are not facing generic today, like the U.S. So, what could be, you know, the key drivers for growth of GLP-1s and the overall obesity and diabetes category over the next five years? Terence Flynn: Yeah, obviously the key one is seeing additional uptake of these medicines. I think right now we estimate, again, obesity in particular, there's about low double-digit percent uptake. And so obviously seeing increasing uptake of these medicines. The orals, as I mentioned, are already driving market expansion. And then the third is access. So obviously in any market, that's very important. In the U.S., I think about 50 percent of employers cover these medications right now. We expect that to increase in the years ahead as the data continues to build. But then this year starting very shortly, the patients in the Medicare program in the U.S., so those people over the age of 65, will be able to access these medicines for $50 per month. And so, we think that is another driver of growth – is this will broaden access to about an additional 18 million people, starting this summer. So, the next phase of the diabesity market comes down to execution, lower cost and scaled supply in the mass market, and innovation and differentiation to compete in the premium segment. Thibault, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Thibault Boutherin: Great speaking with you, Terence. Terence Flynn: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

The USMCA review is underway, with implications beyond tariffs. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore breaks down the key issues shaping the road ahead.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy at Morgan Stanley Research.Today, I'll be talking about the USMCA review – what happened on July 1st, what it means for North American trade, and how investors should be thinking about the road ahead. It's Friday, July 10th at 10am in New York. Last week, the six-year review deadline for the USMCA came and went. And as we'd anticipated, the U.S. declined to extend the agreement for another sixteen-year term. U.S. Trade Representative Greer stated that the U.S. did not agree to renew the USMCA in its current form, pointing to shortcomings and trade deficits with both Canada and Mexico, much of which echoed his testimony in front of Congress in December of last year. So, what happens next? This decision triggers an annual review process that could continue until the agreement's scheduled expiration in 2036. So, that means effectively the new deadline for negotiations is now July of 2027. And if we get to that point and see a similar outcome, this procedure repeats until the deal is terminated in 2036. Now, importantly, the agreement itself remains fully in force during this period. The current tariff regime, rules of origin, investment protections, and dispute settlement mechanisms are all unaffected for now. That's actually in line with the expectation that we laid out earlier this year. In short, we anticipated an outcome in which negotiations stall and the deal moves to annual reviews. We thought that was becoming more likely than an ambitious expansion of the agreement in its current form. That being said, there are some important implications of this outcome. First, we think North American trade is being reshaped by a transition from a rules-based framework – where tariff schedules and preferential access anchored trade decisions – toward a more discretionary, sector-specific approach tied to industrial policy objectives. That, of course, increases uncertainty around exemptions, sector treatment, and consequently investment decisions for corporates. Second, we think two bilateral deals may not be off the table. While it's still our base case that the trilateral framework remains intact, reporting seems to suggest that negotiations are progressing much more substantively with Mexico than with Canada. A third round of U.S.-Mexico negotiations is scheduled for the week of July 20th, while substantive text-based negotiations between Canada and the U.S. have not yet begun. That asymmetry could mean that bilateral issues between the U.S. and Mexico are resolved more easily, while outstanding frictions like Canada's dairy market quota system could prove to be an overhang in those bilateral talks. Third, the structural divergence between Mexico and Canada is accelerating, which is something my colleagues have highlighted in their recent work. If we think about Canada's manufacturing export base – autos, metals, machinery, energy, and transportation equipment – that actually overlaps with the areas that the U.S. government is increasingly defining as strategic. And therefore, necessitating more government involvement through, in things like Section 232 tariffs. Canada accounts for only a negligible share of U.S. imports across computers, semiconductors, communications equipment, and advanced electronics. Those are actually the sectors where Mexico has become deeply integrated, particularly through assembly and re-export activity linked to AI servers, electronics, and industrial hardware. Mexico now supplies roughly 35 percent of U.S. IT hardware imports and nearly 50 percent of U.S. server imports. And the North in particular has emerged as a vital interconnection hub between Latin America and the U.S. That's been driven by nearshoring trends, AI adoption, and multi-cloud strategies, as my colleagues Nik Lippmann and Fernando Sedano highlight. That means the scope and the objectives of the bilateral talks between the U.S. and Mexico and the U.S. and Canada may diverge even more from here. So where does that leave us? The USMCA is still intact, but the annual review process means North American trade policy is now a recurring negotiation, not yet a settled framework. And that will likely remain the case if policymakers agree next July to punt the issue yet another year. The primary risk, in our view, stems less from the possibility of a full USMCA collapse and more from the prolonged uncertainty around implementation details, sector-specific trade measures, and Section 232 tariffs. 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.

Robert Feldman and Michael Gapen discuss how AI could reshape growth, labor markets and productivity in the U.S. and Japan.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Robert Feldman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Robert Feldman, Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities in Tokyo. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Robert Feldman: Today, we'll discuss why the U.S. and Japanese economies may react differently to the AI productivity test. It's Thursday, July 9th at 8 pm in Tokyo. Michael Gapen: And 9 am in New York. Robert Feldman: AI is the biggest theme around the world right now, but AI will play out differently in different economies. Take the cases of the U.S. and Japan. In the U.S., it's already a catalyst in investment, imports, productivity, and the labor market outlook. But here in Japan, it's seen as a savior for an economy with an intense labor shortage, low unemployment, and very little room to raise labor force participation. Mike, in the U.S., AI's contribution to real GDP growth will rise from about 0.05 percentage points in 2024 to an estimated 0.43 percentage points in 2027. What does that mean for markets? Michael Gapen: Well, Robby, I think it, it means a number of things, but, you know, I'm an economist, so the answer is always, "It depends." I think the real crux of the issue over time in the U.S., and therefore what it means for financial markets, is ultimately whether AI is labor replacing – and pushes the unemployment rate higher. Or it acts like a more traditional general-purpose technology that's labor augmenting. So, if, that's the case, meaning it looks similar to the internet and digital era, then it would mean faster output growth, stronger productivity growth, but still an economy that's running at or near full employment. That would be very beneficial in our estimation for risk assets, equity markets, credit markets, and it would probably mean that we stay in an interest rate environment that's certainly higher than it was during the post GFC period. But if – AI is a very different technology than we've seen in the past, and it displaces labor, and we get increases in the unemployment rate as AI diffuses through the economy. Then it could be very different for markets. Maybe returns to capital and equity markets are supported, but that might be more narrowly for technology stocks and not broader, say, consumer discretionary stocks. So, the answer, of course, is it depends. We don't know. And I think, ultimately, we come down on the side of thinking that AI will not create dystopian outcomes in the labor markets, that employment will hold up. So, we have a fairly constructive view, perhaps an optimistic view. And we think, ultimately it'll benefit markets greatly, similar to what we saw from the mid-90s to the early 2000’s. Robert Feldman: Well, in your model, you have a particular variable that captures the speed of diffusion. But your baseline has AI spreading twice as fast as the internet did. But without that rise of employment. Is that really manageable? And if it's not, what economic indicators would warn us, if we're crossing into the danger zone? Michael Gapen: This is really the tricky part as, as you know. We have a new technology. We have to model how it diffuses through the economy. And I would say I think there's an argument here that penetration rates and usage rates are very different than what economists think about diffusion, which is how the production process is reshaped because of this new technology. And so most economists look at the internet and digital era and think it took 20-25 years to fully diffuse. Mass penetration in maybe 10 years, but full diffusion in more like 20-25 years. And so, each innovation cycle tends to happen more rapidly. So, I do think AI will spread more rapidly. And even by saying it spreads twice as fast as the internet did still means that it'll take roughly a decade, maybe 10-12 years for this to fully diffuse. So, our argument here would be that that is enough time for a flexible economy and a flexible labor market, like we have in the U.S., to rebalance labor. But if we're wrong, then Robby, what I think you will see is that as AI rolls through, it diffuses faster. And what we would see then is increases in rates of job separation and layoffs that would overwhelm the labor market's ability to reallocate workers. So, I think we would see two things – or three things: scale layoffs, a rise in the unemployment rate, and probably a significant amount of underemployment. Those who get rebalanced may be rebalanced into work that's not, say, consistent with the skill of that worker. So, I think we would see a very disrupted labor market in the process. But if it takes a decade, maybe 10-12 years, we think ultimately the U.S. economy is flexible enough to rebalance labor without large scale layoffs. Robert Feldman: Now, people are afraid of a lot of things, but one other thing is that AI might create new kinds of jobs, new kinds of tasks, have different impacts on people's wealth, and different responses from policymakers as well. How do these knock-on effects change the AI labor story? Michael Gapen: Yeah. That's right. I think you make a very good point there that I think it's easy to fall into what an economist would call a partial equilibrium trap. So, for example, we look at occupations exposed to AI task replacement, and we say, "Wow, if all these tasks are replaced, we might lose 10 million workers or 20 million workers." But that's too simplistic, in our view. Because as you note, AI may destroy some tasks or replace some tasks, but it's also going to create new ones. So, it may eliminate some types of occupations but create others. And in addition, if people are, say, laid off because of AI, you get a loss in labor market income for the economy. But AI will likely create returns to capital, say, stronger equity performance, and that's an indirect wealth effect. So, our model kind of, looks at, say, three wedges or three horse races in the economy then. It's about the speed of diffusion of AI against the ability of the labor market to rebalance. It's task destruction or task replacement versus new task creation. And then third, it's we might have weakness in labor market income in the short run, but there are indirect wealth effects. So, thinking about it this way in a richer general equilibrium context, these feedback effects matter a lot. So, the combination of if the labor market's disrupted, we get easing in monetary policy, maybe a fiscal response. There are new tasks, new jobs that are created for workers to rebalance to over time. And overall demand in the economy gets held up because wealth effects can offset some lost income. All of that is extremely important in our view that ultimately the U.S. economy can rebalance and handle the AI diffusion in a manageable way. We could be wrong, of course, but our main point here is you have to think about this in a richer context. You can't just simply, say, stack up workers and occupations and say, "Oh, we're going to lose a lot of employment." That's not the way innovation waves have worked in the past. We don't think they're going to work that way in the future. Robert Feldman: Mm-hmm. That's fascinating because the situation in the United States is so different from that in Japan, largely because of the demographic situation. Here in Japan, the key element is how much AI can ease the labor shortage. In fact, in some labor-intensive jobs now, we're seeing 6 percent wage increases, and that's great. As long as productivity rises fast enough that price hikes aren't necessary. Michael Gapen: So Robby, in your scenarios for Japan, the same 10 percent productivity gain can lead to very different outcomes. Deflation and weaker employment in one case. More inflation, higher wages, and more employment in another. What do you think drives the difference? Robert Feldman: Mm-hmm. Well, the crucial element really is the flexibility of goods and labor markets. With high flexibility, you get higher GDP, higher employment, and moderate inflation. With low flexibility, you may get a bit higher GDP, but employment plunges, and there's deflation of both prices and wages – more in wages. Now, in Japan, over the last two decades, we've seen monopoly power in key markets go down. For example, agriculture and energy. Labor markets are more flexible too, but lifetime employment system still applies to about two-thirds of the economy. And that deters people from trying to find better jobs and even from acquiring the skills needed for a new job. Michael Gapen: What conditions are needed for AI to be additive to Japan's economy? Robert Feldman: We need more reskilling. Japan is lucky because people are healthy, and they want to work into their 70s and beyond. But acquiring the skills to remain productive is a challenge, even though Japan's workforce is well-educated and still has a strong work ethic. So, to sum up, in the U.S., the race is between diffusion and absorption. But in Japan it's between labor scarcity and productivity. Is that fair? Michael Gapen: It is fair, and we come down on the side of optimism. We think diffusion will happen fast, but it'll happen at a pace that the U.S. economy can handle. So, we come down having a positive view overall. We do not lean in the direction of dystopian labor market outcomes. Robert Feldman: Mm-hmm. I agree with that as well for Japan. So, Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Robby-san. Robert Feldman: And thanks for listening, everyone. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets outlines what could potentially go wrong and disrupt markets’ optimism this summer.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, discussing three things that could disrupt a quiet summer. It’s Wednesday, July 8th at noon in New York. As markets turn the page toward the second half of the year, there are lots of reasons for optimism. Global growth remains solid. Earnings growth is strong, and broadening across more companies. Capital markets remain open and deal activity is robust. We continue to think that the best analogy for current conditions is something like 1997 through 1998 or 2005 through 2006 – periods where corporate aggression was increasing, and had further to go, leading to equities outperforming credit. Even more immediately, July also happens to be one of the best months of the year for markets. And while one should never base their entire investment strategy on how far the earth has travelled around the sun, this month has been the best month for the U.S. High Yield returns, by far, over the last 15 years. The last time the S&P 500 fell in the month of July was 2014. So given all that, what could go wrong? Well, here are three things that are on our mind. First, a key part of our most optimistic view is that U.S. inflation will be lower than the Federal Reserve expects in the second half of this year, leading them to leave interest rates unchanged, rather than raise rates as the market expects. The risk is that this assumption is just wrong, perhaps soon. There is certainly an argument that, if the Fed is worried about inflation, it shouldn’t wait to act, and the market is currently placing roughly 1-in-3 chance that the Fed hikes rates on July 29th. If that happens – and again, our base case is it does not – it could drive volatility. Second is earnings season, which kicks off next week. While the general trend of earnings is important, the bigger focus is likely to be on the results of large U.S. tech companies, and in particular, how much they plan to spend building out AI infrastructure. Over the last several quarters, almost like clockwork, these spending estimates have been revised higher and higher. And that has helped boost confidence in AI – as the spending is a sign that the technology holds promise – as well as boosting the broader earnings outlook; since all of this spending is becoming other company’s revenue. Our base-case remains that this AI spending cycle has further to run, with capex from the major U.S. hyperscalers rising from over $800bn of spending this year to roughly $1.2 trillion of spending next year. But the risk would be that second quarter earnings now show more hesitation to spend, maybe because the share prices of some of these big spenders have been recent underperformers. And given how much the current growth and earnings story is linked to AI, and how popular AI exposure is with investors, that would create a risk. Finally, there’s Iran. Our base case assumes a gradual renormalization of flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and we forecast Brent oil at about $75/bbl in 12 months time, which is pretty similar to current levels. But as of this recording there were reports of renewed hostilities, and the ceasefire may be fragile. The U.S. has already drawn down its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its lowest-ever levels, potentially reducing some ability to absorb shocks if the conflict re-escalates. Historically, July tends to be strong, and markets have a number of helpful tailwinds at their back. But an unexpected rate hike, an unexpected reduction in Hyperscaler Capex, and a resumption of the Iran conflict are three factors that are not in our base-case – and could disrupt that. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. Also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

The biggest AI stocks have had a remarkable run – but questions still remain. Our Head of Americas Specialty Sales, Thomas Wigg, speaks with Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and Global Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore about the competition and durability of the investment cycle.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Thomas Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Tom Wigg, Morgan Stanley's Head of Americas Specialty Sales. Stephen Byrd: I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's Head of Public Policy Research. Thomas Wigg: Today, the rally in AI CapEx beneficiaries has taken a breather in recent weeks on concerns of competition from open-source models, backlash to token-maxxing, and growing political opposition to data center builds. It's Tuesday, July 7th at 10am in New York. Let's start with you, Stephen. There's a lot of discussion recently around a backlash at token-maxxing. Essentially, enterprises trying to curtail their high spending on AI tokens from the frontier labs, and, in many cases, shifting to cheaper open-source China models. Can you first offer some perspective here on the value of tokens for enterprises? I know you have a popular token factory model that walks through the economics of agents. Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Tom, we do have this model that really walks through token economics, both from the adopter side as well as the hyperscaler side. So, let's do the adopter side. So, there's a study out that shows a whole range of enterprise use cases of AI, and the average single use case that they identify would save a company about $55 or provide that much benefit. And while we don't know exactly how many tokens it will require, we can make some educated guesses as to a typical token usage to achieve that $55 outcome. And we know that a typical American model, though this varies a lot, you can think of as the cost per million tokens being in the range of $5 per million. Some will be lower, some will be higher. So, for a few dollars of token cost, an enterprise can generate benefit of $55. So that doesn't make me overly concerned about token spend and concerns about token-maxxing. I know we're going to get into that, but the foundation here is really good in the sense that enterprise use cases are very much in the money. Thomas Wigg: How do you think market share ultimately shakes out on tokens? Do the cheaper models overtake the frontier AI labs? Do tokens bifurcate based on the complexity of workloads? How do you think this plays out? Stephen Byrd: What we continue to see is this relentless pace of innovation and cost reduction. So, the frontier keeps going out – meaning model capabilities continue to increase, and, with that, we see enterprise adoption growing quite a bit. Long way to say there is a role for both the frontier as well as these open-source models, and we'll continue to see both flourish. What I see is a lot of tokens will be spent on open-source models. A lot of the value will be in the higher end models because that's where enterprises are going to go. Let me give you an example. I was speaking with one of our programmers about a recent project, and he used a very high-end coding tool, an American coding tool. And for him, that incremental cost of the tokens was very much worth it. And here's a very practical example as to why it makes sense for many enterprises to use the higher end models. If a coding tool gets one of the thousands of lines of code wrong, the cost to remediate is very, very high. In other words, that incremental cost – in this example I'm thinking of, it's a few dollars incremental cost – is so worth it because if the quality is not there, the cost to any enterprise to go back and remediate is so high. And that's true in a lot of enterprise use cases, but not in every use case. And what we are seeing is these open-source models that are cheaper will be very good for a variety of more mundane use cases that are still very valuable. That said, what we've seen in data from places like OpenRouter is dollar-weighted, meaning valued by enterprise spend, the vast majority is still the proprietary models. But even within proprietary models, we could have more expensive and less expensive models. You do not need to go to the frontier. Where I come out on all this is that I'm very confident that the demand for compute is going to exceed the supply. What is difficult to exactly know is who are the winners, what is the exact mix. But the fundamentals of the demand for compute look extremely strong. Thomas Wigg: So, I think you just gave me the answer, but I do want to bring this all back to AI CapEx. Now, last year, when the market sold off on Deep Seek concerns, the concept of Jevons paradox ultimately prevailed, where the cheaper pricing led to even greater demand and CapEx went higher.Do you think the same plays out here? Stephen Byrd: It does look that way very much. And the Jevons paradox dynamic is what we still see today in the sense that as the models get better, what we can do with the models increase, the cost of tokens will keep dropping, the cost of compute will keep dropping.But let's talk about what might derail that, just to make sure we're thinking about all the risks. If somehow commoditized models could perform at the same level as proprietary models in all situations, then I would feel differently. But I don't see that. What I see is that these newer models really do have capabilities that are fairly breathtaking and that are worth that extra money. But if somehow, we hit a wall where these models aren't getting better and therefore the sort of the open models are going to catch up, then I'd feel differently about that. This is where Ariana will, will come in in terms of policy and, you know, this comes up a lot when we think about U.S. versus China. How do we think about, you know, access to different models? How do we think about the cost of different models? What about the risk of appropriation of capabilities by the Chinese firms, for example? That comes up a lot in policy circles. But the base case that I have is this just looks more like Jevons paradox, and there's going to be continued innovation, continued reduction in the cost of producing these services from these models. That looks like more of the same. Thomas Wigg: Let's shift to Ariana to talk about the political angle here. The cover of Barron's over the weekend was a guy wearing a no data centers T-shirt. And this does seem to be one of the few bipartisan issues of agreement heading into the midterms.The stat that the article gave was that 75 data center projects worth $130 billion were blocked or delayed in 1Q26, which is equal to the total number for 2025. This is according to Data Center Watch. Now, most of this is in blue states like New York, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota considering a statewide moratorium, but you're also seeing Pennsylvania, Arizona, Ohio, parts of Texas restricting tax incentives here. So as this gets louder into the midterms, how do you think this plays out? Ariana Salvatore: So, this is definitely one of the big wedge issues, not just for the midterm elections, but for 2028. And to your point, it's expanding into something that's got bipartisan momentum behind it. Our view is that as long as the Trump administration is in power, something like a federal ban is unlikely to come to fruition. That's because we think the administration is still broadly supportive of the AI data center build-out. And I think even if you were to see a Democrat in office further down the road, that position is the same. And the reason is, it's just too difficult to imagine the U.S. giving up that strategic imperative relative to China. So, while it is true that voters are against AI, while it is true that you are seeing these sorts of local efforts pick up steam, it's also the case that China is accelerating its own AI build-out – not just domestically, but around the rest of the world too. It's also the case that they are kind of tweaking some export restrictions on inputs for some of these data centers, and those geopolitical realities, I think, are hard to ignore. So, at the end of the day, there is a broader strategic imperative here that both Democrats and Republicans kind of recognize and get behind. Now, what does that mean in the near term for the build-out? I think it's not that you're going to see a real pushback or moratorium so much as a conditional build-out.That means you're going to see data centers have to incorporate things like grid modernization in their contracts, agree to longer term investments, for example. Do something that benefits the communities or give it back in some way. And I think that's kind of the policy trajectory in addition to the administration continuing to lean on tech companies to basically, you know, square the circle here and find some way to make this more affordable for, you know, local constituents. Thomas Wigg: Stephen, let me get your take on this too, because I know you live in the D.C. area, and you have a lot of political conversations like you referenced earlier. How do you think this plays out? Is it a red state versus blue state dynamic? And if what Ariana says comes to fruition, where it's a conditional build-out in terms of either giving back to the community or ensuring certain prices or certain technologies behind the meter, in front of the meter, does that have implications for certain areas of the market? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. First, I think Ariana's points were all spot on. I just want to, kind of, build on that and, and dive into it a little more detail. A few things. The politics are, from my perspective, not being the expert that Ariana is, I find them a little strange – in the sense that at the federal level, we have one dynamic, and at the state and local level, we have a bit of a different dynamic. And what I mean by that is, at the federal level, I think it's becoming increasingly clear just how geopolitically important AI supremacy is. As these models get more capable, I think it's pretty clear that the Trump administration really sees just how potent these tools are from a geopolitical point of view. So that points in the direction of wanting to support AI and wanting to ensure that the United States has a leading and dominant position in terms of AI capabilities. Pause there, and then go to your point about, sort of, the local and state level. Building on what Ariana said, what I see are basically two approaches to data center development. In states where the utility is vertically integrated, meaning they control everything, like Louisiana, I do see a path where – in those kinds of states where the politics are a bit more favorable – you could develop a data center connected to the grid, where the data center developer is paying full freight and then some. Meaning that they are providing back to the community, they're providing sort of net benefits, and there should be plenty of capital to make that work and really support all constituents. That can work – in a state where the politics work – because utilities are really weather vanes from a political point of view. So, if their state supports data center development, they will more likely support a data center development. The other approach, though, in many states, whether it's deregulated or it's in a state where the politics are a little less favorable. Which, to your point on the cover of Barron’s, it's a lot of states, what I'm increasingly seeing is that the developers are going to go off grid. And they just don't want to show any impact to the community that could be considered negative. So, no use of water, no use of power, and hopefully have a, you know, low or zero emissions profile to show no impact at all. Even then, you want to give back to the community. But the view there is, look, we want to sidestep all of these concerns that we might be causing impacts to the grid by just not being connected. So, I think we're going to see a whole lot of off-grid data center projects. That's mostly natural gas turbines and fuel cells, that general approach. Energy storage will be required in a big way. That's not easy to do. So, in the context of delays there, the Bitcoin players who do have grid access today are clearly seeing a lot of demand for their products. So, I would say politics is now a huge issue that's showing up. The other thing I'd flag is often local communities and states are rejecting projects and using permit requests as a way to do that. So, for example, if your data center needs an air permit because your turbines are going to emit some kind of an, you know, sulfur dioxide, et cetera, into the air, you can run into trouble there. If your data center requires water and you need a water permit, you can run into trouble. So, that's causing these developers to try to find approaches that really minimize or eliminate the need for those kinds of permits. Thomas Wigg: Stephen and Ariana, thank you for taking the time. And to our audience, thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.*****Tom Wigg is a member of Morgan Stanley’s Institutional Equity Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, his views are his own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

A changing macro backdrop is creating new opportunities across the equity market. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at what's driving the shift and where it may lead next.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 discuss why I think the broadening out in equity markets can continue. It's Monday, July 6th at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. Let’s talk about a market dynamic that’s becoming harder to ignore. The broadening trade is back, and it’s gaining momentum partly because one of the most crowded areas of the market – Semiconductors – is finally starting to lose some of its own. To be clear, this doesn’t mean the AI cycle is over. However, trends don’t move in straight lines, and leadership can ebb and flow; especially if there are fundamental reasons supporting it. In fact, we’ve seen this happen several times already over the past couple of years with the hyperscalers and semiconductors ebbing and flowing. This is based on positioning, the rate of change on expectations for capex and the returns on that capex.  Meanwhile, our broadening call goes back to last November. Back then, we argued the economy had entered a new expansion after the rolling recession ended in the April of 2025. That view was based on a classic early-cycle setup where revenue growth returns to companies that had become cost efficient. That is the definition of operating leverage and that always leads to better than expected earnings growth – the core differentiation to our original outlook this year.  The market started to discount that broadening late last year and into early this year. Then, the Iran war interrupted it. Oil prices surged, and the bond market went from pricing Fed cuts to pricing hikes, and investors crowded back into the obvious AI capex winners – especially Semiconductors. That made sense for a while. The revisions in Semis were spectacular. But when earnings revisions breadth gets pressed against historical extremes, the question becomes less about whether the story is good and more about whether the rate of change can keep improving. That’s a much higher bar. And over the past few weeks, the market seems to be asking that question with semiconductor stocks fading. The underperformance in the hyperscalers was probably the first signal. Semis depend on hyperscaler capex, so when the spenders start to lag the beneficiaries, that divergence can’t last forever. It usually ends up reconciling with hyperscalers’ tempering capex guidance or indicating they are more focused on getting a return on that investment. META’s announcement last week that it would begin selling excess capacity to outside customers fits right into that discussion. It doesn’t kill the AI buildout, but it does change the market’s perception of how linear that buildout will be. What matters for investors is how they should trade it. First, the market should continue to broaden out. Second, we continue to favor Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, Regional Banks, and now Biotech as part of that rotation. Discretionary Goods remains the cleanest expression, in my view, because the wallet-share shift from services back to goods is underway, goods pricing is improving, oil prices have fallen, and earnings revisions are strengthening. Transports are also showing better revisions, and Regional Banks still benefit from the broader recovery, improving loan growth dynamics and our call for a re-steepening of the yield curve. Biotech deserves more attention here, too. It is also one of the most rate-sensitive areas of the market, and our work shows it has historically done very well in falling-rate regimes. If the market’s policy expectations are too hawkish – and I think they are – then Biotech offers an attractive risk-reward setup, particularly with an M&A cycle that continues to build. The Fed is part of this story as well. Chair Warsh’s comments last week that inflation risks have come down should matter, especially after the weaker labor data that came out Thursday. The market had become too hawkish on policy. If falling energy prices and contained core inflation allow the Fed to stay on hold rather than hike, that should help lower rate expectations and further support broader leadership in equity markets. Bottom line, the major averages may stay choppy because Semis are a large part of the index and crowded. But, the message is improving beneath the surface. The broader market performance indicates a broader economic and earnings recovery may just be beginning. The best news is that this view is still out of consensus, which means the opportunity for investors remains significant.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

As America nears its 250th birthday, our Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets looks back at the early republic as a volatile frontier market, and what its path from credit risks to durable institutions can teach investors today.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, markets are closed for the observance of 4th of July. But as America approaches its 250th anniversary, we take a look back to look forward at early America as a frontier market.It's Friday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle.If you were a global investor at the end of the 18th century looking for a stable, low-risk home for your capital, it would have been entirely reasonable to avoid the newly minted United States of America. By the standards of modern finance, the young republic was not a developed market in waiting. It was a frontier economy: volatile, debt-burdened, institutionally fragile, resource-rich, politically combustible, and astonishingly unequal.Its currency had collapsed. Its public finances were suspect. Its citizens resisted taxation, and its growth prospects were extraordinary. In 1810, 70 percent of the country was under the age of 25.That is one of the revelations of Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty, which focuses on the early days of the new country from 1789 to 1815.Wood's America is not the marble republic of statues and myth. It is speculative, messy, and full of motion. The United States succeeded not by escaping the dysfunctions that we associate with emerging or frontier markets, but by turning them into sources of strength.Start with capital. Early America needed it desperately. Roads, canals, land purchases, and government all required credit, and there was never enough of it. The country was rich in land and poor in liquidity, a classic emerging market mismatch.What the young country couldn't borrow or invent, it misappropriated, lifting intellectual property from its former masters in Britain. What Alexander Hamilton understood was the importance of confidence given this challenge; that debts would be honored, contracts enforced, and taxes, however unpopular, collected.His financial program was an attempt to solve the emerging market problem before the phrase existed. How to persuade investors that a new state, born in revolution and nearly bankrupted by war, could be trusted. To Hamilton, public credit was the foundation of independence.To many Jeffersonians, however, this system looked like an attempt to smuggle a British financial order back into the country that had just fought to expel it.The early republic's debates over debt, banks, speculation, and taxation sound contemporary because the underlying question is perennial in frontier markets: Can a society embrace credit and foreign capital without being captured by it?The U.S. was not starting from zero. It inherited legal traditions, habits of self-government, and a culture of contract and property. Those foundations gave confidence that disputes could be adjudicated, debts pursued, and rules would not be arbitrary.Early America was risky, but it was not lawless. And still, it did not go smoothly. There was no Federal Reserve, FDIC, or even a uniform national currency. Business was conducted with foreign coins, notes issued by private banks, IOUs, and blind optimism.Bank failures were common. In 1808, the Farmers Exchange Bank of Rhode Island issued over $600,000 of notes against less than $90 of gold in its vaults. You almost have to admire the audacity.Yet the same instability that made early America risky also made it unusually open. Land was the country's great asset class, a source of migration, ambition, speculation, and opportunity, at least for white settlers. It also produced bubbles, administrative strain, the expansion of slavery, and the violent dispossession of Native peoples.The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 was a risky, leveraged acquisition of distressed real estate, doubling the scale of the American experiment before anyone had quite figured out how the original version was supposed to work. Wood is especially good on the familiar energy unleashed by this world.The engine of U.S. growth was not an aristocracy of polished grandees, but the "middling sort." Shopkeepers, artisans, tavern owners, mechanics, farmers, merchants, and speculators – many convinced that in America, birthright mattered less than hustle.Commentators of the time complained about the degraded press, political polarization, hostility to expertise, and the vulgarity of a society obsessed with getting ahead. None of this sounds especially distant.What saved America from the usual traps of frontier economies was not immaculate stability. It was adaptability. Its constitution was amended. Political power changed hands despite animosity.Bankruptcy laws allowed for failure. Competition was ferocious, and economic power was generally too diffuse to be easily monopolized. The early republic's genius lay less in solving its contradictions than in creating ways to fight over them without destroying the whole.That is a useful lesson for America at 250. We tend to look backwards for reassurance, imagining that the country once possessed a unity, prudence, and institutional solidity that we have since lost. Wood suggests something different, that the United States was turbulent from the start.Its legacy was contested, its finances distrusted, its politics venomous, its expansion intertwined with slavery and Native dispossession, and its future uncertain. Emerging markets become developed markets not because they stop having crises, but because they build credibility through them. They learn which institutions matter, which bargains endure, which debts must be paid, and which moral liabilities compound when deferred.America was not born orderly, rich, or secure. It was born in the mud, financed on fragile credit, driven by speculation, and sustained by an almost irrational confidence in the future.So, enjoy the fireworks – and let them be a reminder that national maturity is not the absence of volatility. It's the capacity to turn that volatility into renewal.A postscript: Gordon S. Wood died in early June of this year. As a professor, author, and one of the preeminent scholars of the American Revolution, he brought fresh insight and deep humanization to the country's founding. For anyone looking for a better understanding of America as it celebrates a big anniversary, we'd wholeheartedly recommend his workThank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Following meetings across Europe and Asia, our Global Head of Cross-Asset Strategy Research, Serena Tang, discusses two of the main themes on investors' minds: uncertainty around U.S. monetary policy and increasing caution toward AI despite its long-term potential.Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Global Head of Cross-Asset Strategy Research at Morgan Stanley.And today, I'm bringing you a debrief from my investor meetings across Europe and Asia, and the key debates around AI and the Fed.It's Thursday, July 2nd at 10am in New York.The last two weeks, I have been traveling in Europe and Asia to meet with investors to discuss Morgan Stanley's latest views. Two themes dominated nearly every room I walked into.The first is the Federal Reserve and monetary policy path in the U.S. Many investors had interpreted Chair Kevin Warsh's June FOMC meeting, his first at the helm, as unambiguously hawkish. What market investors at my meetings pointed out is that [the] Fed's Summary of Economic Projections – commonly shortened to SEP, which details policymakers' forecasts for macro metrics like GDP growth, inflation, and the federal funds rate – added a hike in 2026 and pushed out rate cuts, implying more restrictive policy.Now, Morgan Stanley's economists think that hikes implied by SEP at the June FOMC meeting should be interpreted with caution. The projections appeared conditioned on elevated near-term inflation and may not capture the disinflation from a straight reopening. We actually anticipate a lower path for core inflation given a combination of a reversal in travel-related inflation and tariff payback, which lead to our call that the Fed remains on hold through 2026.The second recurring theme in meetings with investors across regions is, unsurprisingly, AI. While in every single meeting investors believe firmly in the secular story of ongoing AI CapEx cycle, there was some unease – especially since AI is now also becoming an inflation story on the macro side and a funding story on the micro side.Chipflation is a new word in town, with markets still debating whether it can be one of the things that derail the AI CapEx cycle. In our economists’ and sector analysts’ views, it's more nuanced. While memory price is up sixfold over the past year, we think chipflation is more likely to reprice and ration AI infrastructure than derail the cycle. AI demand is scaling across three layers at once, more memory per chip, more chips per system, and more systems per cluster, while hyperscalers remain first in the allocation queue. Now, the key risk is CapEx efficiency. Memory is becoming a larger share of the AI system cost, but the cycle, we think, remains intact.As for AI funding needs, the debate with investors has been how much more can it accelerate? It's worth noting that the majority of corporate bond issuance quarter-to-date has been related to funding construction of data centers.Hyperscale’s have been broadening their investor base through non-dollar issuances. They have collectively issued around $25 billion of debt in other currencies like euro, Swiss franc, and the [Japanese yen] in May.Our credit strategy colleagues forecast nearly another $600 billion of AI-related global issuance in 2026; meaning for U.S. IG corporate bonds alone, we expect one trillion of net issuance, a reason for our view that the asset class can underperform this year. With our equity colleagues estimating hyperscaler cash CapEx to surpass $1 trillion in 2027, we expect issuance to accelerate.Bringing it all together, investors globally are all grappling with the same uncertainties around the Fed and AI CapEx, which will likely continue to be key debates to come. But Morgan Stanley's base case view of lower inflation driving the Fed to stay on hold and a strong AI CapEx cycle that remains intact means we recommend investors should still stay constructive on risk assets.Thanks for listening. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. And if you enjoyed the podcast, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With voters focused on prices and the economy, our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver discuss the consumer trends that could matter most heading into November’s elections.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's Head of Public Policy Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic Strategist. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be talking about the consumer and what recent data could imply for the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, July 1st at 10am in New York. Last week, Mike Zezas and I caught up on the consumer while he was down at our Consumer Captains Conference. This week, Michelle, I want to talk to you about what your data are saying and get into the implications of all of this for the midterm elections. So, maybe we start with the AlphaWise data. What are our surveys picking up when it comes to how the consumer feels about the outlook in the aggregate? Michelle Weaver: We run a monthly proprietary survey of around 2,000 U.S. consumers, and it's diversified by age, gender, and region, and we ask questions around sentiment, spending plans, and other special topics. Our survey recently showed a continued gradual recovery in consumer confidence in the U.S. economic outlook. We're not off to the races by any means, but we did see the net outlook score improve to -10 percent, up from -14 percent a month ago and a low of -18 percent two months ago, when concerns around oil prices were at their peak. Overall, more consumers feel negatively about the economy versus positively, hence that net score is negative. But we are seeing signs of improvement, so things are improving on a rate of change basis. Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense given the MOU that was signed between Iran and the U.S. Now, looking forward, what does the survey tell us about spending plans? Michelle Weaver: Broadly, consumer spending plans remain stable. They expect to spend more on essentials categories. This includes things like groceries, gas, and household items, while they're expecting to spend less on discretionary categories. We saw the weakest spending intentions within the consumer electronics category, and consumers are not likely to see much price relief in that category. Many consumer electronics makers are now taking their prices up because of the high price of memory chips that goes into those products. Ariana Salvatore: One of the most important components of the survey is the question that you ask on top areas of concern. What are you guys seeing there? Michelle Weaver: Inflation is still the number one concern for consumers, and we actually saw the percent of consumers citing it among their top concerns tick up again last month. So, now that's at 60 percent, up from 59 percent last month, and a low of 53 percent in January. People are also worried about the U.S. political environment. That was cited by 42 percent of consumers, up from about 39 percent last wave. Concern around geopolitical conflicts rounds out the top three, but that level's been pretty stable around 25 percent. But Ariana, can consumers expect any relief on prices from the policy front? Consumers got a nice boost from tax refunds. Is there anything else in the pipeline? Ariana Salvatore: So, we've gotten this question a lot into the midterm elections, and our view is basically that there are a number of obstacles in the way of something like another reconciliation package to give direct stimulus to consumers, whether that's procedural, whether it's the political perception. One of the most important is actually the deficit concerns, right? So, we don't expect something additional for the consumer through the legislative angle, aside from what we've already seen, like the Road to Housing Act. And that's also against a backdrop of what we've been seeing on the economic side and what your data is reflecting, which is that the consumer sentiment metrics are actually ticking up slightly from their lows. And that, of course, maps directly onto what our U.S. econ team has been saying. Their view is that the consumer story in 2026 has turned more neutral. Real consumption growth is still expected to decelerate to about 1.7 percent. That's below last year, but again, not falling off a cliff. The core dynamic is that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act had this fiscal boost from last year, tax refunds running about 17 percent higher year-over-year, but the oil shock basically mitigated that and essentially neutralized the fiscal impulse. But that's not hitting everybody equally. Goods spending tends to bear the brunt. Our econ team estimates that the oil shock takes 30 basis points off consumption entirely from goods rather than services. Low- and middle-income households are most exposed since energy makes up over 8 percent of spending for the bottom income quintile versus under 5 percent for the top. And that broadening out story from just the high-income consumer driving spending is probably going to be a little bit delayed just given the oil shock.But maybe let's drill in a little bit more on that income bifurcation. How does that manifest in your view across spending intentions? Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Overall, short-term spending intentions – so spending plans over the next month – are net +20 percent this month. That's still above the historical average of around +16 percent, but it is down somewhat from 23 percent last month. And the divergence is really driven by income. Upper-income consumers remain meaningfully more optimistic, while lower-income households are still under stress. So, we're still seeing the K economy very much in place. And the economy and inflation are almost always top issues for voters. How are you expecting the dynamics we've been talking about to impact the midterms? Ariana Salvatore: So, data are showing an uptick, obviously, which should on net benefit Republicans all else equal, albeit off a low base. And that's because there are other data points to consider here. So, things like the generic ballot, things like historical precedent, things like the presidential favorability ratings – all of those things are painting a more constructive backdrop for Democrats heading into November. But also, to put a finer point on it, we're seeing the AlphaWise data that you're citing reflected across other surveys as well. So, we saw the UMich data from last week show the year ahead inflation outlook drop to 4.6 percent from 4.8 percent. And of course, that's a reflection of the expectation that gas prices are going to moderate into November too. Now, on that front, it's about rate of change, right? So, not the absolute level. But again, I would just remind our listeners that this is one factor in the context of many. So, net-net, we definitely still see a slight advantage for Democrats heading into November, especially when we drill into some of the trends that we've been seeing across the primaries. Michelle Weaver: And what are some of those trends you've been picking up from the primaries? Ariana Salvatore: So, the first thing I would say is that we're cautious to extrapolate too much from primaries to the general election, but really maybe two key points here. The first is turnout seems to be an early indicator in favor of Democrats. So, enthusiasm is up. We're seeing more participation and more engagement relative to prior elections. The second point I would make is that the primaries have been showing a mixed bag in terms of candidates for November. So, in some states like New York and Colorado, you saw more progressive candidates win their races. And all else equal, that could translate to more of what we call a fragile instead of a cohesive majority come November. So, think more political noise around fiscal deadlines, things like appropriations and the debt ceiling. But of course, we still have less than 50 percent of the primaries, so plenty to watch heading into the fall. Michelle, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michelle Weaver: Thanks for having me. Ariana Salvatore: And 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 that gains in the stock market are expanding to more sectors and why investors should position quickly.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 changing equity market leadership.It's Tuesday, June 30th at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.Something is happening in plain sight but still isn’t fully appreciated by investors. The market’s leadership is changing. And as usual, by the time everyone agrees that it’s happening, the easier money will probably have already been made.Coming into this year, the primary differentiation to our view was that the economic and earnings outlook were much stronger than the consensus believed. That view was built around a few simple, but powerful ideas: easy comparisons after a three year rolling recession, lean cost structures, pent-up demand, fiscal support from capex incentives and tax cuts, deregulation for the banks, and a monetary backdrop that was increasingly supportive through the liquidity channel.Putting those together, the setup looked like a classic early cycle. Revenue growth returning on top of lean cost structures leads to strong operating leverage and well above trend earnings growth.Fast forward to today, and that’s exactly what has happened. The median stock in the S&P 1500 is now growing earnings at a double-digit pace, the fastest since the post-COVID boom. Revenue growth has returned, with the median stock growing its top line by 7 percent. That is a rolling recovery showing up where many investors still aren’t looking.For much of this year and particularly the past few months, most investors didn’t want to hear that story. The Iran conflict pushed oil sharply higher. Rate-cut expectations turned into hike expectations. Faced with these headwinds, investors crowded back into the AI trade especially semiconductors and memory in particular. To be clear, the earnings revisions in semiconductors have been spectacular. The move wasn’t irrational. But when something becomes the most owned, most loved, and most obvious area of the market, it becomes harder to surprise on the upside.That’s where I think we are now. The hyperscalers have started to underperform, and that may be an early warning sign for semis, which are the key beneficiaries of the AI spending boom. Earnings revision breadth for semis is pressing against historical extremes. Again, this does not mean the AI cycle is over. But it does mean that the rate of change may be peaking, and when price momentum starts to fade in a crowded trade, it can lead to significant set-backs. It can also give other parts of the market room to breathe. In short, the broadening trade is back!The equal-weighted index and small caps are outperforming again. More importantly, the groups we have been recommending – Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Regional Banks – have already started to show relative strength over the past six weeks, even though positioning and sentiment remain neutral to negative. That’s the kind of combination I like: better price action, improving earnings, and investors still skeptical.One reason I’ve been more constructive on the consumer than others is that I’ve also been more bearish on oil. That view was not dependent on a grand deal between the U.S. and Iran, although that obviously helps. The signals were already there. The Brent-WTI spread narrowed, and energy stocks began underperforming from the day the conflict started.The market was telling us something before the headlines confirmed it. And longer term, I think the conflict has put the world on notice: this choke point around the Strait of Hormuz must be solved. It’s no longer a risk that the world is willing to tolerate. New routes, new supply, and new energy strategies are likely coming. Necessity is the mother of invention, and I would not underestimate the world’s ability to adapt.A less problematic oil backdrop helps the broadening trade too. So does the Fed, at least on rates. The June FOMC meeting told us two things: forward guidance is going to be diminished, and the reaction function is now focused more squarely on inflation.My view is that falling energy prices, peaking tariff-related inflation, and contained services and housing inflation keep the Fed on hold rather than hiking this year. If that’s right, lower than expected real rates could be a positive surprise for equities and another tailwind for the broadening of performance.The key variable to watch at this point is liquidity. This Fed is unlikely to be as proactive with balance sheet support, just as the real economy needs more capital for capex and the markets are dealing with more equity and credit supply. That’s the near-term real risk, especially for popular momentum trades.Bottom line, the market may look choppy and even weak at the index level, over the next month, but the message underneath is improving. Earnings are broadening, oil is falling. The shift is already under way with crowded momentum trades wobbling, and the under-owned areas of the market starting to lead.Investors can either wait for it to become more certain – or position before it becomes obvious and fully priced.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Europe's equity rally has surprised many investors. Our Europe Head of Research Product Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock discuss potential outcomes of the broadening market.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Products here in Europe. Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist. Paul Walsh: And today, we're looking at whether European equities have more room to broaden – as markets assess the implications of a potential U.S.-Iran deal and a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.It's Monday, June the 29th at 10am in London. Marina, it's always great having you on. And for our listeners out there, I think they'd be interested to hear that if we look at Europe's performance year-to-date, it's now on a par to the S&P. So, both indices are up somewhere between 7 and 8 percent year-to-date. So, Europe is starting to stage something of a comeback from the conflict lows. And so, what's driving this? And are we beginning to see inflows into Europe again? Marina Zavolock: So, I'm going to give a two-part answer to this. Firstly, Europe has a lot of the same exposure as the U.S., so that is part of the reason… I know that Europe has this kind of reputation for not having a lot of tech exposure; but we do have tech exposure… Paul Walsh: We do. Marina Zavolock: Not to the same degree as the U.S., but, let me just give you some numbers here. So, we have a number of sectors heavily exposed to the AI CapEx boom. These are led primarily by the semis sector in Europe, tech hardware, cap goods, and metals and mining; specifically, copper has a link to AI as well. And those sectors, let's say roughly they make up at this point about 15 percent weight of our index. And if you look at that year-to-date performance that's on par with the U.S., almost 90 percent of it is made up from these sectors.Paul Walsh: Yes. Marina Zavolock: So, these sectors have moved just as aggressively as many of the AI pockets within the U.S. That's the answer that's kind of similar to the U.S. The answer that's a bit different is that we get from time to time, over the years actually, but we had a very big one earlier this year. We get these waves of interest in Europe because investors start to think about diversification. So… Paul Walsh: That’s right. The broadening. Marina Zavolock: Yes. So, they... And we've called for broadening recently on the back of this, Iran-U.S. MOU. But this broadening has other drivers as well. So when we felt this wave of interest in diversification, and we saw the flows coming into Europe earlier this year, the driver was initially because the Mag7 was kind of going choppy and sideways. So, that just drove diversification out of Mag7 and into equal-weighted S&P, but that also always benefits Europe. Or tends to benefit Europe. But also, we had this wave of interest in real assets earlier this year; and Europe has a higher share of real assets than the U.S. Now, at this moment, I am sensing that we are getting that pickup in broadening interest once again from my feedback with investors. You had this MOU, which was the initial trigger. You have oil prices, broadly, they're falling. That's helpful as well. But I think the biggest driver of what's driving this diversification interest at this moment is actually the volatility that we're seeing in the AI complex. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: So, what a lot of the feedback I'm getting these days from investors that are coming back to Europe after focusing primarily on the U.S. is, ‘Look, I have a lot of AI in my portfolio. I like my AI exposure. I'm not looking to get rid of it or to sell it, but incrementally, I'm a little bit worried about this volatility. And I'm looking to broaden my exposure. What do you like in Europe to help me diversify away from this kind of volatility that we're seeing now?’ Paul Walsh: And I think that's a great segue, Marina, to my second question, because with Europe having really kept pace with the S&P year-to-date, the question that really is going to be asked is the sustainability of that relative performance. And when we think about a backdrop here in Europe of pretty low economic growth, the market continues to be worried about rate hikes given recent inflationary dynamics. And as you've articulated there, tech has played a very significant role here in Europe as well in terms of driving markets higher. So, you've alluded to it in a few of your comments already, but how sustainable do we see this as being? Marina Zavolock: It depends on AI, to be honest with you. So, if AI starts to really move up at an aggressive pace like it was earlier this year, then it's hard for Europe to outperform given our exposure. But if that starts to move up at a more moderate pace, Europe has a chance to do very well. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: I think there's a lot of misperceptions when it comes to European equities. And outside of AI, actually there's quite a lot of strength. So, misperception one, you've mentioned it, which is basically: Oh, look at our PMIs, look at our GDP growth. Why bother with European equities? I think this is maybe what some U.S. investors may think. But just like in the U.S., the equities market, and maybe even more so, the equities market in Europe – it is not the economy. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: So, we just published our global exposure guide over this past weekend, which Morgan Stanley has been running 29 iterations of this guide. Europe's exposure to Europe is pretty much at historical lows over decades. Europe's exposure to Europe as a percent of revenues is now 45 percent of revenues …  Paul Walsh: Yeah. Marina Zavolock:  ... is European exposed. The rest is very global, including the U.S. Um, Europe, uh, Of that 45 percent domestic, a lot of that is banks, some defensive sectors. Only a very small sliver is actually consumer-oriented sectors that would see earnings downgrades on the back of ECB hiking, for example. So, I think people may also be surprised to know that consensus earnings growth for Europe this year is over 16 percent. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: It's really healthy. Paul Walsh: It’s pretty healthy. Marina Zavolock: I know the U.S. is over 20, but Europe is over 16 percent. These kinds of ideas of, you know – we have a shortage of energy and therefore our earnings are going to be down – they're misperceptions. Because actually, as long as oil doesn't spike to, I don't know, [$]150. If it stays within a healthy range, call it [$]70 to 90, that's actually a very good environment for Europe because we have a lot of real assets. We have the banks which benefit from higher inflation because they trade on the steepness of the curve. And we have some AI exposure. If you add up those three things, which all benefit from inflation, that's 60 percent of our earnings pie.Paul Walsh: Right. Marina Zavolock: Hence, Europe's actually doing really well. And I'll just mention one other thing. Earlier this year, we broke out of a structural downtrend discount; that range that we were trading in versus the U.S. So, for almost 10 years, Europe's discount was just going wider and wider and wider and wider. And as of January 1st, this year, on a like-for-like basis, so sector neutral excluding Mag7, we broke out of that structural downtrend, and we keep seeing a narrowing. Paul Walsh: Yeah. Marina Zavolock: So, if you're going to broaden, it actually makes a lot of sense to look at Europe, where we have these discounts, and we have value, and we have growth. Paul Walsh: Yeah. So, the point there being the relative valuation discount of Europe to the U.S. has been actually closing a little bit more recently. Final question from my side. You have obviously recently refreshed your sector model. We have talked about the broadening in our conversation today. What are you advocating to your clients out there in terms of relative sector preferences? Marina Zavolock: Yeah. So, we run a data-driven model. Just briefly, we look at things like earnings revisions breadth – works really well as a leading indicator in Europe; a leading indicator for future earnings as well. Consensus price target revisions breadth, balance sheet measures. We look at a number of different things, AI exposure. And basically, I'll just give you the top sectors in our model now. Semis number one, metals and mining number two, led by copper. Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm. Marina Zavolock: Banks number three. I think banks, for me, it's a key diversification play. Paul Walsh: Yes. Marina Zavolock: A big differentiator. And trading on 10 times PE with very high distributions, buybacks and dividends, low teens earnings growth upgrades. Front of the line on AI adoption and seeing that ROI coming through. Cap goods, number four, that's also led by AI exposure. Paul Walsh: Yeah. Marina Zavolock: And then I'll just mention lastly, utilities is an overweight as well. That's also a little bit AI linked, but very, very under-owned; lagging the trends we've seen in the U.S. And broader based in terms of the positives there because we also have this drive for renewables, which is coming back. Paul Walsh: Marina, always, we value your insights highly. Thanks as always for taking the time to talk. Marina Zavolock: Great speaking with you, Paul. Paul Walsh: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And please do share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Although markets may recalibrate to a different policy playbook under the new Fed chair Kevin Warsh, housing could remain in a holding pattern. Our co-heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan explain why.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: Today, the glow has maybe worn off the championship of the Knicks, so we can talk about the impact of Warsh on the mortgage and housing market. It's Friday, June 26th at 10am in New York. James Egan: If we have to stop talking about the Knicks, we can stop talking about the Knicks. But Jay, I think one of the things, if we take a little bit of a step back in mortgage markets, in housing markets, in fixed income markets more broadly – from the beginning of the year to now, we've gone from the market pricing in 2.5 cuts from the Fed by the end of 2026, to the market pricing in roughly 1.5 hikes. 100 basis point difference in market expectations over the course of the past five and a half months. Now, that's happened at different times, with different levels of velocity and severity. But one of the key talking points we have now is – we have a new Fed chair. We had the first FOMC meeting and his press conference after that last Wednesday. What do you think that means for mortgage markets, for volatility? How are you thinking about this? Jay Bacow: look, Jim, it's a great question, and we've got asked that by a number of different investors. Chair Warsh has been pretty clear that he thinks people should do more of what they're good at and less of what they're not good at. And so, he's felt like the Fed should keep their communication on future guidance relatively short. And so, with less forward guidance from the Fed, the market has more uncertainty, and more uncertainty translates into more volatility. And more volatility is generally bad for the mortgage market, given that investors are short the option to the homeowner to refinance. Furthermore, shifting from expectations of the Fed cutting to expectations of the Fed hiking generally makes it a little bit less favorable environment for investors like banks and overseas investors to come to the mortgage market. James Egan: Alright. Now, we've been on this podcast several times this year where we've talked about, you mentioned banks... We've talked about deregulation. We've talked about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSEs – them buying mortgages, that being constructive for our mortgage view.Is that still the case, or how are you layering that into your thought process? Jay Bacow: now? That's definitely still the case. Those things haven't changed. The deregulation is still flowing through the markets. That longer term should be supportive of bank demand in aggregate, although obviously there are a number of different regulations going through. The GSEs are still forecasted to buy 200 billion mortgages on behalf of President Trump's initiative. So, that's why we're just sort of tactically negative – those technicals are very strong in an environment where there really has not been much supply. Now, some of that supply is because mortgage rates are still in the context of 6.5 percent. Some of that is because with mortgage rates at 6.5 percent, there hasn't been that much housing activity. So, Jim, turning it to you, what is the outlook for the housing market in a world where they are expecting the Fed to hike and rates to stay elevated? James Egan: Right. So, the main thing that we focus on from a housing market perspective is less specifically Fed action and more the 5- and 10-year part of the curve.So, when you start to say something like you're tactically negative mortgage-backed securities here – how can I interpret that from a mortgage rate perspective? Jay Bacow: If we're tactically negative, it's more of a small move than some massive move. And as you said, and we've talked about on this call beforehand, realistically, the mortgage rate is a little bit less dependent on the Fed policy rate and more around the belly of the Treasury curve. And, you know, what's going to happen with the belly of the Treasury curve is going to be dependent on sort of market expectations along with what's happening in the geopolitical situation. So realistically, if you've written down that the mortgage rate is 6.5 percent right now, our view probably doesn't change things too much. James Egan: And if that's the case, then affordability in the housing market, as we've been talking about, is going to continue to be challenged. And what we think that means from a housing activity perspective is any upside that we really thought would have been there gets pretty significantly capped. But the same side of this token – or the other side of this token, if you will, we do think that the current level is well-supported here. There's some level of housing activity that has to occur regardless of where affordability is, and we think we found that. We're at 40-year lows from a turnover perspective. From the fourth quarter of 2023 through now, we've been roughly at the same level. That's 11 consecutive quarters now. We think this is the kind of base level for people that need to transact regardless of where mortgage rates are. So, the more that the rate environment remains challenged, the more that we kind of hang in this low to mid 6 percent mortgage rate environment. We just think that that continues to curtail upside. So, it's a housing market and a housing activity space that continues to very much just remain stuck in neutral. Jay Bacow: Alright. So, if we're in this new environment and the Fed might be hiking, it's not great locally for mortgage valuations. Housing market more broadly, probably kind of stuck in neutral here. Jim, always a pleasure speaking with you. James Egan: And always great speaking to you too, Jay. And to all of our regular listeners, thank you for adding us to your playlist. Let us know what you think wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. Jay Bacow: And go smash that subscribe button.

Our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore joins our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas to consider the consumer outlook and how it may impact the November midterm elections. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Michael Zezas: And I'm Mike Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be discussing the consumer outlook, policy catalysts, and what it could mean for the 2026 midterm elections.  It's Thursday, June 25th at 9am in New York.  Mike, you're on the road, obviously not in New York City this week. Why don't you tell us a little bit about the conference that you're at, and then we can get into some of the topics that have come up in your conversations.  Michael Zezas: Yeah. I'm down in South Carolina at Morgan Stanley's Captains of the Consumer Industry Conference, where we put together investors and leadership of key consumer companies in the U.S. to learn about each other in a more informal way, brainstorm… And it's been really interesting. We've had a lot of meetings with leadership from different prominent consumer companies throughout the U.S. And it's been really fascinating to hear how the consumer's been quite resilient. But in general, one pattern that sticks out is rising concern about lower-income consumers' behavior starting to lag in meaningful way higher-income consumers' behavior.  You're starting to see substitution and sort of more selectivity amongst lower-income households, a pattern that began a bit last year as a lot of these companies would report with higher tariffs. That seems to have continued with higher gas prices driven by the conflict in the Middle East.  So, there's a lot of discussion and concern about how durable it is. And in particular, if there are some policy choices here that might alleviate some of that pressure and bring some fundamental strength to what is a challenged segment of the consumer market right now.   Ariana Salvatore: Let's talk a little bit more about tariffs. It's our economists’ view that we've mostly gotten through the tariff pass-through. Is that the sentiment that you're hearing from corporates and the clients that you're talking to? Michael Zezas: It is. Well, it's certainly the hope. And I guess the follow-up questions here are: once some of the temporary tariff authority that was put into place after the Supreme Court struck down the use of IEEPA, will there be a restoration of those tariff levels? And will the USMCA negotiations create higher tariffs? So, Ariana, what's your thoughts there? Is there any concern for companies that they're going to start needing to deal with a re-escalation of tariff costs relative to what we experienced, say, last year?  Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, I think to answer that question, we need to dig into this under the surface a little bit and understand what types of tariffs that we're talking about. So, to your question on the USMCA, we see that largely as a story of continuity, right? So, the USMCA exemption has been in place since the deal was signed, right? And since Trumpimposed those Section 301 tariffs, we think that's likely to stay the case. That means the vast majority of the goods trade between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada is right now not subject to the 301 tariffs.  Now, on the other hand, we have existing Section 232 tariffs in place on not just sectors like steel and aluminum, but a bunch of other goods, too, and we're supposed to get more of those investigations wrapped up in the next week or so. So, on that front, I do think there could be some potential room for escalation, but more broadly speaking, we think the direction of travel is relatively stable, if not slightly lower, because, as you mentioned, the IEEPA tariffs that were replaced by the Section 122s have to get replaced again end of July, right? So that Section 122 authority was a temporary authority. The president is going to have to replace that with a mix of Section 232 and 301. It's been our view that when that happens, there could be some alleviation for very specific pockets of goods that fall into really neither bucket, right? So,they're not necessarily critical for national security, and they're coming from countries that are difficult to maintain a Section 301 investigation on. So, it's actually very nuanced under the surface. I would say in the aggregate level, what we think is that you're going to see the tariff rate stay somewhere around 8 to 9 percent on a headline basis; if not directionally, maybe a little bit lower throughout the course of this year.  Michael Zezas: Got it. And I think that message has been music to the ears of a lot of these companies. And I’ve been doing these meetings with our chief economist, Michael Gapen, who has said that that's contributing to what he forecasts as being a meaningfuldeceleration in inflation into the end of the year. Certainly an inflation level lower than what the aggregate Fed forecast isat the moment. Another question that comes up is whether or not the recent decrease in oil prices, which should feed through into lower gasoline prices, is durable. If that's something that could be counted on, because obviously these companies are thinking about it being a potential tailwind to demand going into the second half of the year. How do you think about that, Ariana?  Ariana Salvatore: The MOU that the U.S. and Iran signed, I would say was a welcome development for markets. But that being said, there are a number of paths to re-escalation, in our view. Really four things to keep an eye on, kind of outstanding questions or uncertainties.  The first is on execution risk of the MOU itself. It's very light on details. We need to see more about how exactly the Strait of Hormuz is going to reopen, if there's going to be a servicing fee, a tolling regime, et cetera. That was a red line of the United States. But again, implementation there is a big question.  The second is on the calibration or divergence between the U.S. and Israel in terms of their objectives. We identified that early in the conflict as a potential indicator of how long this could possibly last, and I think it's equally as important in assessing how long the ceasefire or the MOU could stay in place.  The third thing I would say we need to learn more about is the role of Congress in all of this. So, some Republican lawmakers actually pushed back against the MOU, saying it didn't go far enough to advance U.S. interests. Now Congress has a more limited role when it comes to the actual MOU implementation itself. Remember, the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, didn't go through Congress either. But Congress can exert some more power come the fall when we start talking about defense appropriations, right? The Pentagon is asking for $1.5 trillion. [$]300 billion of that is supplemental war funding. And so, I think if you see Republicans push back, that's going to be an easy forum for them to do so.  And the last point is on the negotiations themselves. So, the MOU is a 60-day ceasefire throughout which both parties are supposed to be discussing the nuclear question. Now, looking back at historical context here, the JCPOA took about 20 months to negotiate start to finish. This is a very compressed timeframe, and again, obviously potential risk for escalationas we see these negotiations go on the next few months.  So, Mike, I would say, like I said before, markets are definitely seeing this as a welcome development, but that doesn't mean it's without execution risk. Across the board, our outlook actually expected a normalization of flows by the end of June, so we're kind of pulling things up by about two weeks.  That means that the outlook basically remains intact, but with marginal upside as this is a slightly more constructive outlook. Michael Zezas: Got it. So net net, there's still plenty of execution risk going on, but the trend is at least towards easing of some of these policy pressures that have been impacting the consumer. And it's also been interesting that a lot of the conversations have led to questions about artificial intelligence.  Now, at this conference last year, a lot of the discussion about artificial intelligence was around how these companies were implementing it to create new marketing opportunities, create efficiencies inside of their operations. This year, a lot of the discussion is actually about the macro trend around artificial intelligence, the acknowledgment of the industrial build-out around this new technology and how that is buoying investment and employment – and therefore consumption. And so, the policy concern or consideration from some of these companies is whether or not there are upcoming electoral issues, either in the midterms or in the next election cycle, that might change the dynamic around the AI industrial build-out. Are there signs that would show that a tougher regulatory regime? Data center construction bans that these things might take on a bipartisan flavor? And so right now, I think that's a very difficult question to answer.  There is obviously some level of concern about if policy might change this dynamic around the AI industrial build-out that really has kind of helped the economy deal with some other external shocks from policy, namely what's going on in the Middle East and trade policy changes before that Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, to that point, this question around AI pushback, especially on data center build-out, has been a big theme in the elections. Thus far, it's really been dealt with on more of a state and local level. But our view is that it's been kind of bubbling up to the national level. Efforts there are nascent, but I don't think they're going away anytime soon. So obviously something that we're going to watch heading into November because it matters a lot for corporates and for investors alike. Mike, maybe we'll leave it there. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk.  Michael Zezas: And thanks for taking the time to talk to me. Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

In his first meeting as Fed Chair, Kevin Warsh signaled restraint in providing guidance. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets looks at possible impacts of the new approach.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why the Fed could do less than expected and why that could still lead to more volatility. It's Wednesday, June 24th at 2pm in London. Last week saw the first meeting of the Federal Reserve under its new chair, Kevin Warsh. It didn't disappoint. The Fed’s Summary of Economic Projections saw significantly higher inflation than the last iteration in March, and in turn, a much stronger case to raise interest rates, perhaps multiple times. The Fed's statement, which laid out its views around the economy and its reasons for action, was changed dramatically – and also significantly shortened. We don't think the Fed will ultimately follow through on the interest rate rises that were flagged in this meeting and will choose instead to remain on hold this year. But we think this scenario of them staying on hold can still lead to more volatility. I'll try to address each side of this apparent contradiction. First, the Fed is clearly worried about inflation, which has been elevated for a considerable period of time. But working through the numbers, Morgan Stanley economists forecast lower inflation over the rest of this year than the Fed now expects. And so, while we think it would be entirely reasonable for the Fed to expect to raise interest rates based on the high inflation that they have penciled in, we think they could reach a different conclusion if our lower estimates are ultimately correct. Supporting our case, at least in our view, is that energy prices have fallen significantly in recent weeks since some of these Fed forecasts were set, as markets have moved to believe not only would existing oil production resume in the Persian Gulf, but Iran could increase exports materially under its new agreement with the United States. That would greatly reduce a source of underlying inflationary pressure in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. With inflation set to come in lower than feared, we think the Fed's most natural option will be to remain on hold this year rather than raise rates. But if the Fed's not doing anything, how exactly is that going to drive volatility? Our answer to that question lies in another thing that it's not going to be doing – providing as much information about where it thinks monetary policy is going next. Indeed, since the financial crisis, the Fed often went out of its way to give so-called forward guidance and significant detail about when and how they may change policy in the future. Proponents saw this as a way to avoid surprises and smooth the transmission of this policy, but critics saw it as limiting and potentially giving markets a false sense of certainty. The new Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, is one of these critics and has promised to give a lot less forward guidance. That lack of handholding by the Fed about what they might do next is a big change. Coupled with the potential for a smaller Fed balance sheet and big questions around the path of inflation and the impact of AI and productivity, every data point now has more potential to shift the market's thinking. My strategy colleagues think that this will lead to higher volatility in two-year interest rates, as well as more volatility in currencies. I'd also note that here in the UK, this paradox is not nearly as puzzling. Here, the Bank of England's target rate has been the same level since mid-December. But that hasn't stopped the UK two-year bond yield from trading in an over 100 basis point range. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

First-time homebuyers may get short windows of relief, but our co-head of Securitized Products Research James Egan and Senior Economist and Strategist in Morgan Stanley's Private Wealth Management Sarah Wolfe say the bigger story is a housing market resetting around a higher bar to entry.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Housing Strategist and Co-Head of Securitized Products Strategy.Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, Senior Economist and Strategist within Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.James Egan: And today, why first-time homebuyers are facing a tougher path to ownership.It's Tuesday, June 23rd at 10am in New York.Buying a first-time home has always been a big step, but for a growing number of first-time buyers today, the goal can really seem insurmountable.Mortgage rates might be down from where they were in the second half of 2023, but they're significantly higher than they were for the several years before that. Monthly payments have roughly doubled for a median-priced home. And my colleague Jay Bacow and I have talked several times on this podcast about how many homeowners feel like they're locked into those lower rates.And they're staying put because they just don't want to give up a two or three-handle mortgage rate for something that has a six in front of it. But Sarah, as we know, this is bigger than just first-time buyers. Now, they often start the housing transaction chain, and when they can't buy, current owners may not be able to sell and trade up.That slows turnover across the market, and it also reduces activity tied to housing – from mortgages and renovations to moving and furniture. And it can keep would-be buyers renting for longer, which adds pressure to rental demand.So, how do you see this situation? Is this just another affordability squeeze, or has the housing market reset to a higher barrier to entry?Sarah Wolfe: I do think that we're on the upper bound of affordability pressures. This is about as bad as it's going to get. But as we discussed in our recent publication of The Economy Explained, unfortunately, we do think that the housing market is resetting at a structurally higher barrier to entry. There's a lot of reasons for that.The first is higher interest rates. Yes, mortgage rates are sitting around 6.5 percent, and they should come down from here, but maybe not better than 5.5 percent, right, in an optimistic scenario. The second is demographic pressures. Remember, we have this tremendous aging population of baby boomers. All of their children are now entering their prime home-buying years, so there's a lot of demand for ownership.The third and fourth ones are land regulation and permitting, which is at the state and local level, really hard to change. And the last one is climate risk. It's just raising insurance pricing and making it much more difficult to buy a home.So overall, we see a world where, yes, mortgage rates come down a bit, improve affordability marginally, but we think neutral and other interest rates at the longer end of the curve are going to be higher than the post-financial crisis period. And what we're going to see is that those forces are going to widen the divide between who can own a home and who cannot. And who gains from that wealth accumulation and who does not.James Egan: Right. So now, you mentioned where mortgage rates are today, above that 6 percent rate. Rates did briefly – in February, we got below 6 percent before they bounced back up here. Why did that short-lived relief matter so much?Sarah Wolfe: I think that short-lived relief showed us that moves in the mortgage rate make a difference, but things are so unaffordable that it didn't make that much of a difference.So, the dip below 6 percent was very exciting. It happened this past February. It was the first time that mortgage rates fell below 6 percent since 2022, and we saw a few things happen. First, it lowered the monthly payment for first-time homebuyers from about two point two thousand dollars a month to one point nine thousand.So makes a bit of a difference. And it lowered the share of income that goes towards monthly mortgage payments from about 26 percent of income to 22 percent, from peak to trough. So, that is a notable improvement. But what we saw in the new home sales data and the existing home sales data, that it did not drive people back into the housing market.I want to turn it back to you though, Jim, because you've actually done a lot of interesting work on this. And how this change in mortgage rates has changed the monthly cost that people have to pay for a median-priced home. Can you tell us a little bit more?James Egan: Sure. So, we talk about the lock-in effect a lot, and it's kind of easy to point to: Well, there are a lot of people with mortgage rates that are around 3 percent or 3.5 percent, and the prevailing rate's at 6 percent, and that's a lot higher, so they're locked in.But when we look at the actual numbers in terms of what we're asking a homeowner to do – to list their home for sale and move to another home today, pay off that existing mortgage, take out a new one. When you take into account how much higher home prices are today…You bought a home in 2016, for instance, right? Let's assume you refinanced in 2020 or 2021 if you still live there, right? Most homeowners did. So, you've actually taken your monthly payment, and it is lower today than it was when you bought your home in 2016. If we assume that your income has risen alongside just median household income over that time period, your monthly payment as a share of your income today is probably sub 8 percent.If you bought over the past three years, your monthly payment is a share of your income. You mentioned some numbers earlier. It's low to mid 20 percent. From a dollar amount perspective, if you were to pay off that 2016 mortgage, as an example, and take out one today, your payment is probably [$]13[00] or $1400 higher. It's like a 200 percent increase. That's very difficult economically for a lot of households, and that's the kind of physical manifestation of that lock-in effect.Now, Sarah, given this significant change in housing math, what does that mean for who is actually able to buy in this market?Sarah Wolfe: It's making who's able to buy into the market a lot more selective. So, what we're seeing is that first-time home buyers today are actually not meaningfully older. They're still about 36 years old, but they are a much more selective group financially. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York put out a great analysis on this recently, and they basically found that the first-time home buyer profile today is taking out a mortgage that's nearly $350,000, compared to $240,000 in 2019 and $200,000, a decade ago. So, significant increase in mortgage balances.At the same time, credit standards have tightened significantly, so that average credit score to get a mortgage has risen quite a bit over the last 5 to 10 years. And what this is doing is it's shifting who can buy and also where they can buy. So, we're seeing higher-quality home buyers moving to lower-income zip codes. So, buying cheaper homes in lower-income metro areas, and so it's wealthier buyers in lower-income areas.And that's the really big shift that we're seeing. It's a demand resorting story. And what we're also seeing, and we hear this a lot when we talk to our financial advisors and their clients, is that family is increasingly helping their other family members put that down payment down; in particular, parents helping their children buy that first home.So, we're seeing that first-time buyers may be feeling this pressure, right, when it comes to rates. How much of this affordability issue, though, is being driven by the locked-in effect specifically?James Egan: So, look, it's clearly playing a role. We just talked about some of the math behind that. But then when you look at what that means on a nationwide basis when it comes to inventory, when it comes to so many other aspects of this, that homeowner who's unwilling to give up that lower mortgage rate, that lower payment, right, their homes are off the market.Existing inventories for sale, they've picked up from historic lows in 2023, but they're still very, very low on a long-run basis. The fewer homes there are for sale, the more upward pressure or the absence of downward pressure that's going to put on home prices, right?We saw affordability plummet in 2022 and 2023 when rates backed up. We saw existing home sales really, really come down as a result. But home prices remained at record highs. They continued to set new record highs. For home prices to actually come down, right, you need people who are willing to sell at lower home prices.Sarah, you just mentioned that lending standards themselves remain tight.Sarah Wolfe: Mm-hmm.James Egan: Those forced sales, those tend to be distressed transactions. We don't see that distress in the market providing the inventory and the motivated inventory to lead to softer home prices. So, it's really that lack of inventory which we think is in large part driven by the lock-in effect that's kept home prices. And as a result, that piece of the affordability equation kind of stuck at these higher levels.Sarah Wolfe: I mean, it's really this vicious cycle, the locked-in effect making it difficult for entry-level buyers to get into the market – and then fewer existing homeowners sell or trade up or relocate. So, on and on it goes.Are there broader implications of this freeze?James Egan: Right. So, we just talked about what that means from an inventory perspective. And then if you think about affordability remaining challenged, lending standards themselves remaining tight, inventory remaining as low as it is, you could argue that we're at one of the more difficult times that we've seen for renters to exit rentership and step into homeownership.Now, there's a lot of different things that drive rent growth, and the fact that you have a stuck renter is just one of them. The other side of that equation can be the supply of rental units, right? So that's just a piece of the equation.But those are some of the externalities that we think about when it comes to how the tightness of the housing market – what the lock-in effect and what affordability is doing there. But outside of the housing market, Sarah, the wider economy, like how do these housing costs play a role there?Sarah Wolfe: Massive effect. Some of the work that we've done shows that housing affordability is the number one driver pushing down fertility rates in America. The number one driver. Above childcare costs, above finding a partner, finding a good job. It's housing affordability. So, you could see how that could pretty significantly ripple through the broader economy.But there's other components, right? So, as we discussed earlier, it's driving migration from unaffordable areas to more affordable regions. That has significant implications. And then putting my consumer economist hat on, as we discussed earlier in the podcast, when people buy a home, they tie themselves to that home. They spend money on couches, on beds, on TVs, right? Durable goods. And if we're going to have more people as renters for longer, that's going to expand the services economy at the expense of the goods economy.All right. Let's take a step back and think about where this is all going. It hasn't been a very optimistic conversation. Jim, what is the outlook for affordability in your view? Do we get anywhere back to the post-financial crisis period or even the pre-financial crisis period?James Egan: When it comes to the outlook for mortgage rates, the outlook for affordability, the outlook for the U.S. housing market – look, we just, throughout Morgan Stanley Research and Strategy, published our 2026 major outlook. From now through the end of 2027, we don't have conventional mortgage rates getting below 6 percent.We do have affordability improving on the margins. We have income growth exceeding home price appreciation that makes it a little bit better, but that doesn't get us back to the post-GFC affordability era, which was very, very affordable. Looking back over the past several decades, it gets us closer to where we were pre-GFC, not all the way back there.But when we think about how that ripples through the housing market and how we think about that evolving from here, look, we do think that the state of mortgage credit availability means there will be a lack of distress. We think that while affordability itself may be challenged and inventories may be low, there is some level of housing activity that has to occur regardless of where mortgage rates are or affordability is.We think we found that level. We think there's support for home sales at these current levels, and that combination of support for home sales, lack of inventory, means that home prices, very little room for them to grow from here. But we think they're going to be pretty supported.So, from a housing market perspective, at a ten-thousand-foot view, we're calling it 1-2 percent growth in sales, in home prices, well-supported. But the affordability outlook that we've outlined throughout this podcast – challenged to see a lot of acceleration.Now, when we pull it back to the first-time home buyer, based on our conversation, it seems that the key question is becoming less about when to buy, more about who can still afford to enter the market.But Sarah, it's really been great talking with you about the housing market today.Sarah Wolfe: It was great speaking with you, Jim.James Egan: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ***Sarah Wolfe is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson reacts to Kevin Warsh’s first Fed meeting, explaining why the new chair’s credibility may require letting markets experience some short-term pain.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 my views on the New Fed Chair and how to interpret his FOMC meeting last week.It's Monday, June 22nd at 11:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.I want to spend today on what I think was one of the more important market events of the year so far. Kevin Warsh’s first Fed meeting as the Chair. Specifically, he is trying to fortify credibility at a very delicate moment. The economy is stronger than many expected. Inflation is still running above target. And markets have become accustomed to central banks telling them exactly what to think.Back in February, when Warsh was nominated, I argued that this was the right choice if the goal was to lift market credibility. At that time, precious metals were rising parabolically. To me that was a bad signal that markets were questioning whether policy makers could really run the economy hot without creating a disorderly move in the dollar or a broader inflation problem.Since Warsh’s nomination, the S&P 500-to-gold ratio is up close to 40 percent, and I view that as a powerful vote of confidence from the markets. It suggests investors are giving Warsh the benefit of the doubt – that he can shake up the Fed, reduce reliance on the balance sheet as a policy tool, and solidify discipline that gives the administration some breathing room.But here’s the catch. Enhancing credibility is not always painless. In fact, credibility must be earned by doing something markets don’t immediately like. And last week had some of that flavor. Stocks weakened, the yield curve bear-flattened, the dollar strengthened, and precious metals sold off. From my perspective, that is not a failed first meeting. That is a good and necessary first step. What stood out to me most was Warsh’s emphasis on the inflation mandate. He made it very clear that the Fed’s primary responsibility is price stability – not managing every wiggle in the labor market, not smoothing every risk asset drawdown, and not hand-holding investors through every data point. And frankly, after five years of missing the inflation target, that message was overdue.The stronger economy and improving private payroll data give the Fed room to lean into that message. I don’t think this means the Fed is about to hike rates immediately, or even necessarily this year. But it does mean the reaction function has changed, and markets do not like uncertainty around the Fed path.The other major shift was communication. Warsh appears to be moving away from excessive forward guidance, and I think that’s a very healthy development. For years, I’ve argued that the Fed became too influential in shaping not only market behavior, but also how investors interpreted the data. When markets are only trying to guess what the Fed will say next, the Fed loses the value of market prices as an independent signal. That’s backwards. Markets should be reacting to incoming information, and the Fed should be learning from those reactions – not vice versa.A little less Fed hand-holding may be uncomfortable, but ironically it is necessary to get to a more stable place. Investors may not like it in the short term, but the system works better when market prices are less impeded by policy manipulation. The wisdom of crowds is often better than the wisdom of committees.The near-term risk for equities is not rate hikes or even uncertainty. It’s liquidity. Balance sheet support has already started to fade. The Reserve Management Program is down roughly 75 percent from its peak, Treasury buybacks have been reduced by 50 percent. And at the same time lending growth is accelerating because the real economy is using more capital. That combination means liquidity is tightening, and our work suggests that could remain a headwind for stocks into July.Bottom line, the market may test Warsh’s resolve. That’s what markets do. The key question is whether the Fed tolerates some short-term pain in order to strengthen longer-term credibility. My guess is that it tries to do exactly that, until funding markets, credit markets, or bond volatility forces its hand to add more liquidity and loosen financial conditions again. That argues for choppy and even corrective price action in equity markets in the near term until the earnings led bull market has its next leg higher. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

As AI investment keeps growing, our strategists Carolyn Campbell and Vishwas Patkar discuss the many ways tech infrastructure gets financed and the opportunities for investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Carolyn Campbell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Carolyn Campbell, Morgan Stanley's Asset-Backed Securities Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Corporate Credit Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: Today, how fixed income markets are helping fund the AI build-out. It's Thursday, June 18th, at 10am in New York. Let's get right into it, Vishwas. We've both come on this podcast before to talk about how credit markets are financing the AI build-out. And over the last ten months, I think it's fair to say that things are faster, broader, deeper than we perhaps expected initially. This investment now spans investment-grade corporate bonds, high yield loans, and a range of securitized products. From your seat in corporate credit, why does AI infrastructure matter so much, to investors right now? Vishwas Patkar: This is a big talking point in our client discussions. it's also telling that less than a year ago, we wrote about this topic for the first time, identifying a $1.5 trillion financing gap that credit markets could help bridge. At that time, data center debt was not something that investors were really focused on. Yet less than 12 months forward, this, I think, is the number one theme dominating both your and my market. And why it's important, I would say, is across, three key vectors. First, just the scale. So, if you look at overall AI-related debt issuance so far this year, we're close to $250 billion. For the balance of the year, we expect that number to double, so about $500 billion of total AI debt financing for 2026. Increasingly the second vector, I think, is around the complexity of deals. So initially, while AI financing was dominated by vanilla investment-grade corporate bond deals, we are now seeing that broaden out into project finance style deals in the high-yield market. We have seen an uptick in chip financing across the different credit silos. And that's important for investors, as identifying value across these different options does require deep credit expertise. And third, as this investment cycle rolls along, it's also important to be cognizant of risks that are building. Not just from a very broad top-down sense around the demand for compute. But also, what are some of the nuances in these different structures – whether it is in data center construction or is in chip financing that investors will need to monitor. So, it's across these three themes that we think data center debt financing is gaining importance. Carolyn Campbell: Now, the underlying demand for AI infrastructure is very strong. That doesn't necessarily mean that every bond tied to this theme is automatically going to be attractive. And as you mentioned, [$]500 billion of supply for the year; a large amount of complexity between those structures.How should credit investors think about the various risks within these different structures? Vishwas Patkar: So, in investment grade, the story is a bit simpler. So, we have had unsecured hyperscaler bond issuance. We have had issuance from semiconductor names. And then we've had some, what we call, private style data center deals. But the vast majority still comes from hyperscaler investment grade rated bonds. For this market, our focus is less on fundamentals because fundamentals are very strong. And then hyperscaler are some of the more most creditworthy companies that we've seen in the history of the market. Our emphasis more is on just the quantum of supply. So, year to date, we have had north of [$]100 billion of hyperscaler debt in the dollar market. We've had north of [$]50 billion being issued in other currencies. If you look at the overall investment grade market, supply is up almost 25 percent versus last year. That's consistent with our call for a year of record issuance this year. And increasingly, if you look forward and then map these issuance numbers to our CapEx estimates, where we could very much be on track for another record to be hit next year. So, the issue of the investment grade market is not around the fundamentals of the companies or these deals. It's more about the quantum of supply, which we think eventually will test the demand capacity of this market. And our base case for the investment grade space is similar to 1997-1998, where credit was starting to finance the business cycle, spreads widened modestly, and IG could underperform other risk assets. But over a longer time horizon, spreads still look historically very low. Carolyn Campbell: Now, what about further down the credit spectrum into the non-investment grade portion? What about that part of the issuance spectrum for AI? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. So, what we're seeing in the sub-investment grade space, especially in high yield, is very different. There, the growth in data center financing has happened around project finance deals for data center construction. In many cases, these have come from crypto miner companies that effectively provide what we call speed to power solutions. We've also had some unsecured issuance from neo clouds, although that's relatively small. But this sector has expanded from effectively zero billion around the fall of last year to about [$]40 billion this year. We expect to see another [$]20 billion of issuance by the end of 2026. And the way they fit into this whole ecosystem is – these project finance deals we think are interesting diversifiers for regular credit investors. They do come with construction risks, especially initially for the first two to three years till the data center is up and running. But on the flip side, you do get a lot of structural enhancements and creditor protections, which is something you don't see in the vast majority of the high yield market. So, I think a key shift in the framework that investors have to do for these deals is focus on asset-level risk, which is again, I think a big divergence from how the vast majority of the credit market trades, which is largely unsecured corporate-level risk that investors have been used to. Carolyn Campbell: All right. You just brought up construction risks. Do you think that's the biggest risk facing the high-yield investors today? Vishwas Patkar: Yes. I think for the high-yield deals in particular, construction risk is the dominant vector that investors are focused on. Because it's important to remember a lot of the debt issuers are first-time borrowers. And they have a limited track record of construction in the past. So, you could see potential delays and things like cost overruns that can affect sentiment on the sector. Or at least on specific bond deals. And this will be especially important to monitor going into the second half of the year, as we have some of the first delivery dates coming up for the deals in the sector that were announced last year. That being said, you know, even though some of the tenants have termination rights, if delays go beyond 180 days, our view is that given the structural power constraints, these termination rights are unlikely to be exercised. So, while construction milestones can affect sentiment and short-term valuations, we would look at any blips as buying opportunities in the space. Alright. So Carolyn, let me throw this back to you. So, construction risk clearly very important for the corporate credit market, especially for high yield investors. Is that something ABS investors or commercial mortgage-backed investors care about? And in what other ways are these asset classes different from corporate credit? Carolyn Campbell: Okay. So first and foremost, the biggest difference is that in securitized products, the assets are stabilized, they're cash flowing, they're online. We don't have that first vector of construction risk in our space. The second biggest difference is while in high yield and IG we've mostly seen – or we've entirely seen single campus, single tenant data centers; in securitization issuance, it's mostly multi-tenant, multi-asset, multi-regional, deals that have come to market. And so, it's a very different risk profile. And as a consequence, investors are focused not just on who is behind this one single lease and what are the termination rates, but what does the landscape look like in general for compute? How does that affect vacancy and churn rates? And then lastly, the issuers themselves are different. You talked about the crypto companies. You get a little bit more of the data center, data center construction. Whereas in securitized products, these are companies that have been around for 5, 10, 20 years. They're accustomed to managing a fleet of assets, dozens if not hundreds of tenants. They've got a little bit more of a track record for the most part, than the types of issuers we're seeing in the credit market. Vishwas Patkar: Your market post-construction, more leverage to the thematic of demand for compute – and how the AI investment cycle is playing out. Versus the corporate credit market, which is largely exposed to construction risks as the data centers get built out. So that's a very important difference.That being said, one theme that ties both our markets are just healthy fundamentals, but at the same time heavy supply. So, I talked about how we see that affecting our view on investment grade. How is that same tension showing up in securitized products? Carolyn Campbell: So exactly as you said, the fundamental story is very strong. We don't see deterioration in performance of the assets either that has happened yet or that we expect to come in the near term. So, it really is a technically driven story. Supply in this space, we're forecasting at around [$]30 billion for year, so smaller in magnitude, but relatively large for the market. That has very elevated supply expectations, and so as a consequence, we've seen spreads back up across the space. We do think that some of the cross-asset comparisons will help keep spreads contained from here. And so, we do see value in securitized credit across the stack for the rest of the year. Vishwas Patkar: All right. So, you brought up the cross-asset comparison. And so, we've discussed the fundamental differences in our market, how much issuance we expect. But, you know, just to end on a commercial note – if we are advising investors on where is the best relative value and what's the framework for comparing opportunities, how do you think about that? Where do we see value across the ecosystem? Carolyn Campbell: I mean, I think this is probably the biggest question that investors that are looking at this space are facing today. And there's... If we're thinking just about the data center backed assets, I think there are two main things. One is the asset itself, where we're focused on things like the geography, the tenant, the interconnectivity, the flexibility of this asset for multiple uses. And then the second is on the structure of the deal itself. How much leverage is being raised against the asset? How cash flowing is it? And then of course, the duration as well. But it's a great question. And because of the complexity of this space, it can be really hard to compare one to the other. Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. And, at the risk of providing a non-answer, I very much think investors are in the process of coming up with a framework because these deals have come very quickly. This is a new sector for most credit investors to analyze. But I think what we can say with a high degree of certainty is this is blurring the lines between corporate credit and securitized credit. So, you know, this opens up more avenues for us to collaborate on this topic going forward. Carolyn Campbell: All right. That's a great place for us to leave it today with that nice cross-collaboration. Vishwas, thank you so much for taking the time to talk. Vishwas Patkar: Great speaking with you, Caroline. Carolyn Campbell: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

AI’s appetite for memory has turned chips into an inflationary factor. Our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore looks at what policymakers could do to reduce that pressure.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist.  Today, I'll be talking about chipflation and what policy tools can or can't be used to address the memory bottleneck. It's Wednesday, June 17th, at 10am in New York. Last week, you heard my colleague Shawn Kim talk about chipflation and the surging cost of memory. Today, I'll get into what policymakers can and can't do about it. As listeners will know, memory chips are becoming an increasingly strategic resource because AI infrastructure depends on them. And when a resource becomes strategic, governments tend to get involved. The challenge is that policy can help at the margin but probably can't solve the problem quickly. There are three reasons for that. First, many U.S. policy tools all take time. Direct subsidies, tax credits, procurement guarantees, and faster permitting are all things that can support new fabrication plants, packaging facilities, and testing capacity. But memory supply is not going to appear overnight. This new capacity has to be built, equipped, qualified, and ramped – and that process can take years. Second, China may be able to add some supply in conventional memory markets, but not enough to close the broader gap created by AI demand. That's especially true for high bandwidth memory, the more strategic type of memory for frontier AI systems. Supply there still remains highly concentrated, technically complex, and difficult to scale. Third, our base case is that U.S. policy remains more restrictive, not less. We don't expect a broad loosening of export controls given the strategic imperative of this technology. Instead, we think policymakers are likely to continue to prioritize supply chain resilience, trusted capacity, and geopolitical de-risking over the near-term price relief. Now, from a policy perspective, we think it's important to split memory into two categories. The first is AI strategic memory, high bandwidth and advanced DRAM. That's the memory that enables the most advanced AI systems. And for that reason, we think policy here is likely to focus on protecting strategic capability, limiting geopolitical vulnerability, and expanding trusted supply across the U.S. and its allied countries. The second category is commodity or legacy memory. That's the memory that you can think of as being used in autos, industrial systems, consumer electronics, and other non-frontier applications. Now here, we think policymakers could consider more flexible options, like differentiated licensing or targeted support for critical sectors. But even then, the limits are practical: permitting, workforce, tools, qualification cycles, and production lead times. China is the other major variable. Chinese producers are expanding in conventional DRAM and NAND. In some consumer-grade applications, that supply could act as a relief valve for buyers that have been crowded out by AI-related demand. But still, there are limits. Chinese producers face yield and technology gaps, even if policy is supportive. And China alone will not solve the high-bandwidth memory bottleneck. The regulatory backdrop reinforces that point.Some Chinese memory producers remain subject to U.S. restrictions or even heightened scrutiny. Access to the most advanced lithography tools also remains a hard ceiling. Without that access, scaling leading-edge memory becomes much more difficult. So, the bottom line is this: policy can mitigate chipflation, but it's unlikely to end it in the near term. For AI strategic memory, policymakers are more likely to defend access, deepen allied coordination, and encourage trusted capacity than to loosen restrictions. For commodity memory, there may be room for some targeted flexibility. But of course, geopolitics and timing still matter. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the signals investors will be seeking from the new Fed Chair leading his first monetary policy meeting and possible implications for markets.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, markets are watching the Fed's next move. Are rate cuts delayed or could hikes possibly be back on the table? It's Tuesday, June 16th at 8:30am in New York. So, Mike, the FOMC meeting today and tomorrow is likely more about reading the signal rather than announcing a rate change. Markets will focus on inflation forecasts, the unemployment rate, and the growth outlook. But, of course, this will also be the first meeting after Powell ended his term as Fed chair in May. All eyes will be on Warsh. So, what are your thoughts before the press conference? Michael Gapen: A lot of thoughts, actually, before the press conference. I do think it's basically a foregone conclusion that the Fed will be changing its easing bias in favor of more neutral language. Seems clear the committee wants to do that, probably wanted to do that at the last meeting. And it does fit, I think, Warsh's preference for less communication, less guidance from the Fed. So, I do think that's largely a foregone conclusion, although obviously we need to see whether that happens and whether there are dissents. I think, as you noted, the forecasts will be important, but I think what's really important from my perspective – more than the modal outlook or the baseline that participants have – is their assessment of the balance of risks around the dual mandate. And I say that because obviously a year ago, the Fed eased policy when it felt that there were downside risks to the labor market that outweighed upside risk to inflation. This year, that seems to have flipped, where the labor market appears to have stabilized, labor demand has picked up a little bit, and it is inflation that looks persistent. So, if the Fed cut last year on downside risk to the labor market, I think the concern for markets is – maybe they hike in 2027 or later this year based on a changing balance of risks in the direction of firmer inflation. So, for me, that's really kind of key. In addition to what they're saying about growth inflation in the labor market, what is their assessment of the distribution of risks around that modal forecast? Matthew Hornbach: There's definitely going to be a lot of investor interest in the press conference itself. What exactly may result from the opening statement. Presumably, Chair Warsh will give an opening statement. How are you thinking about the back and forth between Warsh and the reporters that are asking questions? Are there certain questions that you would anticipate him getting asked, and how do you think he might respond? Michael Gapen: Well, I think certainly that if we are correct, and I think markets are correct, that they do change forward guidance in the statement to more neutral bias, that certainly opens up the possibility that the Fed will be hiking. So, the obvious first question is – is this the first step in the direction of hiking? What would get you to raise rates? Should investors be thinking about that? Is that the course of travel here? Now Warsh may not want to answer that if he, kind of, is consistent in the view of saying the Fed shouldn't give a lot of forward guidance. So maybe get some popcorn, Matt. It could be a situation where he gets asked questions about the future path of monetary policy, and maybe he decides, ‘I don't want to take that up right now. The data will tell us, and we'll do what's necessary.’ And second, I think as you're noting and getting to about the structure of the press conference and what he might say is; past Federal Reserve chairs, let's say from Bernanke on, have found the press conference – the press conference statement, the questions, the format, the venue – as a way to control the narrative. And I think what will be interesting is to see whether Warsh has the same design. The risk, of course, is perhaps that he doesn't and pulls back the amount of communication guidance that he wants to give. And then we'll see what fills that vacuum. What narrative fills that vacuum? And is he okay with that? So, it may be that there's a new sheriff in town, and he chooses that there's some questions I'll answer, others I won't. And so, I do think that interaction with the press corps will be interesting. Hard to know exactly where it's going to come down until we see it in real time. Matthew Hornbach: During Chair Warsh's testimony to Congress, he alluded to the idea that potentially the Fed may not do a press conference at every meeting going forward. How are you thinking about that in the context of this idea that if you leave a void, somebody else may fill it? Michael Gapen: Obviously, the Fed used to not have press conferences at all, and then they moved to having them quarterly or four times a year. And they found that that was a little suboptimal because it became harder to make decisions and changes in the off-press conference meetings [be]cause they didn't have a venue to explain what they were doing and what they were thinking. So, they migrated to eight meetings. So, I think it’s kind of twofold. Yes, it would mean that they speak less and therefore maybe their word doesn't carry as much weight. Or there's longer gaps for other narratives to come in. Like, do we lose forward guidance from the Fed, and is that replaced by forward guidance from the Treasury, for example? How do markets weigh those signals? And but then also I would say would that ultimately box in the Fed to only make decisions on quarterly meetings rather than eight times a year? Would the chair, for example… Let's assume that at some point in the future, the Fed decides it does want to raise interest rates. Historically, the Fed does not surprise on rate hikes. It's perfectly willing to surprise on rate cuts, when it comes to that. But if there is a world where the Fed does decide, ‘Hey, we do need to raise rates, but we don't have a press conference to explain our view.’ Would they take the decision at that meeting or would they wait? So, does it reduce their opportunity set? Matthew Hornbach: I think this issue would certainly be an interesting one for investors to think about, which is why I'm bringing it up with you. Because to the extent that the plan going forward is to hold a press conference only once a quarter, as you alluded to – investors may interpret that as the Fed not being willing to raise rates at every single meeting going forward, which would certainly affect the pricing in the very short end of the interest rate market. But more broadly, on communication strategy, do you think that that would be something that Chair Warsh would take upon himself? Or do you think it would be more likely for him to organize a committee to discuss communications? Michael Gapen: I think the right thing to do… Again, our job is to say what we think he will do – not what he should do. But I'm going to answer this one in the question of what I think he should do. I do think he should create, say, a subcommittee on communication and reevaluate what the Fed does. [Be]ause as chair, he has almost unilateral control over communications. But obviously you work within a committee, the committee operates with consensus. So, I do think it would make sense to, kind of, work through a committee and try and get as much consensus as you can. And, here, what I would hope where they, kind of, ultimately land is – Warsh has been critical in the past of the Fed's forecast, the forecast being incorrect, providing maybe incorrect forward guidance. And I would argue that it's not really the sole job of the SEPs – the Summary of Economic Projections – to provide a forecast. But what you get out of them is more than just a forecast. You get a hint of the committee's reaction function. That if data are above or below certain thresholds on growth, inflation, and unemplyment, then expect our policy path to look different. So, is there a way that he could review the communication strategy, tamp down the elements that are, say, a pure forecast, but keep the items that communicate to the market what a reaction function is? That's where I think a review committee could be useful in reforming or revamping what they do. Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. In terms of the things that are really the purview of the committee, can you walk us through what those are in the context of Chair Warsh coming in having to ultimately make decisions on monetary policy – both interest rate policy as well as balance sheet policy? What are the purview of the committee itself? Michael Gapen: Yeah. The two main tools of monetary policy, in this case interest rate policy and balance sheet policy, is both of those are under the purview of the Federal Open Market Committee. So, to change interest rates, to reduce the size of the balance sheet, to change the rollover rate, to buy assets, to sell assets – all of that is an FOMC decision. There are subcomponents of that world where the board can make certain decisions. Now, the Fed views communication broadly as a tool, but in this case, communication is not an FOMC decision. The evolution of the communication strategy grew kind of organically out of '08, '09. Chairman Bernanke kind of started that process. It continued through, through Yellen. And that's been more of what I'll call a consensus operation, but there's no formal vote. So, the chair has a lot of control over how the Fed communicates, how often it communicates. But the policy decisions are from the FOMC. Matthew Hornbach: I'm often asked about this idea that less communication may end up affecting the bond market in certain ways. And typically, the concern amongst investors is that with less communication from the Fed – whether it be the chair or whether it be from the committee as a whole through the Summary of Economic Projections and its interest rate dot plot – there's concern amongst investors that removing that type of guidance would raise bond yields, essentially through the term premium component of the term structure. And the way that we think about it is probably in this environment where interest rates have already been inching higher, and investors are concerned about the hiking cycle that may eventuate, it probably would raise term premia initially. But from a more medium-term perspective, the way I think about it is that, you know, term premia can be positive, it can also be negative. And if we have less forward guidance, I would generally expect that term premium component to be more volatile than it has been in the past. Not necessarily just in the upward direction. But it could also be in the downward direction if the macro environment ends up changing in some way. Michael Gapen: Yeah, I could see in the current context, the inflation surprises have been to the upside, so less communication may mean more term premium. But we went through almost a decade after '08, '09, where most of those surprises were to the downside. So, you can imagine that it could be a symmetric story rather than an asymmetric one. Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. Well, thanks Mike. That's very interesting, and thanks for taking the time to talk ahead of this upcoming FOMC meeting. I'm looking forward to our next discussion around the following FOMC meeting. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why the recent equity correction may be more reset than reversal and where investors may find the next opportunities.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: Possible opportunities to look out for in the equity correction over the past few weeks.It's Monday, June 15th at 1:30pm in New York.  So, let’s get after it.Sometimes the market changes direction or leadership not because the story has broken. Instead, it just needs to digest how quickly the story has evolved. Over the past few weeks, equities had their biggest correction since the important bottom in March. I don’t view this as the end of the bull market though. I view it as a pause after an unsustainable acceleration in two key factors driving stocks higher this year: earnings revisions and liquidity. In my view, the market wasn’t questioning the earnings bull market as much as it is questioning the speed at which earnings have been revised higher. These revisions have been particularly strong in leading sectors like semiconductors, which also corrected the most. When earnings revisions breadth gets north of 70 percent, it’s reasonable to ask whether the second derivative is about to slow. That doesn’t mean earnings estimates are going down. Instead, it means the rate of improvement is probably peaking, and in markets, it’s always about the second derivative in growth. Such decelerations create corrections, not crashes. That distinction is important. Earnings revisions breadth may pause or roll over from extreme levels, but the next twelve-month earnings estimates are still likely to rise as we move through the year and roll forward toward 2027 numbers. That’s why I remain convicted in our year-end S&P 500 target of 8000, even if the next few weeks remain choppy. Markets can correct while the earnings story remains intact. In fact, that’s often exactly how healthy bull markets reset.The second part of this adjustment is liquidity. Earlier this year, liquidity was flowing strongly through the system as a means of regaining financial stability. Between the Fed’s Reserve Management Program, reduced bank capital requirements, and Treasury buybacks, more than half a trillion dollars of liquidity was effectively added. But that pace is now slowing. The Reserve Management Program has fallen from roughly $40 billion a month in April to about $10 billion today; while Treasury buybacks have also slowed from the March and April highs. This rate of change slowdown matters at the margin, especially for crowded momentum trades that have been supported by abundant liquidity. Take note of these corrections in momentum because they often bring a change in leadership and that’s the real opportunity. We’ve already seen a few leadership rotations this year – from precious and base metals, to rare earths, to energy and finally to semiconductors. Now I think the market may be ready to broaden again, much like it did late last year and in the first six weeks of this year.Importantly, our preferred sectors of Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Regional Banks are all up more than 10 percent over the past month while the S&P 500 was down modestly. Yet, sentiment toward these areas is still muted. That’s exactly the kind of setup I like: improving fundamentals, better relative price action, and investors still skeptical.Another piece that should help this broadening. Macro variables that have been holding lower quality cyclicals back include interest rates, crude, and the dollar – they may all now be peaking. That fits nicely with the announced deal to reopen the Straits of Hormuz last night. If oil pressure eases and the bond market walks back the Fed hike it is currently pricing, interest rate sensitive groups should have room to extend their recent outperformance. Finally this week’s Fed meeting matters too because it’s Kevin Warsh’s first as the Chair. I’ll be watching less for the rate decision itself and more for how the bond market reacts. The key markers are still the same for me: 4.5 percent on the 10-year, while bond volatility and funding market stress need to remain calm. If the Iran deal holds, I think the Fed can lean less hawkish on rates – but I don’t expect a proactive pivot to add more liquidity.Bottom line, markets have been digesting the peak rate of change in growth acceleration and liquidity. But that’s far from the end of the cycle. The earnings driven bull market remains intact, but the leadership may be changing. As usual, the best opportunities may be hiding in the places investors don’t believe in, yet.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!