After sending global markets in a brief tailspin in early August, the Bank of Japan is once again the center of attention. Our Global Chief Economist and Chief Asia Economist discuss the central bank’s next steps to help ease volatility and inflation.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Seth Carpenter: And on today's episode, Chetan and I are going to be discussing the Bank of Japan and the role it has been playing in recent market turmoil.It's Friday, September 13th at 12.30pm in New York.Chetan Ahya: And it's 5.30pm in London.Seth Carpenter: Financial markets have been going back and forth for the past month or so, and a lot of what's been driving the market movements have been evolving expectations of what's going on at central banks. And right at the center of it has been the Bank of Japan, especially going back to their meeting at the very end of July.So, Chetan, maybe you can just level set us about where things stand with the Bank of Japan right now? And how they've been communicating with markets?Chetan Ahya: Well, I think what happened, Seth, is that Bank of Japan (BoJ) saw that there was a significant progress in inflation and wage growth dynamic. And with that they went out and told the markets that they wanted to start now increasing rate hikes. And at the same time, the end was weakening.And to ensure that they kind of convey to the markets that they want to be now taking rates higher, the governor of the central bank came out and indicated that they are far away from neutral.Now while that was having the desired effect of bringing the yen down, i.e. appreciated. But at the same time, it caused a significant volatility in the equity markets and make it more challenging for the BoJ.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so I get that. But I would say the market knew for a long time that the Bank of Japan would be hiking. We've had that in our forecast for a while. So, do you think that Governor Ueda really meant to be quite so aggressive? That meeting and his comments subsequently really were part of the contribution to all of this market turmoil that we saw in August. So, do you think he meant to be so aggressive?Chetan Ahya: Well, not really. I think that's the reason why what we saw is that a few days later, when the deputy governor Uchida was supposed to speak, he tried to walk back that hawkishness of the governor. And what was very interesting is that the deputy governor came out and indicated that they do care for financial conditions. And if the financial conditions move a lot, it will have an impact on growth and inflation; and therefore, conduct of monetary policy.In that sense, they conveyed the endogeneity of financial conditions and their reaction function. So, I think since that point of time, the markets have had a little bit of reprieve that BoJ will not take up successive rate hikes, ignoring what happens to the financial conditions.Seth Carpenter: But this does feel a little bit like some back and forth, and we've seen in the market that the yen is getting a little bit whipsawed; so the Bank of Japan wants to hike, and markets react strongly. And then the Bank of Japan comes out and says, ‘No, no, no, we're not going to hike that much,’ and markets relax a little bit. But maybe that relaxation allows them to hike more.It kind of reminds me, I have to say, of the 2014 to 2015 period when the Federal Reserve was getting ready to raise interest rates for the first time off of the zero lower bound after the financial crisis. And, you know, markets reacted strongly -- when then chair Yellen started talking about hiking and because of the tightening of financial conditions, the Fed backed down.But then because markets relaxed, the Fed started talking about hiking again. Do you think that's an apt comparison for what's going on now?Chetan Ahya: Absolutely, Seth. I think it is exactly something similar that is going on with Bank of Japan.Seth Carpenter: So, I guess the question then becomes, what happens next? We know with the Fed, they eventually did hike rates at the end of 2015. What do you think we're in line for with the Bank of Japan, and is it likely to be a bumpy ride in the future like it has been over the past couple months?Chetan Ahya: Well, so I think as far as the market’s volatility is concerned, we do think that the fact that the BoJ has come out and indicated that their reaction function is such that they do care about financial conditions. Hopefully we should not see the same kind of volatility that we saw at the start of the month of August.But as far as the next steps are concerned, we do see BoJ taking up one more rate hike in January 2025. And there is a risk that they might take up that rate hike in December.But the reason why we think that they will be able to take up one more rate hike is the fact that there is continued progress on wage growth and inflation; and wage growth is the most important variable that BoJ is tracking.We just got the last month's wage growth number. It has risen up to 3 percent. And going forward, we think that as the BoJ gets comfort that next year's wage negotiations are also heading in the right direction, they will be able to take one more rate hike in January 2025.Well, Seth, I think, you know, when we are talking about this volatility that we saw in the financial markets and particularly yen, the other side of this story is what the Fed has to do, and what is Fed indicating in terms of its policy path. And we saw that, after the nonfarm payrolls data, Governor Waller was indicating that the Fed could consider front-loading its rate cuts. What are your thoughts on that?Seth Carpenter: So, we do think the Fed's getting ready to start cutting rates. Our baseline is that they move at 25 increments per meeting, from now through the middle of next year. I would take Governor Waller's comments though about front-loading cuts -- which I took to mean, you know, the possibility of 50 basis point rate moves -- very much in context, and with a grain of salt.When he gave that speech, I think what he was trying to do, and I think the last paragraph of that speech really bears it out. He was saying there's a lot of uncertainty here. He said, if the data suggests that they need to front load rates, then he would advocate for it. But he also said that, if the data implied that they need to cut at consecutive meetings, he'd be in favor of that as well. So, he was saying that the data are going to be the thing that drives the policy decisions.But thanks for asking that question. And thanks to the listeners. If you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research looks at the Fed’s approach to rate cuts, seasonal trends and the US election to explain why the next month represents a crucial window for credit’s future. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why the next month is a critical window for credit.It's Thursday, September 12th at 9am in New York. We’ve liked corporate credit as an asset class this year and think the outlook over the next 6-12 months remains promising. At a high level, credit likes moderation, and that continues to be exactly what Morgan Stanley’s economists are forecasting; with moderate growth, moderate inflation, and moderating policy in the US and Europe. Meanwhile, at the ground level, corporate balance sheets are in good shape, and demand for fixed income remains strong, dynamics that we think are unlikely to shift quickly. But this good credit story is now facing a critical window. As we’ve discussed recently on this program, the Fed has taken a risk with monetary policy, continuing to keep interest rates elevated despite increasing indications that they should be lower. U.S. inflation has been coming down rapidly, to the point where the market now thinks the rate of inflation over the next two years will be below what the Fed is targeting. The labor market is slowing, and government bond markets are now assuming that the Fed will have to make much more significant adjustments to policy. And so, this becomes a race. If the economic data can hold up for the next few months, while the Fed does make those first gradual rate cuts, it will help reassure markets that monetary policy is reasonable and in-line with the underlying economy. But if the data weakens more now, the market is vulnerable. Monetary policy works with a lag, meaning rate cuts are not going to help anytime soon. And so, it becomes easier for the market to worry that growth is slowing too much, and that the cavalry of rate cuts will be too late to arrive. The second immediate challenge is so-called seasonality. Over almost a century, September has seen significantly weaker performance relative to any other month. Seasonality always has an element of mysticism to it, but in terms of specific reasons why markets tend to struggle around this time of year, we’d point to two factors. First, after a summer lull, you tend to see a lot of issuance, including corporate bonds issuance. And for Equities, September often sees more negative earnings revisions, as companies aim to bring full-year estimates in line with reality. Lots of supply and weaker earnings revisions are often a tough combination. A final element of this critical window is the approaching US election. This appears to be an extremely close race between candidates with very different policy priorities. If investors get more nervous that monetary policy is mis-calibrated, or seasonality is unhelpful, the approaching election provides yet another reason for investors to hold back. All of this is why we think the next month is a critical window for credit, and why we’d exercise a little bit more caution than we have so far this year. But we also think any weakness is going to be temporary. By early November, the US election will be over, and we think growth will be holding up, inflation will keep coming down, and interest rate cuts will be well underway. And while September is historically a bad month for stocks and credit, late-October onward is a different and much better story. Any near-term softness could still give way to a stronger finish to the year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Office buildings continue to struggle in the post-pandemic era, but our Chief Fixed Income Strategist notes that other properties have turned a corner. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about how the challenges facing the US commercial real estate markets have evolved and talk about where they are headed next.It's Wednesday, Sep 11th at 10 am in New York.Over the last year and half, the challenges of commercial real estate, or CRE in short, have been periodically in the spotlight. The last time we discussed this issue here was in the first quarter of this year. That was in the aftermath of loan losses announced by a regional bank that primarily focused on rent-stabilized multifamily and CRE lending in the New York metropolitan area. At the same time, lenders and investors in Japan, Germany and Canada also reported sizable credit losses and write-down related to US commercial real estate.At that time, we had said that CRE issues should be scrutinized through the lenses of lenders and property types; and that saw meaningful challenges in both – in particular, regional banks as lenders and office as a property type.Rolling the calendar forward, where do things stand now?Focusing on the lenders first, there is some good news. While regional bank challenges from their CRE exposures have not gone away, they are not getting any worse. That means incremental reserves for CRE losses have been below what we had feared. Our economists’ expectations of Fed’s rate cuts on the back of their soft-landing thesis, gives us the conviction that lower rates should be an incremental benefit from a credit quality perspective for banks because it alleviates pressure on debt service coverage ratios for borrowers. Lower rates also give banks more room to work with their borrowers for longer by providing extensions. For banks, this means while CRE net charge-offs could rise in the near term, they are likely to stabilize in 2025.In other words, even though the fundamental deterioration in terms of the level of delinquencies and losses may be ahead, the rate of change seems to have clearly turned. In that sense, as long as the rate cuts that we anticipate materialize, the worst of the CRE issues for regional banks may now be behind us.From the lens of property types, it is important not to paint all property types with the same brushstroke of negativity. Office lots remain the pain point. Looking at the payoff rates in CMBS pools gives us a granular look at the performance across different property types.Overall, 76 per cent of the CRE loans that matured over the past 12 months paid off, which is a pretty healthy rate. However, in office loans, the payoff rate was just 43 per cent. Other property types were clearly much better. For example, 100 per cent of industrial property loans, 96 per cent of multi-family loans, 89 per cent of hotel loans that matured in the last 12 months paid off. The payoff rates in retail property loans were a bit lower but still pretty healthy at 76 per cent, in clear contrast to office properties. Delinquency rates across property types also show a similar trend with office loans driving the lion’s share of the overall increase in delinquencies.In short, the secular headwinds facing the office market have not dissipated. Office property valuations, leasing arrangements and financing structures must adjust to the post-pandemic realities of office work. While this shift has begun, more is needed. So, there is really no quick resolution for these challenges which we think are likely to persist. This is especially true in central business district offices that require significant capex for upgrades or repurposing for use as residential housing.Overall, we stick to our contention that commercial real estate risks present a persistent challenge but are unlikely to become systemic for the economy. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen to this and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the generational shift in the US housing market underway, our analysts discuss the impact this trend will have on residential real estate investing.----- Transcript -----Ron Kamdem: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, head of Commercial Real Estate Research and the US Real Estate Investment Trust team within Morgan Stanley Research.Lauren Hochfelder: And I'm Lauren Hochfelder, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Morgan Stanley Real Estate Investing, the global private real estate investment arm of the firm.Ron Kamdem: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we’ll discuss the tangible impact of shifting demographics on the residential real estate investing space.It's Tuesday, September 10th at 10 am in New York.So, Lauren, for several years now, we've been hearing about millennials overtaking the baby boomers. As a reminder, millennials are people between the age of 28 and 43. So someone like me. And there’s about 72 million millennials right now. Baby boomers are around 59 to 78; and there's about 69 million at the moment. This demographic shift will have a profound impact on all sectors of the economy, including residential housing. So, let's lay the foundation first. What are the current needs of baby boomers and millennials when it comes to their homes?Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, this is such an interesting moment, Ron, because as you say, their needs are shifting. Over the last 15 years, what have millennials wanted? They have wanted multifamily. They have wanted rental apartment units. And by the way, they've wanted, generally speaking, small ones in cities.Ron Kamdem: Yup.Boomers? They have been disproportionately residing in single family homes that they own, and that they've owned for a long time. But here we are, as millennials reach peak household formation years and boomers approach their 80-year-old mark. There's a real shift.We have millennials growing up and growing out, and boomers growing older. And that means millennials need more space; boomers need more services. Housing with increased care options. And that really leads to three things.One, pockets of oversupply of multifamily. Developers develop to the rearview mirror; and we have way too much of what they wanted yesterday and too little of what they wanted to what they want tomorrow. The second is increased demand for single family rental in more suburban locations to meet the needs of those millennials. And the third is increased demand for senior housing for the boomers.Ron Kamdem: Excellent. So, when we look at the next five to ten years, let's consider each of these generations. Demand for senior housing is increasing significantly. Where are we in this process, and what's your expectation for the next decade?Lauren Hochfelder: Look, we think this is the golden age for senior housing. The demand wave is upon us, supply is way down. And by the way, labor costs, which have been a real headwind, are finally abating. New construction of senior housing has basically fallen off a cliff. It is down 75 per cent from its peak; if you look at the first quarter of this year, it's basically at GFC levels. And third, the senior wealth effect. Not only do seniors need this product, they can afford it.They have been in those homes, they've owned those homes for a very long time, and over that period, home prices have appreciated. So, seniors are in a position where they can really afford to move into these senior living facilities.Ron Kamdem: And what about millennials? As they get older, how are their housing needs evolving?Lauren Hochfelder: I'd say three things. It's they need more space. So single family rental versus multifamily. The second is migratory shifts, right? It's no longer -- I have to live in San Francisco or New York. You're seeing real growth in the southeast and Texas. And the third is this preference to rent. Now, a lot of that's affordability driven.Ron Kamdem: Right.Lauren Hochfelder: But I think there's also mobility. There's just general preference. I mean, this is a generation that doesn't own a landline, right? So, they want to rent. They don't want to buy.Ron Kamdem: So, given these trends as an actual real estate investor, how do you view the supply and demand dynamics within residential investing? And where do you see the biggest opportunities?Lauren Hochfelder: Look, I think housing in general is attractive to invest in. There's simply too little of it. But you really can't paint a broad brush. You need to invest in the type of housing with the best outlook. And you and I can sit here and debate what's going to happen with interest rates. But what is not debatable is that these two large age groups are going to drive demand disproportionately.And so rather than speculating on interest rates, let's calculate the number of people in these generations. And so that means that we want to invest in single family. We want to invest in seniors housing, and we want to invest in the markets where these groups want to live.So, let's turn it around. We've been talking about this growing senior population and, you know, we and my side of the business. We've been investing in a lot of senior housing communities. But how does this affect your world? You cover the entire US public real estate investment trust universe. How are you thinking about these things?Ron Kamdem: So, our investors are really focused on secular trends that they can invest over a long period of time. And there's really two that I would like to call out. So, the first is the rise of senior housing communities.As you mentioned earlier, if you think about the US population, the population that's 65 and over is really the addressable market. And we do expect that number to rise to about 21 per cent of the population or 71 million people.Lauren Hochfelder: So, think about one in four people being eligible or appropriate for senior housing. It's amazing.Ron Kamdem: That’s an incredible demand function.Now, the second piece of it is historically these seniors have actually shied away from senior housing. So, the first sort of trend and inflection point that I want to call out is we do think there's an opportunity for penetration race -- not only to flatten out, but to start increasing. And that's driven exactly by your earlier comment, which is affordability. Remember, about 75 per cent of seniors actually own their own homes, and they've seen a significant amount of price appreciation. Since 2010, their home prices have gone up 80 per cent, which is about two times the rate of inflation.Second investable trend is the move of outpatient services outside of the hospital setting. So, if you go back to the eighties, only about 16 per cent of services were being done outside of the hospital. In 2020, that number was close to 68 per cent and we think that's going to keep rising. The reason being because of surgical advances, there's a lot of projects that can be done outside of the hospital. Whether it's, you know, knee replacements, trigger finger surgery, cataract surgeries, and so forth. In addition to that, the expansion of Medicare coverage has allowed for reimbursement of these services, again, outside of the hospital.So, we think these are trends that are in place that should continue over the next sort of decade and drive more demand to the healthcare real estate space.Lauren Hochfelder: So, what should we be nervous about? What concerns you?Ron Kamdem: Look, I think on the senior housing side, there's always two factors that we focus on. So, the first is labor. This remains a very labor-intensive industry. But in the US, historically, people coming out of college, they're not necessarily going into the health care space. So, there's been moments of labor shortages. This happened exactly after the pandemic. Luckily, today, the labor situation has abated and you're seeing sort of labor costs back to inflationary type levels.The second piece of it is just the age of the facilities. Now, keep in mind, there's still a lot of facilities with the average age of about 41, right. And everybody has in the back of their mind, these older facilities with older carpets and so forth. So, when we're thinking about investing in the space, we're always focused on the newer assets, the better quality that are going to provide a better experience for the tenant.Lauren Hochfelder: So, given these shifts, what segments of your world are poised to benefit the most?Ron Kamdem: The real estate public market, there's about 160 REITs across 16 different subsectors; and the senior housing subsector is by far the most compelling in our minds. If you think about the REIT market, the average sort of earnings growth is 3 to 4 per cent. However, the senior housing sector, we think you can get 10 per cent or more growth over the next three to five years. The reason being when the pandemic hit, this was an industry that saw occupancy go from 90 per cent to 75 per cent.There was a moment in time where people thought you'd never put any seniors in the facility again. Well, the exact opposite has happened, and now we're seeing occupancy gains of about 300 basis points of about 3 per cent every year. On top of some pricing power, call it 5, 6 or 7 per cent. So, we're looking at a sector where we think organically you can grow sort of high single digits. With a little bit of operating leverage, you can get to a total earning growth of double digits, which is very compelling relative to the rest of the REIT market.Lauren Hochfelder: Let's go back to your generation, as you said. Let's go back to the millennials. How do those shifting needs affect which part of the universe you would invest in?Ron Kamdem: One of the things that I think every real estate owner’s thinking about is how to integrate their platform so that they're more millennial friendly. They're going online. They're using their phones, and I think we're seeing a much bigger investment in marketing dollars on a web presence, on a web platform, and on a mobile friendly app, certainly to be able to interface with that millennial and help with customer acquisitions.So, I would say that's probably the biggest difference -- is how you target that population in a different way than you did historically.Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, I mean we all shop online, shouldn't we get our homes online, right?Ron Kamdem: That's right. All right, Lauren. Well, thanks for taking the time to talk.Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, this been great, Ron. I always enjoy us catching up.Ron Kamdem: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. It helps more people to find the show.*****Lauren Hochfelder 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.

Following weaker-than-expected August jobs data, our CIO and Chief U.S Equity Strategist lays out how the Federal Reserve can ease concerns about a possible hard landing.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the labor market’s impact on equity markets.It's Monday, Sept 9th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.Last week, I wrote a detailed note discussing the importance of the labor data for equity markets. Importantly, I pointed out that since the materially weaker than expected July labor report, the S&P 500 has bounced more than other "macro" markets like rates, currencies and commodities. In the absence of a reacceleration in the labor data, we concluded the S&P 500 was trading out of sync with the fundamentals. Over the past week, we received several labor market data points, which were weaker than expected. First, the Job Openings data for July was softer than expected coming in at 7.7mm versus the consensus expectation of 8.1mm. In addition, June's initial result was revised lower by 274k. This essentially supported the view that the weak payrolls data in July may, in fact, not be related to weather or other temporary issues. Second, the job openings rate fell to 4.6%, which is very close to the 4.5% level Fed Governor Waller has cited as a threshold below which the unemployment rate could rise much faster. Third, the Fed's Beige Book came out last week. It indicated that activity remains sluggish with 9 of the 12 Federal Reserve districts reporting flat or declining activity in August, though commentary on labor markets was more neutral, rather than negative. These data sync nicely with the Conference Board’s Employment Trends Index, which I find to be a very objective aggregate measure of the labor market's direction. This morning, we received the latest release for August Conference Board labor market trends and the trend remains down, but not necessarily recessionary. Of course, the main event last week was Friday's monthly jobs and unemployment reports, where the payroll survey number came in below consensus at 142k. In addition, last month's result was revised lower from 114k to 89k. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell by only a couple of basis points leaving investors unconvinced that July’s labor weakness was overstated. Given much of these labor and other growth data have continued to skew to the downside, the macro markets (like rates, currencies, and Commodities) have been trading with more concern about potential hard landing risks. Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than with 2-year US Treasuries. As of Friday, the spread between the 2-year Treasury yields and the Fed Funds Rate matched the widest levels in the past 40 years. This pricing suggests the bond market believes the Fed is behind the curve from an easing standpoint. On Friday, the equity market started to get in sync with this view and questioned whether a 25bp cut in September would be an adequate policy response to the labor data. In the context of an equity market that is still quite rich and based on well above average earnings growth assumptions, the correction on Friday seems quite appropriate. In my view, until the bond market starts to believe the Fed is no longer behind the curve, labor data reverses course and improves materially or additional policy stimulus is introduced, it will be difficult for equity markets to trade with a more risk on tone. This means valuations are likely to remain challenged for the overall index, while the leadership remains more defensive and in line with our sector and stock recommendations. We see two ways in which the Fed can get ahead of the curve—either faster cutting than expected which is unlikely in the absence of recessionary data; or the labor data starts to improve in a convincing manner and 2-year yields rise. Given the Fed is in the blackout period until next week’s FOMC meeting, and there are not any major labor data reports due for almost a month, volatility will likely remain elevated and valuations under pressure overall. This all brings our previously discussed fair value range for the S&P 500 of 5000-5400 back into view.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, expects a sticky but shallow cycle for defaults on loans, with solid quality overall in high-grade credit.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss some longer-term thoughts on the credit market and the economic cycle.It's Friday, September 6th at 2pm in London.Concerns around US growth have risen, an issue that will probably persist even after today’s US Payrolls report came roughly inline with expectations. At Morgan Stanley, we continue to expect moderate slowing in growth, not a slump. By the middle of next year, our economists see growth slowing to a still respectable 2% growth rate, and a total of seven rate cuts.While growth is set to slow, we think corporate balance sheet metrics are unusually good in the face of this slowing. Indeed, the credit quality of the US investment grade and BB credit markets, which represent the vast majority of corporate credit outstanding, have actually improved since the Fed started hiking rates.Now, looking ahead, there's understandable concern that these currently good credit metrics won't be sustainable as companies will have to refinance the very cheap borrowing that they received immediately after COVID, with the more expensive costs of today's currently higher yields. But we actually think balance sheets will be reasonably robust in light of this reset, and so their ultimate rate sensitivity could be relatively low.One reason is that a wave of refinancing means companies have already tackled a significant portion of their upcoming debt, reducing the so-called rollover or refinancing risk. Interest coverage for floating rate borrowers has stabilized and should actually improve as the Fed starts to lower rates.The debt service costs for higher rated companies will increase as cheaper debt matures and has to be replaced with more expensive borrowing; but we stressed this is a pretty slow process given the long-term nature of a lot of this borrowing. And so, overall, we think the headwinds from higher debt costs are going to be manageable, with the problems largely confined to a smaller cohort of the lowest quality issuers.We think all of that will drive a so-called sticky but shallow default cycle, with defaults driven by higher borrowing costs at select issuers rather than a single problem sector or particularly poor corporate earnings. And there are also some important offsets. Morgan Stanley's forecast suggests that the Fed will be cutting rates, which will reduce overall borrowing costs over the medium term. And another notable theme over the last two years is that more defaults have been becoming so-called restructurings rather than bankruptcies. These restructurings are more likely to leave a company operating -- just under new ownership -- and create less negative feedback into the real economy.Now, against all this, we're mindful that credit spreads are tight, i.e. lower than average. But importantly, we don't think this reflects some sort of euphoria from either the lenders or the borrowers.All-in borrowing costs for corporates remain high, and that's made corporates less likely to be aggressive or increase their leverage. Indeed, since COVID, the overall high yield bond and loan markets have actually shrunk. Leverage buyout activity has been muted and corporate leverage has gone sideways.These are not the types of things you see when corporates are being particularly aggressive and credit unfriendly. Credit markets love moderation and that's very much what Morgan Stanley's economic forecasts over the medium term expect. Spreads may be tight. But we think they're currently supported by strong fundamentals, modest supply, and improving technicals.Today's roughly inline payroll number won’t resolve the uncertainty around growth, but longer term, we think the picture remains encouraging.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 US Public Policy and Global Commodities strategists discuss how the outcome of the election could affect energy markets in the US and around the world.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US public policy strategist.Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Global Commodity Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about a topic that's coming into sharper focus this fall. How will the US presidential election shape energy policy and global energy markets?It's Thursday, September 5th at 10am in New York.Martijn Rats: And 3pm in London.Ariana Salvatore: As we enter the final leg of the US presidential campaign, Harris and Trump are getting ready to go head-to-head on a number of key topics. Healthcare, housing, the state of the economy, foreign policy; and also high on the agenda -- energy policy.So, Martijn, let's set the stage here. Prices at the gas pump in the US have been falling over recent weeks, which is atypical in the summer. What's happening in energy markets right now? And what's your expectation for the rest of the year?Martijn Rats: Yeah, it's a relevant question. Oil prices have been quite volatile recently. I would say that objectively, if you look at the market for crude oil, the crude oil market is tight right now. We can see that in inventories, for example, they are buying large drawing, which tell[s] you, the demand is outstripping supply.But there are two things to say about the tightness in the crude oil market. First of all, we're not quite seeing that tightness merit in the markets for refined products. So, get the market for gasoline, the market for diesel, et cetera. At the moment, the global refining system is running quite hard.But they're also producing a lot of refined product. A lot of gasoline, a lot of diesel. They're pushing that to their customers. Demand is absorbing that, but not quite in a convincing manner. And you can see that in refining margins. They have been steadily trending down all summer.The second thing to say about the tightness and crude is that it's largely driven by a set of factors that will likely to be somewhat temporary. Seasonally demand is at its strongest -- that helps. The OPEC deal is still in place. And as far as we can see in high frequency data, OPEC is still constraining production.And then thirdly, production has been growing in a number of non-OPEC countries. But that absent flows and the last couple of months have seen somewhat of a flat spot in non-OPEC supply growth.Now, those factors have created the tightness that we're seeing currently in the third quarter. But if you start to think about the oil market rolling into the fourth quarter and eventually 2025, a lot of these things going to reverse. The seasonal demand tailwinds that we are currently enjoying; they turn into seasonal demand headwinds in four q[uarter]and one q[uarter] -- seasonally weaker quarters of the year. Non-OPEC production will likely resume its upward trajectory based on the modeling of projects that we've done. That seems likely. And then OPEC has also said that they will start growing production again with the start of the fourth quarter.Now, when you put that all together, the market is in deficit now. It will return to a broadly balanced state in the fourth quarter, but then into a surplus in 2025. Prices look a little into the future. They discount the future a little bitNow, as the US election approaches, investors are increasingly concerned how a Trump versus Harris win would affect energy policy and markets going forward. Ariana, how much and what kind of authority does the US president actually have in terms of energy policy? Can you run us through that?Ariana Salvatore: Presidential authorities with respect to energy policy are actually relatively limited. But they can be impactful at the margin over time. What we tend to see actually is that production and investment levels are reasonably insulated from federal politics.Only about 25 per cent of oil and 10 per cent of natural gas is produced on federal land and waters in the US. You also have this timing factor. So, a lot of these changes are really only incremental; and while they can affect levels at the margin, there's a lag between when that policy is announced and when it could actually flow through in terms of actual changes to supply levels. For example, when we think of things like permitting reform, deregulation and environmental review periods and leasing of federal lands, these are all policy options that do not have immediate impacts; and many times will span across different presidential administrations.So, you might expect that if a new president comes into office, he or she could reverse many of the executive actions taken by his or her predecessor with respect to this policy area.Martijn Rats: And what have Trump and Harris each said so far about energy policy?Ariana Salvatore: So, I would say this topic has been less prevalent in Harris's campaign, unless we're talking about it in the context of the energy transition overall. She hasn't laid out yet specific policy plans when it comes to energy; but we think it's safe to assume that you could see her maintain a lot of the Biden administration's clean energy goals and the continued rollout of bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, which contained a whole host of energy tax credits toward those ends.Now, conversely, Trump has focused on this a lot because he's been tying energy supply to inflation, making the case that we can lower inflation and everyday costs by drilling more. His policy platform, and that of the GOP has been to increase energy production across the board. Mainly done by streamlining, permitting and loosening restrictions on oil, natural gas, and coal.Now, to what I said before, some of that can be accomplished unilaterally through the executive branch. But other times it might require the consent of Congress, and consent from states -- because sometimes these permitting lines cross state borders.So, Martijn, from your side, how quickly can US policy, whether it's driven by Trump or Harris, affect energy markets and change production levels and therefore supply?Martijn Rats: Yeah, like you just outlined, the answer to that question is only gradually. Regulation is important, but economics are more important. If you roll the clock back to, say, early 2021, when President Biden has just took office; on day one, he famously canceled the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.But if you now look back, at the last four years, start to finish; American oil production, grew more under Biden, than any other president in the history of the United States. With the exception of Obama, who, of course, enjoyed the start of the shale revolution.Production is close, to record levels, which were set just before COVID, of course. So, in the end, the measures that President Biden put in place, have had only a very limited impact on oil production. The impact that the American president can have is only -- it's only gradual.Ariana Salvatore: So, as we've mentioned, expanding energy development has been a massive plank of Trump's campaign platform. And listeners will also remember that during his term in office, he supported energy development on federal land. If Trump wins in November, what would it mean for oil supply and demand both in the US and globally?Martijn Rats: Admittedly, it's somewhat of a confusing picture. So, if you look at oil supply, you have to split it in perhaps a domestic impact and an international impact. Domestically, Donald Trump has famously said recently that he would return the oil industry to “Drill baby drill,” which is this, this shorthand metaphor for, abundant drilling in an effort to significantly accelerate oil production.But as just mentioned, there is little to be unleashed because during President Biden, the American oil industry hasn't really been constrained in the first place.A lot of American EMP companies are focused on capital discipline. They're focused on returns on free cashflow on shareholder distributions. With that come constraints to capital expenditure budgets that probably were not in place several years ago with those CapEx constraints, production can only grow so fast.That is a matter of shareholder preference. That is a matter of returns. And regulation can change that a little bit, but not so much.If you look at the perspective outside the United States, it is also worth mentioning that in the first Trump presidency, President Trump famously put secondary sanctions on the export of crude oil from Iran. At the time that significantly constrained crude oil supply from Iran, which in 2018 played a key role in driving oil prices higher.Now, it's an open question, whether that policy can be repeated. The flow of oil around the world has changed since then. Iranian oil isn't quite going to the same customers as it did back then. So, whether that policy can be replicated, remains to be seen. But whilst the domestic perspective -- i.e. an attempt to grow production -- could be interpreted as a potential bearish factor for the price of oil, the risk of sanctions outside the United States could be interpreted as a potential bullish risk for oil.And this is, I think, also why the oil market struggles to incorporate the risks around the presidential election so much. At the moment, we're simply confronted with a set of factors. Some of them bearish, some of them bullish, but it remains hard to see exactly which one of them played out. And, at the moment they don't have a particular skew in one direction.So, we're just confronted with options, but little direction.Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. So, I think that makes this definitely a policy area that we'll be paying very close attention to this fall. I suppose we'll also both be tuning into the upcoming debate, where we might get a better sense of both sides policy plans. If we do learn anything that changes our views, we'll be sure to let you know.Martijn, thanks for taking the time to talkMartijn Rats: Great speaking with 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.

Despite a flurry of election news, little may have changed for investors weighing the possible outcomes. Our Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research, Michael Zezas, explains why this is the case as we move closer to Election Day.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about recent developments in the US election.It's Wednesday, September 4th at 10:30am in New York. While news headlines might make it seem a lot has changed in recent weeks around the US election, in our view not much has changed at all. And that’s important for investors to understand as they navigate markets between now and Election Day on November 5th. Let me explain. In recent weeks, we've had the Democratic convention, fresh polls, and a third party candidate withdraw from the race and endorse former President Trump. But all appear to reflect only marginal impacts on the probabilities of different electoral outcomes. Take the withdrawal of independent candidate Robert F Kennedy Junior, which does not appear to be a game changer. Historical precedent is that third party candidates rarely have a path to even winning one state's electoral votes. Further, in polls voters tend to overstate their willingness to support third parties ahead of election day. And it's also not clear that Kennedy withdrawing clearly benefits Democrats or Republicans.  Kennedy originally ran for President as a Democrat, and so was thought to be pulling from likely Democratic voters. However, polls suggest his supporter’s next most likely choice was nearly split between Trump and Harris.  So while it’s possible that Kennedy’s decision to endorse Trump upon dropping out could be meaningful, given how close the race is, we’re unlikely to be able to observe that potentially marginal but meaningful effect until after the election has passed. And such effects could easily be offset by small shifts favoring Democrats, who are showing some polling resiliency in states where just a couple months ago the election was not assumed by experts to be close.  For example, Cook Political Report, a site providing non-partisan election analysis, shifted its assessment of the Presidential election outcome in North Carolina from “lean Republican” to a “toss-up.” Similarly, in recent weeks the site has shifted states like Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia into that same category from “lean Republican.” These shifts are mirrored in several other polls released last week showing a close race in the battleground states. So, for all the changes and developments in the last week, we think we’re left with a Presidential race that’s difficult to view as anything other than a tossup. To borrow a term from the world of sport – it’s a game of inches. Small improvements for either side can be decisive, but as observers we may not be able to see them ahead of time.  And so that brings us back to our guidance for investors navigating the run up to the election. Let the democratic process unfold and don’t make any major portfolio shifts until more is known about the outcome. That means the economic cycle will drive markets more than the election cycle in the next couple months. In our view, that favors bonds over stocks. Lower inflation enables easier monetary policy and lower interest rates, good for bond prices; but growth concerns should weigh on equities.  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.

While venture capital is taking a more cautionary approach with crypto startups, the buzz around GenAI is only increasing.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what private markets can tell us about the viability and investability of disruptive technologies. It’s Tuesday, the 3rd of September, at 2pm in London. For the past three years we have been tracking venture capital funding to help stay one step ahead of emerging technologies and the companies that are aiming to disrupt incumbent public leaders. Private growth equity markets are -- by their very definition – long-duration, and therefore highly susceptible to interest rate cycles. The easy-money bubble of 2021 and [20]22 saw venture funding reach nearly $1.2trillion dollars – more than the previous decade of funding combined. However, what goes up often comes down; and since their peak, venture growth equity capital deployment has fallen by over 60 percent, as interest rates have ratcheted ever higher beyond 5 percent. So as interest rates fall back towards 3.5 percent, which our economists expect to happen over the coming 12 months, we expect M&A and IPO exit bottlenecks to ease. And so too the capital deployment and fundraising environment to improve. However, the current funding market and its recovery over the coming months and years looks more imbalanced, in our view, than at any point since the Internet era. Having seen tens- and hundreds of billions of dollars poured into CleanTech and health innovations and battery start-ups when capital was free; that has all but turned to a trickle now. On the other end of the spectrum, AI start-ups are now receiving nearly half of all venture capital funding in 2024 year-to-date. Nowhere is that shift in investment priorities more pronounced than in the divergence between AI and crypto startups. Over the last decade, $79billion has been spent by venture capitalists trying to find the killer app in crypto – from NFTs to gaming; decentralized finance. As little as three years ago, start-ups building blockchain applications could depend on a near 1-for-1 correlation of funding for their projects with crypto prices. Now though, despite leading crypto prices only around 10 percent below their 2021 peak, funding for blockchain start-ups has fallen by 75 percent. Blockchain has a product-market-fit and a repeat-user problem. GenerativeAI, on the other hand, does not. Both consumer and enterprise adoption levels are high and rising. Generative AI has leap-frogged crypto in all user metrics we track and in a fraction of the time. And capital providers are responding accordingly. Investors have pivoted en-masse towards funding AI start-ups – and we see no reason why that would stop. The same effect is also happening in physical assets and in the publicly traded space. Our colleague Stephen Byrd, for example, has been advocating for some time that it makes increasing financial sense for crypto miners to repurpose their infrastructure into AI training facilities. Many of the publicly listed crypto miners are doing similar maths and coming to the same outcome. For now though, just as questions are being asked of the listed companies, and what the return on invested capital is for all this AI infrastructure spend; so too in private markets, one must ask the difficult question of whether this unprecedented concentration around finding and funding AI killer apps will be money well spent or simply a replay of recent crypto euphoria. It is still not clear where most value is likely to accrue to – across the 3000 odd GenerativeAI start-ups vying for funding. But history tells us the application layer should be the winner. For now though, from our work, we see three likely power-law candidates. The first is breakthroughs in semiconductors and data centre efficiency technologies. The second is in funding foundational model builders. And the third, specifically in that application layer, we think the greatest chance is in the healthcare application space. 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.*****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.

Original Release Date August 8, 2024: Our Head of Europe Sustainability Research discusses how rising longevity is revolutionizing our fundamental approach from reactive to proactive treatment.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, we’re bringing you a variety of perspectives; and today we’re focusing on a topic that affects everyone – how much does poor health cost us? And how are ageing populations and longer life expectancy driving a fundamental shift in healthcare? It’s Thursday, August the 8th, at 4pm in London.   As populations age across the developed world, health systems need to help people live both longer and healthier. The current system is typically built around to focus on acute conditions and it’s more reactive; so it introduces clinical care or drugs to respond to a condition after it’s already arisen, rather than keeping people healthy in the first instance. So increasingly, with the burden of chronic disease becoming by far the greatest health and economic challenge we face, we need to change the structure of the healthcare system. Essentially, the key question is how much is poor health amongst the ageing population really costing society? To get a true sense of that, we need to keep in mind that workers over 50 already earn one out of every three dollars across the G20 regions. By 2035, they're projected to generate nearly 40 per cent of all household income. So with that in mind, preventable conditions amongst those people aged 50-64 at the moment, are already costing G20 economies over $1 trillion annually in productivity loss. And there’s one more key number: 19 per cent. That's how much age-diverse workforces can raise GDP per capita over the next thirty years, according to estimates from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. So clearly, keeping workers healthier for longer underpins a more productive, more efficient, and a profitable global economy. So it’s clear that [if] the current healthcare system were to shift from sick from care to prevention, the global gains would be substantial.The BioPharma sector is already contributing some targeted novel treatments in areas like smart chemotherapy and in CRISPR – which is a technology that allows for selective DNA modification. While we can credit BioPharma and MedTech for really powerful innovations in diagnostics, in AI deployment for areas like data science and material science, and in sophisticated telemedicine – all these breakthroughs together give a more personalized, targeted health system; which is a big step in the right direction, but honestly they alone can’t solve this much broader longevity challenge we face. Focus on health and prevention, ultimately, could address those underlying causes of ill-health, so that problems don’t arise even in the first instance. Governments around the world are obviously realizing the value of preventive care over sick care. And as a strategy, disease prevention fundamentally aims to promote wellness across the board, whether that’s in things like mental state, nutrition or even in things like sleep and stress. While it might be easy to kind of conflate that with wellness trends – things like green smoothies or meditation – the underlying benefits of boosting health at the cellular level have much broader and deeper implications. Things like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, supporting better health across populations can significantly reduce the incidence of a wide range of chronic conditions. It can lower the burden on health systems overall, and actually increase healthy lifespan at the end of the day. BioPharma advances are significant, but addressing longevity will require a much broader alignment across a myriad of elements; everything really from the food system to sanitation to training healthcare professionals. And of course, all of that will require consistent policy support. Regulators and policymakers are paying very close attention to their ageing population – and so are we. We’ll continue to bring you updates on this topic, which is so important to all of us.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please do leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As the US Federal Reserve mulls a forthcoming interest rate cut, our Head of Corporate Credit Research and Global Chief Economist discuss how it is balancing inflationary risks with risks to growth.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the Federal Reserve, whether its policy is behind the curve and what's next.It's Thursday, August 29th at 2pm in London.Seth Carpenter: And it's 9am in New York.Andrew Sheets: Seth, it's always great to talk to you. But that's especially true right now. The Federal Reserve has been front and center in the markets debate over the last month; and I think investors have honestly really gone back and forth about whether interest rates are in line or out of line with the economy. And I was hoping to cover a few big questions about Fed policy that have been coming up with our clients and how you think the Fed thinks about them.And I think this timing is also great because the Federal Reserve has recently had a major policy conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming where you often see the Fed talking about some of its longer-term views and we can get your latest takeaways from that.Seth Carpenter: Yeah, that sounds great, Andrew. Clearly these are some of the key topics in markets right now.Andrew Sheets: Perfect. So, let's dive right into it. I think one of the debates investors have been having -- one of the uncertainties -- is that the Fed has been describing the risk to their outlook as balanced between the risk to growth and risk to inflation. And yet, I think for investors, the view over the last month or two is these risks aren't balanced; that inflation seems well under control and is coming down rapidly. And yet growth looks kind of weak and might be more of a risk going forward.So why do you think the Fed has had this framing? And do you think this framing is still correct in the aftermath of Jackson Hole?Seth Carpenter: My personal view is that what we got out of Jackson hole was not a watershed moment. It was not a change in view. It was an evolution, a continuation in how the Fed's been thinking about things. But let me unpack a few things here.First, markets tend to look at recent data and try to look forward, try to look around the corner, try to extrapolate what's going on. You know as well as I do that just a couple weeks ago, everyone in markets was wondering are we already in recession or not -- and now that view has come back. The Fed, in contrast, tends to be a bit more inertial in their thinking. Their thoughts evolve more slowly, they wait to collect more data before they have a view. So, part of the difference in mindset between the Fed and markets is that difference in frequency with which updates are made.I'd say the other point that's critical here is the starting point. So, the two risks: risks to inflation, risks to growth. We remember the inflation data we're getting in Q1. That surprised us, surprised the market, and it surprised the Fed to the upside. And the question really did have to come into the Fed's mind -- have we hit a patch where inflation is just stubbornly sticky to the upside, and it's going to take a lot more cost to bring that inflation down. So those risks were clearly much bigger in the Fed’s mind than what was going on with growth.Because coming out of last year and for the first half of this year, not only would the Fed have said that the US economy is doing just fine; they would have said growth is actually too fast to be consistent with the long run, potential growth of the US economy. Or reaching their 2 per cent inflation target on a sustained basis. So, as we got through this year, inflation data got better and better and better, and that risk diminished.Now, as you pointed out, the risk on growth started to rise a little bit. We went from clearly growing too fast by some metrics to now some questions -- are we softened so much that we're now in the sweet spot? Or is there a risk that we're slowing too much and going into recession?But that's the sense in which there's balance. We went from far higher risks on inflation. Those have come down to, you know, much more nuanced risks on inflation and some rising risk from a really strong starting point on growth.Andrew Sheets: So, Seth, that kind of leads to my second question that we've been getting from investors, which is, you know, some form of the following. Even if these risks between inflation and growth are balanced, isn't Fed policy very restrictive? The Fed funds rate is still relatively high, relative to where the Fed thinks the rate will average over the long run. How do you think the Fed thinks about the restrictiveness of current policy? And how does that relate to what you expect going forward?Seth Carpenter: So first, and we've heard this from some of the Fed speakers, there's a range of views on how restrictive policy is. But I think all of them would say policy is at least to some degree restrictive right now. Some thinking it's very restrictive. Some thinking only modestly.But when they talk about the restrictiveness of policy in the context of the balance of these risks, they're thinking about the risks -- not just where we are right now and where policy is right now; but given how they're thinking about the evolution of policy over the next year or two. And remember, they all think they're going to be cutting rates this year and all through next year.Then the question is, over that time horizon with policy easing, do we think the risks are still balanced? And I think that's the sense in which they're using the balance of risks. And so, they do think policy is restrictive.They would also say that if policy weren't restrictive, [there would] probably be higher risks to inflation because that's part of what's bringing inflation out of the system is the restrictive stance of policy. But as they ease policy over time, that is part of what is balancing the risks between the two.Andrew Sheets: And that actually leads nicely to the third question that we've been getting a lot of, which is again related to investor concerns -- that maybe policy is moving out of line with the economy. And that's some form of the following: that by even just staying on hold, by not doing anything, keeping the Fed funds rate constant, as inflation comes down, that rate becomes higher relative to inflation. The real policy rate rises. And so that represents more restrictive monetary policy at the very moment, when some of the growth data seems to be decelerating, which would seem to be suboptimal.So, do you think that's the Fed's intention? Do you think that's a fair framing of kind of the real policy rate and that it's getting more restrictive? And again, how do you think the Fed is thinking about those dynamics as they unfold?Seth Carpenter: I do think that's an important framing to think -- not just about the nominal level of interest rates; you know where the policy rate is itself, but that inflation adjusted rate. As you said, the real rate matters a lot. And inside the Fed as an institution there, that's basically how most of the people there think about it as well. And further, I would say that very framing you put out about -- as inflation falls, will policy become more restrictive if no adjustment is made? We've heard over the past couple of years, Federal Reserve policymakers make exactly that same framing.So, it's clearly a relevant question. It's clearly on point right now. My view though, as an economist, is that what's more important than realized inflation, what prices have done over the past 12 months. What really matters is inflation expectations, right? Because if what we're trying to think about is -- how are businesses thinking about their cost of capital relative to the revenues are going to get in the future; it's not about what policy, it's not about what inflation did in the past. It's what they expect in the future.And I have to say, from my perspective, inflation expectations have already fallen. So, all of this passive tightening that you're describing, it's already baked in. It's already part of why, in my view, you know, the economy is starting to slow down. So, it's a relevant question; but I'm personally less convinced that the fall in inflation we've seen over the past couple of months is really doing that much to tighten the stance of policy.Andrew Sheets: So, Seth, you know, bringing this all together, both your answers to these questions that are at the forefront of investors' minds, what we heard at the Jackson Hole Policy Conference and what we've heard from the latest FOMC minutes -- what does Morgan Stanley Economics think the Fed's policy path going forward is going to be?Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So, you know, it's funny. I always have to separate in my brain what I think should happen with policy -- and that used to be my job. But now we're talking about what I think will happen with policy. And our view is the Fed's about to start cutting interest rates.The market believes that now. The Fed seems from their communication to believe that. We've got written down a path of 25 basis point reduction in the policy rate in September, in November, in December. So, a string of these going all the way through to the middle of next year to really ease the stance of policy, to get away from being extremely restrictive, to being at best only moderately restrictive -- to try to extend this cycle.I will say though, that if we're wrong, and if the economy is a bit slower than we think, a 50 basis point cut has to be possible.And so let me turn the tables on you, Andrew, because we're expecting that string of 25 basis point cuts, but the market is pricing in about 100 basis points of cuts this year with only three meetings left. So that has to imply at least one of those meetings having a 50 basis point cut somewhere.So, is that a good thing? Would the market see a 50 basis point cut as the Fed catching up from being behind the curve? Or would the market worry that a bigger cut implies a greater recession risk that could spook risk assets?Andrew Sheets: Yeah, Seth, I think that's a great question because it's also one where I think views across investors in the market genuinely diverge. So, you know, I'll give you our view and others might have a different take.But I think what you have is a really interesting dynamic where kind of two things can be true. You know, on the one hand, I think if you talk to 50 investors and ask them, you know, would they rather for equities or credit have lower rates or higher rates, all else equal -- I think probably 50 would tell you they would rather have lower rates.And yet I think if you look back at history, and you look at the periods where the Federal Reserve has been cutting rates the most and cutting most aggressively, those have been some of the worst environments for credit and equities in the modern era. Things like 2001, 2008, you know, kind of February of 2020. And I think the reason for that is that the economic backdrop -- while the Fed is cutting -- matters enormously for how the market interprets it.And so, conditions where growth is weakening rapidly, and the Fed is cutting a lot to respond to that, are generally periods that the market does not like. Because they see the weaker data right now. They see the weakness that could affect earnings and credit quality immediately. And the help from those lower rates because policy works with lag may not arrive for six or nine or twelve months. It's a long time to wait for the cavalry.And so, you know, the way that we think about that is that it's really, I think the growth environment that’s going to determine how markets view this rate cutting balance. And I think if we see better growth and somewhat fewer rate cuts, the base case that you and your team at Morgan Stanley Economics have -- which is a bit fewer cuts than the market, but growth holding up -- which we think is a very good combination for credit. A scenario where growth is weaker than expected and the Fed cuts more aggressively, I think history would suggest, that's more unfriendly and something we should be more worried about.So, I do think the growth data remains extremely important here. I think that's what the market will focus most on and I think it's a very much good is good regime that I think is going to determine how the market views cuts. And fewer is fine as long as the data holds up.Seth Carpenter: That make a lot of sense, and thanks for letting me turn the tables on you and ask questions. And for the listeners, thank you for listening. If you enjoy this show, leave us a review wherever you listen to podcast. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

While mortgage rates have come down, our Co-heads of Securitized Products Research say the US housing market still must solve its supply problem.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I’m Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitize Products Research.Jim Egan: Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today Jay and I are here to talk about the US housing and mortgage markets.It's Wednesday, August 28th, at 10 am in New York.Now, Jay, mortgage rates declined pretty sharply in the beginning of August. And if I take a little bit of a step back here; while rates have been volatile, to say the least, we're about 50 basis points lower than we were at the beginning of July, 80 basis points lower than the 2024 peak in April, and 135 basis points below cycle peaks back in October of 2023.Big picture. Declining mortgage rates -- what does that mean for mortgages?Jay Bacow: It means that more people are going to have the ability to refinance given the rally in mortgage rates that you described. But we have to be careful when we think about how many more people. We track the percentage of homeowners that have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance after accounting for things like low level pricing adjustments. That number is still less than 10 percent of the outstanding homeowners. So broadly speaking, most people are not going to refinance.Now, however, because of the rally that we've seen from the highs, if we look at the percentage of borrowers that took out a mortgage between six and 24 months ago -- which is really where the peak refinance activity happens -- over 30 percent of those borrowers have incentive to refinance.So recent homeowners, if you took your mortgage out not that long ago, you should take a look. You might have an opportunity to refinance. But, for most of the universe of homeowners in America that have much lower mortgage rates, they're not going to be refinancing.Jim Egan: Okay, what about convexity hedging? That's a term that tends to get thrown around a lot in periods of quick and sizable rate moves. What is convexity hedging and should we be concerned?Jay Bacow: Sure. So, because the homeowner in America has the option to refinance their mortgage whenever they want, the investor that owns that security is effectively short that option to the homeowner. And so, as rates rally, the homeowner is more likely to refinance. And what that means is that the duration -- the average life of that mortgage is outstanding -- is going to shorten up. And so, what that means is that if the investor wants to have the same amount of duration, as rates rally, they're going to need to add duration -- which isn't necessarily a good thing because they're going to be buying duration at lower yields and higher prices. And often when rates rally a lot, you will get the explanation that this is happening because of mortgage convexity hedging.Now, convexity hedging will happen more into a rally. But because so much of the universe has mortgages that were taken out in 2020 and 2021, we think realistically the real convexity risks are likely 150 basis points or so lower in rates.But Jim, we have had this rally in rates. We do have lower mortgage rates than we saw over the summer. What does that mean for affordability?Jim Egan: So, affordability is improving. Let's put numbers around what we're talking about. Mortgage rates are at approximately 6.5 percent today at the peak in the fourth quarter of last year, they were closer to 8 percent.Now, over the past few years, we've gotten to use the word unprecedented in the housing market, what feels like an unprecedented number of times. Well, the improvement in affordability that we'd experience if mortgage rates were to hold at these current levels has only happened a handful of times over the past 35 to 40 years. This part of it is by no means unprecedented.Jay Bacow: Alright, now we talked about mortgage rates coming down and that means more refi[nance] activity. But what does the improvement in mortgage rates do to purchase activity?Jim Egan: So that's a question that's coming up a lot in our investor discussions recently. And to begin to answer that question, we looked at those past handful of episodes. In the past, existing home sales almost always climb in the subsequent year and the subsequent two years following an improvement in affordability at the scale that we're witnessing right now.Jay Bacow: So, there's precedent for this unprecedented experienceJim Egan: There is. But there are also a number of differences between our current predicament and these historical examples that I'd say warrant examination. The first is inventory. We simply have never had so few homes for sale as we do right now. Especially when we're looking at those other periods of affordability improvement.And on the affordability front itself, despite the improvement that we've seen, affordability remains significantly more challenged than almost every other historical episode of the past 40 years, with the exception of 1985. Both of these facts are apparent in the lock in effect that you and I have discussed several times on this podcast in the past.Jay Bacow: All right. So just like we think we are a 150 basis points away from convexity hedging being an issue, we're still pretty far away from rates unlocking significant inventory. What does that mean for home sales?Jim Egan: So, the US housing market has a supply problem, not a demand problem. I want to caveat that. Everything is related in the US housing market. For instance, high mortgage rates that put pressure on affordability -- but they've also contributed to this lock-in effect that has led to historically low inventory.This lack of supply has kept home prices climbing, despite high mortgage rates, which is keeping affordability under pressure. So, when we say that housing has a supply problem, we're not dismissing the demand side of the equation; just acknowledging that the binding constraint in the current environment is supply.Jay Bacow: Alright, so if supply is the binding constraint, then what does that mean for sales?Jim Egan: As rates come down, inventory has been increasing. When combined with improvements in affordability, this should catalyze increased sales volumes in the coming year. But the confluence of inputs in the housing market today render the current environment unique from anything that we've experienced over the past few decades.Sales volumes should climb, but the path is unlikely to be linear and the total increase should be limited to call it the mid-single digit percentage point of over the coming year.Jay Bacow: Alright, and now lastly, Jim, home prices continue to set an all time high but there's the absolute level of prices and the pace of home price appreciation. What do you think is going to happen?Jim Egan: We're on the record that this increased supply, even if it's only at the margins, and even if we're close to historic lows, should slow down the pace of home price appreciation. We've begun to see that year-over-year home price growth has come down from 6.5 percent to 5.9 percent over the past three months. We think it will continue to come down, finishing the year at +2 percent.Jay Bacow: Alright, Jim, thanks for those thoughts. And to our listeners, thank you for listening.If you enjoy the podcast, please leave a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist explains why there’s pressure for the August jobs report to come in strong -- and what may happen to the market if it doesn’t. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the importance of economic data on asset prices in the near term.It's Tuesday, Aug 27th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it. The stock rally off the August 5th lows has coincided with some better-than-expected economic data led by jobless claims and the ISM services purchasing manager survey. This price action supports the idea that risk assets should continue to trade with the high frequency growth data in the near term. Should the growth data continue to improve, the market can stay above the fair value range we had previously identified of 5,000-5,400 on the S&P 500. In my view, the true test for the market though will be the August jobs report on September 6th. A stronger than expected payroll number and lower unemployment rate will provide confidence to the market that growth risks have subsided for now. Another weak report that leads to a further rise in the unemployment rate would likely lead to growth concerns quickly resurfacing and another correction like last month. On a concerning note, last week we got a larger than expected negative revision to the payroll data for the 12 months ended in March of this year. These revisions put even more pressure on the jobs report to come in stronger. Meanwhile, the Bloomberg Economic Surprise Index has yet to reverse its downturn that began in April and cyclical stocks versus defensive ones remain in a downtrend. We think this supports the idea that until there is more evidence that growth is actually improving, it makes sense to favor defensive sectors in one's portfolio. Finally, while inflation data came in softer last week, we don't view that as a clear positive for lower quality cyclical stocks as it means pricing power is falling. However, the good news on inflation did effectively confirm the Fed is going to begin cutting interest rates in September. At this point, the only debate is how much?Over the last year, market expectations around the Fed's rate path have been volatile. At the beginning of the year, there were seven 25 basis points cuts priced into the curve for 2024 which were then almost completely priced out of the market by April. Currently, we have close to four cuts priced into the curve for the rest of this year followed by another five in 2025. There has been quite a bit of movement in bond market pricing this month as to whether it will be a 25 or 50 basis points cut when the Fed begins. More recently, the rates market has sided with a 25 basis points cut post the better-than-expected growth and inflation data points last week.As we learned a couple of weeks ago, a 50 basis points cut may not be viewed favorably by the equity market if it comes alongside labor market weakness. Under such a scenario, cuts may no longer be viewed as insurance, but necessary to stave off hard landing risks. As a result, a series of 25 basis points cuts from here may be the sweet spot for equity multiples if it comes alongside stable growth.The challenge is that at 21x earnings and consensus already expecting 10 percent earnings growth this year and 15 percent growth next year, a soft-landing outcome with very healthy earnings growth is priced. Furthermore, longer term rates have already been coming down since April in anticipation of this cutting cycle. Yet economic surprises have fallen and interest rate sensitive cyclical equities have underperformed. In my view this calls into question if rate cuts will change anything fundamentally.The other side of the coin is that defensive equities remain in an uptrend on a relative basis, a dynamic that has coincided with normalization in the equity risk premium. In our view, we continue to see more opportunities under the surface of the market. As such, we continue to favor quality and defensive equities until we get more evidence that growth is clearly reaccelerating in a way that earnings forecasts can once again rise and surpass the lofty expectations already priced into valuations.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Thematic Strategist discusses surging confidence as the political landscape evolves, back-to-school spending starts strong and travel providers enjoy post-COVID demand. ----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's US thematic strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on how recent market volatility and the upcoming US election are affecting the US consumer.It's Monday, August 26th at 10am in New York.A few weeks ago, we saw really sharp volatility. It was partially sparked by the unwind of the yen carry trade. But there are also renewed fears about a growth slowdown for the US or a possible US recession. Our economists do not think we are going into a recession though, and they have reaffirmed their longstanding view of a soft landing for the economy as a base case. And they think there's a slowdown, but not a slump.From the more company side, this earning season showed that the US consumer is softening incrementally; but they're not falling off a cliff. Spending is slowing this year, but it's on the heels of what was really high spending over the last couple of years.We did see some softness during second quarter results around the consumer. Consumer confidence is still intact, and our most recent survey in July showed a pretty strong improvement in sentiment. We think that this is partially a function of the political environment. We ran the survey from July 25th to 29th, shortly after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris. And we saw the biggest improvement in sentiment was for those who consider themselves middle of the road politically.Their net sentiment toward the economy improved from negative -23 percent to -1 percent. Net expectations are also really positive for those who identify as liberal. Net sentiment for very liberal respondents is +34 percent, while it's +20 percent for more somewhat liberal ones. Expectations for conservatives are still negative though, but they have improved since the prior wave of our survey.So, we do think that some of this increase in excitement and increase in confidence has been around the renewed political environment, renewed interest in the race.As we get close to the end of summer, we note two other key trends. Back to school shopping and travel. So, for back-to-school shopping, we're seeing pretty positive results from our survey. Consumers are reporting they're planning to spend more this back-to-school season versus last year. We saw an increase of 35 percent in spending intentions. And then when we think about the different back to school categories people are spending on, apparel saw the biggest net increase in spending plans versus last year. But we also saw an increase for school supplies and electronics. So, all things very important as the kids go back to school or people go off to college.Travel's been one part of the market that's held up super well post pandemic. People were very excited to get out there and go on vacations. And we saw, frankly, an unexpected positive level of demand for the past few years, and we didn't see that faster catch up in demand that a lot of people were expecting post pandemic. I know myself; I've been very excited to travel the last few summers. But this earning season we're starting to see more of a mixed bag within the travel space.Hotels across the board flag softening demand for leisure stays, but business travel has held up well. We saw a different story among the airlines though; several management teams were really emphasizing continued strong demands for air travel. And our survey is supportive of these comments and show that travel intentions remain stable and strong, and plans to follow through on travel that involve a flight also remain robust.The next three months leading up to the US election will certainly be interesting though, and we'll continue to bring you updates.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.

Although markets have recovered over the last few weeks after a sudden drop, our Head of Corporate Credit Research warns that investors are still skeptical about the growth outlook.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we’ll discuss the big round trip for markets and why we’re not out of the woods.It's Friday, August 23rd at 2pm in London.The last few weeks have been a rollercoaster. July ended on a high with markets rallying as the Federal Reserve kept interest rates unchanged. Things turned almost immediately thereafter as weak data releases fanned fears that maybe the Fed was being just a little too nonchalant on the economy, making its patience withholding rates high look like a vice, rather than a virtue. A late summer period where many investors were out probably amplified the moves that followed. And so at the morning lows on August 5th, the S&P 500 had fallen more than 8 percent in just 3 trading days, and expected volatility had jumped to one of its highest readings in a decade. But since those volatile lows, markets have come back. Really come back. Stock prices, credit spreads, and those levels of expected volatility are all now more or less where they ended July. It was an almost complete round-trip. We have a colleague who got back from a two-week vacation on Monday. The prices on their screen had barely changed. The reason for that snapback was the data. Just as weak data in the aftermath of the Fed’s meeting drove fears of a policy mistake, better data in the days since have improved confidence. This has been especially true for data related to the US consumer, as both retail sales and the number of new jobless claims have been better than expected. This round-trip in markets has been welcome, especially for those, like ourselves, who are optimistic on credit, and see it well-positioned for the economic soft-landing that Morgan Stanley expects. But it is also a reminder that we’re not out of the woods. The last few weeks couldn’t be clearer about the importance of growth for the market outlook. This is a crucial moment for the economy, where U.S. growth is slowing, the Fed’s rates are still highly restrictive, and any help from cutting those rates may not be felt for several quarters. At Morgan Stanley we think that growth won’t slow too much, and so this will ultimately be fine for the credit market. But incoming data will remain important, and recent events show that the market’s confidence can be quickly shaken. Even with the sharp snapback, for example, cyclical stocks, which tend to be more economically sensitive, have badly lagged more defensive shares – a sign that healthy skepticism around growth from investors still remains. The quick recovery is welcome, but we’re not out of the woods, and investors should continue to hope for solid data. Good is good. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The Bank of Japan jolted global markets after its recent decision to raise interest rates. Our experts break down the effects the move could have on the country’s economy, currency and stock market.----- Transcript -----Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Daniel Blake: And I'm Daniel Blake, from the Asia Pacific and Emerging Market Equity Strategy Team.Chetan Ahya: On this episode of the podcast, we will cover a topic that has been a big concern for global investors: Japan's rate hike and its effect on markets.It's Thursday, August 22nd at 6pm in Hong Kong.On July 31st, Japan's central bank made a bold move. For only the second time in 17 years, it raised interest rates. It lifted its benchmark rates to around 0.25 percent from its previous range of 0 to 0.1 percent. And at the press conference, BOJ Governor Ueda struck a more hawkish tone on the BOJ rate path than markets anticipated. Compounded with investors concern about US growth, this move jolted global equity markets and bond markets. The Japan equity market entered the quickest bear market in history. It lost 20 percent over three days.Well, a lot has happened since early August. So, I'm here with Daniel to give you an update.Daniel Blake: Chetan, before I can give you an update on what the market implications are of all this, let's make sense of what the macro-outlook is for Japan and what the Bank of Japan is really looking to achieve.I know that following that July monetary policy meeting, we heard from Deputy Governor Uchida san, who said that the bank would not raise its policy rates while financial and capital markets remain unstable.What is your view on the Bank of Japan policy outlook and the key macro-outlook for Japan more broadly?Chetan Ahya: Well, firstly, I think the governor's comments in the July policy meeting were more hawkish than expected and after the market's volatility, deputy governor did come out and explain the BOJ's thought process more clearly. The most important point explained there was that they will not hike policy rates in an environment where markets are volatile -- and that has given the comfort to market that BOJ will not be taking up successive rate hikes in an early manner.But ultimately when you're thinking about the outlook of BOJ's policy path, it will be determined by what happens to underlying wage growth and inflation trend. And on that front, wage growth has been accelerating. And we also think that inflation will be remaining at a moderate level and that will keep BOJ on the rate hike path, but those rate hikes will be taken up in a measured manner.In our base case, we are expecting the BOJ to hike by 25 basis points in January policy meeting next year, with a risk that they could possibly hike early in December of this year.Daniel Blake: And after an extended period of weakness, the Japanese yen appreciated sharply after the remarks. What drove this and what are the macro repercussions for the broader outlook?Chetan Ahya: We think that the US growth scare from the weaker July nonfarm payroll data, alongside a hawkish BOJ Governor Ueda's comments, led markets to begin pricing in more policy rate convergence between the US and Japan. This resulted in unwinding of the yen carry trade and a rapid appreciation of yen against the dollar.For now, our strategists believe that the near-term risk of further yen carry trade unwinding has lessened. We will closely watch the incoming US growth and labor market data for signs of the US slowdown and its impact on the yen. In the base case, our US Economics team continues to see a soft landing in the US and for the Fed to cut rates by three times this year from September, reaching a terminal of 3.625 by June 2025.Based on our US and BOJ rate path, our macro strategists see USD/JPY at 146 by year end. As it stands, our Japan inflation forecast already incorporates these yen forecasts, but if yen does appreciate beyond these levels on a sustainable basis, this would impart some further downside to our inflation forecast.Daniel Blake: And there's another key event to consider. Prime Minister Kishida san announced on August 14th that he will not seek re-election as President of The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in late September, and hence will have a new leader of Japan. Will this development have any impact on economic policy or the markets in your view?Chetan Ahya: The number of potential candidates means it's too early to tell. We think a major reversal in macro policies will be unlikely, though the timing of elections will likely have a bearing on BOJ.For example, after the September party leadership election, the new premier could then call for an early election in October; and in this scenario, we think likelihood of a BOJ move at its September and October policy meeting would be further diminished.So, Daniel, keeping in mind the macro backdrop that we just discussed, how are you interpreting the recent equity market volatility? And what do you expect for the rest of 2024 and into 2025?Daniel Blake: We do see that volatility in Japan, as extreme as it was, being primarily technically driven. It does reflect some crowding of various investor types into pockets of the equity market and levered strategies, as we see come through with high frequency trading, as well as carry trades that were exacerbated by dollar yen positions being unwound very quickly.But with the market resetting, and as we look into the rest of 2024 and 2025, we see the two key engines of nominal GDP reflation in Japan and corporate reform still firing. As you lay out, the BOJ is trying to find its way back towards neutral; it's not trying to end the cycle. And corporate governance is driving better capital allocation from the corporate sector.As a result, we see almost 10 percent earnings growth this year and next year, and the market stands cheap versus its historical valuation ranges.So, as we look ahead, we think into 2025, we should see the Japanese equity benchmark, the TOPIX index, setting fresh all-time highs. As a result, we continue to prefer Japan equities versus emerging markets. And we recommend that US dollar-based investors leave their foreign exchange exposure unhedged, which will position them to benefit from further strengthening in the Japanese yen.Chetan Ahya: So, which parts of the market look most attractive following the BOJ's rate hike and market disruptions to you?Daniel Blake: Yes, we do prefer domestic exposures relative to exporters. They'll be better protected from any further strengthening in the Japanese yen, and we also see a broad-based corporate governance reform agenda supporting shareholder returns coming out of these domestic sectors. They'll benefit from that stronger, price and wage outlook with an improved margin outlook.And we also see that capex beneficiaries with a corporate reform angle are likely to do well in this overall agenda of pursuing greater economic security and digitalization. So that includes key sectors like defense, real estate, and construction.And Chetan, what would you say are the key risks to your view?Chetan Ahya: We think the key risk would be if the US faces a deeper slowdown or an outright recession. While Japan is better placed today than in the past cycles, it would nonetheless be a setback for Japan's economy. In this scenario, Japan’s export growth would face downward pressures given weakening external demand.The Japanese corporate sector has also around 17 percent of its revenue coming from North America. Besides a deeper Fed rate cut cycle, will mean that the policy rate differentials between the US and Japan will narrow significantly. This will pose further appreciation pressures on the yen, which will weigh on inflation, corporate profits, and the growth outlook.And from your perspective, Daniel, what should investors watch closely?Daniel Blake: We would agree that the first order risk for Japan equities is if the US slips into a hard landing, and we do see that the dollar yen in that outlook is likely to fall even further. Now we shouldn't see any FX (foreign exchange) driven downgrades until we start bringing the yen down below 140, but we would also see the operating environment turning negative for Japan in that outlook.So, putting that aside, given our house view of the soft landing in the US economy, we think the second thing investors should watch is certainly the LDP leadership election contest, and the reform agenda of the incoming cabinet.Prime Minister Kishida san's tenure has been focused on economic security and has fostered further corporate governance reform alongside the Japan Stock Exchange. And this emphasis on getting household savings into investment has been another key pillar of the new capitalism strategy. So, these focus areas have been very positive for Japan equities, and we should trust -- but verify -- the commitment of a new leadership team to these policy initiatives.Chetan Ahya: Daniel, it was great to hear your perspective. This is an evolving story. We'll keep our eye on it. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Daniel Blake: Great speaking with you, Chetan.Chetan Ahya: 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.

This week’s Democratic National Convention in the US may be light on policy details, but our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research explains that the party’s economic agenda is fairly clear as the elections draw closer.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about what investors need to know about U.S. political party conventions.It's Wednesday, Aug 21st at 10:30am in New York. This week, the Democratic Party is meeting in Chicago for its National Convention. Conventions for major political parties typically feature speeches from key policymakers, both past and present. So it would seem to be a forum where someone could learn what policies the party plans to implement if it takes control of the government following the November election. But you should expect more political messaging than policy signal.That’s because the focus of these conventions tends to be more about persuading voters – and that means key policy details typically take a back seat to statements of political values widely shared by the party in order to send a consistent public message. In that sense, an observer may not learn much new about where there’s party consensus on key policy details that markets care about, including specific new taxes that might be implemented, which tax breaks might be extended, how these choices might affect the deficit, and more. That in turn means we may not learn much about what policies could plausibly be implemented if Democrats win the White House and Congress in the November election. The good news is that we don’t think a convention is required to have a good sense about this. We’ve previously done the work on the plausible policy path resulting from a Democratic victory by examining statements of elected officials and filtering for areas of consensus among Democratic lawmakers. And we’ve also looked at expected legislative catalysts in 2025 and 2026, such as the expiry of key provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In short, we think the plausible policy path resulting from Democrats sweeping the election would mean relative stability on trade and energy policy; and some deficit expansion driven by tax cut extensions only partially offset by new taxes on corporations and high income earners. Net-net, our economists think this outcome would create less uncertainty for the U.S. growth outlook than a Republican sweep, where potential for substantial new tariffs would interact with greater tax cut extensions and deficit expansion. And while we don’t expect the convention will challenge our thinking here, we’ll of course be tracking it and report back if it does. 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.

Original release date July 23, 2024: Our Head of Global Autos & Shared Mobility discusses what makes humanoid robots a pivotal trend with implications for the global economy.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Global Autos & Shared Mobility. Today I’ll be talking about an unusual but hotly debated topic: humanoid robots. It’s Tuesday, July 23rd, at 10am in New York.We've seen robots on factory floors, in displays at airports and at trade shows – doing work, performing tasks, even smiling. But over the last eighteen months, we seem to have hit a major inflection point. What's changed? Large Language Models and Generative AI. The current AI movement is drawing comparisons to the dawn of the Internet. It’s begging big, existential questions about the future of the human species and consciousness itself. But let’s look at this in more practical terms and consider why robots are taking on a human shape. The simplest answer is that we live in a world built for humans. And we’re getting to the point where – thanks to GenAI – robots are learning through observation. Not just through rudimentary instruction and rules based heuristic models. GenAI means robots can observe humans in action doing boring, dangerous and repetitive tasks in warehouses, in restaurants or in factories. And in order for these robots to learn and function most effectively, their design needs to be anthropomorphic. Another reason we're bullish on humanoid robots is because developers can have these robots experiment and learn from both simulation and physically in areas where they’re not a serious threat to other humans. You see, many of the enabling technologies driving humanoid robots have come from developments in autonomous cars. The problem with autonomous cars is that you can't train them on public roads without directly involving innocent civilians – pedestrians, children and cyclists -- into that experiment. Add to all of this the issue of critical labor shortages and challenging demographic trends. The global labor total addressable market is around $30 trillion (USD) or about one-third of global GDP. We’ve built a proprietary US total addressable market model examining labor dynamics and humanoid optionality across 831 job classifications, working with our economics team; and built a comprehensive survey across 40 sectors to understand labor intensity and humanoid ability of the workforce over time. In the United States, we forecast 40,000 humanoid units by 2030, 8 million by 2040 and 63 million by 2050 – equivalent to around $3 trillion (USD) of salary equivalent. But as early as 2028 we think you're going to see significant adoption beginning in industries like manufacturing, production, warehousing, and logistics, installation, healthcare and food prep. Then in the 2030s, you’re going to start adding more in healthcare, recreational and transportation. And then after 2040, you may see the adoption of humanoid robots go vertical. Now you might say –  that’s 15 years from now. But just like autonomous car – the end state might be 20 years away, but the capital formation is happening right now. And investors should pay close attention because we think the technological advances will only accelerate from here. Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Chief Economist explains what stricter immigration policy in key markets around the world could mean for economic growth and inflation.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss a key driver of the global economy, migration.It's Monday, August 19th at 10am in New York.Migration has always been an important feature of the global economy.Not surprisingly, migrants typically move from lower income countries to higher income countries and for more than 50 years, it has added something like three-tenths of a percent per year to the growth of high-income economies. But in recent years, migration trends have been hit by a couple of major events.One was COVID. International travel restrictions during the pandemic slowed, or stopped, migration for a while. Despite a strong rebound over the past two years, many economies still have not fully recovered to pre-COVID migration trends. Another is geopolitical unrest. The Ukrainian refugee crisis, for example, is the largest population displacement in Europe since WWII with increasingly global repercussions.But how does immigration affect economies? One way that I frame the discussion is that immigration can boost both aggregate supply and aggregate demand. It's likely some of each -- and the relative importance of those two affects how inflationary or disinflationary the phenomenon is.In 2023, with a very large influx of immigrants into the US labor market, the economy was able to grow rapidly while still seeing inflation fall. The supply effect dominated the demand effect. In Australia, by contrast, with more of the immigrants in school or otherwise not in the labor market, prices -- especially for housing -- have gone up because demand was relatively more important.But some of the effects will only play out over time. Across many developed market economies, economic activity has risen less than population, meaning that measured productivity is lower. But we think that is just a lagged effect of the response of capital investment to the rise in labor. Over a longer time horizon, immigration can also offset demographic declines. Since 2021 population growth in many high-income economies has turned negative, if you exclude immigrants. Sustaining economic growth and managing government debt loads are made much more difficult with an aging, and then declining population, as a baseline.We assume that immigration will revert to pre-COVID trends in 2024 and [20]25 for most economies. This delta is largest for the economies with the highest immigration rates, like Canada or Australia; but for other economies, policies, cultural norms, those will determine the path for immigration.The key, however, is that immigration can be a critical component of demographic trends. In the US, the best estimate of net immigration was about 3.3 million people in 2023, and we assume it will taper from there to something closer to 2.5 million in 2025. That addition to the labor market created what Fed Chair Powell called “a bigger, but not tighter economy.”For people following the economy in real time, the extra availability of labor is also why we have argued that the rise in the unemployment rate over the past year or so is not the harbinger of recession that it has been in past cycles.Now, looking ahead, one key risk to our forecasts -- well everywhere around the world -- would be an abrupt tightening in immigration policy that causes the flow of workers to fall quickly or even end. Such a scenario would imply a much sharper economic slowdown and possibly higher inflation in the economies where the supply boost has dominated. That's yet another reason why elections and government policy remain key to the economic outlook.Well, thanks for listening. And 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 a colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains how corporate balance sheets have remained resilient post-COVID, and why that could continue in the face of a potential economic slowdown.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how corporate balance sheets are in a better place to handle a potential growth slowdown. It's Friday, August 16th at 2pm in London. Much of the volatility over the last several weeks has been centered around fears that excessively high interest rates from the Federal Reserve will now cause the US economy to slow too quickly. Morgan Stanley’s economists are more optimistic and believe that the data will hold up, leading the Fed to start a gradual rate cutting cycle in September, rather than a more radical course-correction. Against this backdrop, good economic data is good for markets and vice versa. But even though we remain optimistic at Morgan Stanley about a soft landing in the US economy, our economists still expect growth to slow. How prepared are corporate balance sheets for that slowing, and how worried should we be that this could lead to higher rates of default? A good place to start is thinking about how optimistic companies were heading into any slowdown of the economy. Overconfidence is often the enemy of credit investors, as rose-tinted glasses can lead companies to make too many unwise acquisitions or investments, funded with too much debt. Yet across a variety of metrics, this isn’t what we see. Despite some of the lowest interest rates in human history, the level of debt to cash-flow for US and European companies has been pretty stable over the last five years. Excess capital held by banks remains historically high. And Merger and Acquisition activity, another key measure of corporate confidence, remains well below the long run trend – even after a pick up this year, as my colleague Ariana Salvatore discussed on this program earlier in the week. So, despite the strong recovery in the US economy and the stock market over the last four years, many corporate boardrooms have remained cautious, a good thing when considering their financial risk. Where Corporate debt did increase, it was often in places that we think could withstand it. Large-cap Technology and Pharmaceuticals issuers have taken out more debt over the last several years, relative to history, but it's been a pretty modest amount from a pretty low historical starting point. The Utility sector has also taken on more debt recently, but the stable nature of its business may make this easier to handle. While companies across the ratings spectrum generally didn’t increase their leverage over the last several years, they did take advantage of refinancing the debt they already had at historically low rates. And this is important for thinking about the stress that higher interest rates could eventually produce. The average maturity in the US Investment Grade index is about 11 years, and that means that, for many companies, potentially less than one-tenth of their overall debt resets to the current interest rate every year. That means companies may still have many years of enjoying the low interest rates of the past, and that helps smooth the adjustment to higher interest rates in the future. The lack of corporate confidence since COVID means that corporate balance sheets are generally in a better place if the economy potentially slows. But while this is helpful overall, it’s important to note that it doesn’t apply in all cases. We still see plenty of dispersion between winners and losers, driving divergence under the hood of the credit market. Even if balance sheets are stronger overall, there is plenty of opportunity to pick your spots. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Public Policy and Currency experts discuss how different outcomes in the upcoming U.S. elections could have varying effects on the strength of the dollar.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Research Team. And I'mAndrew Watrous: And I'm Andrew Watrous, G10 Currency Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss an issue that's drawing increasing attention from investors leading up to the U.S. election -- and that is the U.S. dollar and how a Harris or Trump administration could impact it.It's Thursday, August 15th at 10am in New York.Earlier this year, Morgan Stanley experts came on this show to discuss the current strength of the US dollar, which has had quite a historic run.Now we all know there are numerous ways in which politics could affect the currency. But before we get into the details there, Andrew, can you just set the stage here a little bit and give some context to listeners on where the dollar is right now and what's been driving that performance?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, the dollar's been rising this year. So, if you look at a trade weighted gauge of the US dollar, it's up about 3 percent, so far. And part of that US dollar strength is because growth expectations for the US have risen since January. There's a survey of Wall Street economists, and if you look at their median forecast for the US growth, it's moved up about one percentage point since January.And as a result of that strong US growth, we've seen Fed policy expectations move higher. We started this year with the market pricing the Fed to be below 4 percent by December. And that expectation for where the Fed is going to be in December has moved up about 1 percentage point since January.So, robust US growth and a higher near-term Fed policy rate expectation have made the US more attractive as an investment destination. And that's boosted the US dollar broadly as capital flows to the US.Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. Now, thinking about the balance of the year, it's impossible to look ahead and not consider how the US election could impact or change this trend that you've been talking about. As we get closer to November, investors are also starting to question just what will happen to the dollar in a Republican or Democratic win. What's been our approach to thinking through that question?Andrew Watrous: So, if you look at policies proposed by the Republican presidential campaign, a number of those policies, if implemented, would probably boost the US dollar.First, higher tariffs on goods imported from our trading partners could weigh on expectations for growth abroad. That would make the US more attractive in comparison, maybe send capital to the US as a safe haven due to policy uncertainty. And of all the scenarios we look at, we think that one where the Republicans control both Congress and the White House would be the scenario in which the federal government spends the most and issues the most debt.More spending would likely make US growth expectations and bond yields higher in comparison to what we'd see in the rest of the world. So, a Republican presidential administration could attempt to offset some of that US dollar strength; but in the near term we think that the US dollar should go up if a Republican White House looks increasingly likely. And on the other side, the dollar could go down if the likelihood of a Democratic White House looks increasingly likely -- as some positive risk premium around trade and fiscal policy is reduced.Ariana Salvatore: Okay, so you mentioned quite a few policy variables there. Let's take those issue areas one by one. On trade policy and geopolitical risk, it wouldn't surprise us from the policy side to see a potential Trump administration introduce tariffs, just given the rhetoric we've seen on the campaign trail. We've talked about the potential impact from 10 per cent universal -- targeted or one-for-one tariffs -- which all come with varying degrees of economic impacts.On the currency side, Andrew, walk us through your thought process on how the risks to growth expectations from tariffs could factor into dollar positive or negative outcomes.Andrew Watrous: So, a lot of our thinking on this is shaped by what we saw in 2018 and 2019, when there were trade tensions. During that period, the dollar moved higher, starting in spring 2018 until the end of 2019, and a big part of that dollar strength was probably due to trade tensions between the US and China. Those tensions meant that investors were probably more hesitant to take on risk outside the US than they otherwise may have been. That's why the US dollar kept rising during that period, despite the Fed cutting rates three times in 2019. And in 2018 and 2019, we saw expectations for growth in countries outside the US moving lower -- in part because of trade tensions during that period.So, from speaking to my colleagues in the economics department here at Morgan Stanley, it seems pretty plausible that something similar happens to expectations for growth outside the US, again, if another trade war looks increasingly likely. And that drop in what people expect for growth outside the US would probably boost the US dollar as the US looks more attractive in comparison.Ariana Salvatore: Got it. Now, shifting gears slightly to the fiscal policy outlook. We've said that the Republican sweep outcome is the most likely to lead to the greatest degree of fiscal expansion, and that's because we think lawmakers are going to have to contend with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We think that in a divided government outcome, or a Democratic sweep, some of those tax measures are still on the table, but it'll probably be a narrower extension from a deficit standpoint.So, Andrew, what would a fiscally expansionary regime mean for the dollar?Andrew Watrous: So, as you mentioned, the most fiscally expansionary scenario would be a Republican sweep scenario. And we did some research into capital flows; and the Treasury data show that historically, higher US spending is associated with net inflows of private capital into the US. And if you look at the pace of US spending versus the pace of spending in Europe, if you look at that differential -- that differential is positively correlated to movements in Euro. So faster US spending means lower Euro relative to spending in Europe.Ariana Salvatore: So, we expect that a Republican administration's policies might strengthen the dollar in summary. But it's possible that they don't like that dollar strength. We've heard Trump talk about the benefits of a weaker currency for exports, for example. So, what might a Republican presidential administration try to do to maybe offset some of the strength?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, so if we’re right and the Republican policies do strengthen the dollar, that Republican administration could try to offset that dollar strength with a number of policy tools. And those might be effective in weakening the US dollar against one or more of our trading partners. But we don't think that the market expectation of those dollar negative policy options would fully offset the effect of other Republican policies, which would boost the dollar.There are legal, logistical, and political challenges associated with a lot of those dollar negative policy options. So, for example, former US Trade Representative Lighthizer has reportedly expressed doubt about the viability of broad international coordinated intervention against the US dollar. He said that no policy advisor that he knows of is working on a plan to weaken the dollar. And former President Trump reportedly rejected a 2019 proposal to intervene against the dollar from former White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro.Ariana Salvatore: Got it. So, sounds like we have a lot of moving pieces here and we will keep refining our views as we get some more policy clarity in the coming months. Andrew, thanks for taking the time to talk.Andrew Watrous: Great speaking with 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.

The rise in unused office space has triggered suggestions about converting commercial real estate into residential buildings. But our US Real Estate Research analyst lists three major challenges.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Adam Kramer, from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Real Estate Research team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss a hot real estate topic. Whether the surplus of vacant office space offers a logical solution to the national housing shortage.It’s Wednesday, August 14, at 10am in New York.Sitting here in Morgan Stanley’s office at 1585 Broadway, Times Square is bustling and New York seems to have recovered from COVID and then some. But the reality inside buildings is a little bit different. On the one hand, 14 percent of U.S. office space is sitting unused. Our analysis shows a permanent impairment in office demand of roughly 25 percent compared to pre-COVID. And on the other hand, we have a national housing shortage of up to 6 million units. So why not simply remove obsolete lower-quality office stock and replace it with much-needed housing? On the surface, the idea of office-to-residential conversion sounds compelling. It could revitalize struggling downtown areas, creating a virtuous cycle that can lead to increased local tax revenues, foot traffic, retail demand and tourism.But is it feasible?We think conversions face at least three significant challenges. First, are the economics of conversion. In order for conversions to make sense, we would need to see office rents decline or apartment rents rise materially – which is unlikely in the next 1-2 years given the supply dynamics — and office values and conversion costs would need to decline materially. Investors can acquire or develop a multifamily property at roughly $600 per square foot. Alternatively, they can acquire and convert an existing office building for a total cost of nearly $700 per square foot, on average. The bottom line is that total conversion costs are higher than acquisition or ground-up development, with more complexity involved as well. The second big challenge is the quality of the buildings themselves. Numerous elements of the physical building impact conversion feasibility. For example, location relative to transit and amenities. Buildings in suboptimal locations are unlikely to be considered. Whether the office asset is vacant or not is also a factor. Office leases are typically longer duration, and a building needs to be close to or fully vacant for a full conversion. And lastly, physical attributes such as architecture, floor-plate depth, windows placement, among others. And finally, regulation presents a third major hurdle. Zoning and building code requirements differ from city to city and can add substantive time, cost, complexity, and limitations to any conversion project. That said, governments are in a unique position to encourage conversions — for example, via tax incentives – and literally remake cities short on affordable housing but with excess, underutilized office space.We have looked at conversion opportunities in three key markets: New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. In Manhattan, active office to residential conversions have been concentrated in the Financial District, and we think this trend will continue. We also see the East Side of Manhattan as a uniquely untapped opportunity for future conversions, given higher vacancy today. This would shift existing East Side office tenants to other locations, boosting demand in higher-quality office neighborhoods like Park Avenue and Grand Central.In San Francisco, we are concerned about other types of real estate properties beyond just office. Retail, multifamily, and lodging in the downtown area are taking longer to recover post-COVID, and we think this will limit conversions in the market. And finally, in Washington, D.C. we think conversion would work best for older, Class B/C office buildings on the edges of pre-existing residential areas. In these three markets, and others, conversions could work in specific instances, with specific buildings in specific sub-markets. But on a national basis, the economic and logistic challenges of wide-scale conversions make this an unlikely solution.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 US Public Policy Strategist expects a robust M&A cycle, regardless of the outcome of the US election. But rising antitrust concerns could create additional scrutiny on possible future deals. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, from Morgan Stanley’s US Public Policy Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the impact of the US election on M&A. It’s Tuesday, August 13th, at 10am in New York.2023 saw the lowest level of global mergers and acquisitions – or M&A – in more than 30 years, relative to the overall size of the economy. But we believe that the cycle is currently reversing in a significant way and that politics won't halt the "Return of M&A." Why? Because M&A cycles are primarily driven by broader factors. Those include macroeconomics, the business cycle, CEO confidence and financing conditions. More specifically, unusually depressed volumes, open new issue markets, incoming rate cuts and the bottom-up industry trends are powerful tailwinds to an M&A recovery and can offset the political headwinds. So far this year we’ve seen an increase in deal activity. Announced M&A volume was up 20 per cent year-over-year in the first half of [20]24 versus [20]23, and we continue to expect M&A volumes to rise in 2024 as part of this broader, multi-year recovery. That being said, one factor that can impact M&A is antitrust regulation. Investors are reasonably concerned about the ways in which the election outcome could impact antitrust enforcement – and whether or not it would even be a tailwind or a headwind. If you think about traditional Republican attitudes toward deregulation, you might think that antitrust enforcement could be weaker in a potential Trump win scenario; but when we look back at the first Trump administration, we did see various antitrust cases pursued across a number of sectors. Further, we’ve seen this convergence between Republicans and Democrats on antitrust enforcement, specifically the vice presidential pick JD Vance has praised Lina Khan, the current FTC chair, for some of her efforts on antitrust in the Biden administration. In that vein, we do think there are certain circumstances that could cause a deal to come under scrutiny regardless of who wins the election. First, on a sector basis, we think both parties share a similar approach toward antitrust for tech companies. Voters across the ideological spectrum seem to want their representatives to focus on objectives like 'breaking up big tech' and targeting companies that are perceived to have outsized control. We also think geopolitics is really important here. National security concerns are increasingly being invoked as a consideration for M&A involving foreign actors, in particular if the deal involves a geopolitical adversary like China. We’ve seen lawmakers invoke these kind of concerns when justifying increased scrutiny for proposed deals. Finally, key constituencies' positions on proposed deals could also matter. The way that a deal might impact key voter cohorts – think labor unions, for example – could also play a role in determining whether or not that deal comes under extra scrutiny. We will of course keep you updated on any changes to our M&A outlook. 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.

Recent market volatility has made headlines, but our Global Chief Economist explains why the numbers aren’t as dire as they seem.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about central banks, the Bank of Japan, Federal Reserve, data and how it drove market volatility.It's Monday, August 12th at 10am in New York.You know, if life were a Greek tragedy, we might call it foreshadowing. But in reality, it was probably just an unfortunate coincidence. The BOJ's website temporarily went down when the policy announcement came out. As it turns out, expectations for the BOJ and the Fed drove the market last week. Going into the BOJ meeting consensus was for a September hike, but July was clearly in play.The market's initial reaction to the decision itself was relatively calm; but in the press conference following the decision, Governor Ueda surprised the markets by talking about future hikes. Some hiking was already priced in, and Ueda san's comments pushed the amount priced in up by another, call it 8 basis points, and it increased volatility.In the aftermath of that market volatility, Deputy Governor Yoshida shifted the narrative again, by stressing that the BOJ was attuned to market conditions and that there was no fundamental change in the BOJ's strategy. But this heightened attention on the BOJ's hiking cycle was a critical backdrop for the US non farm payrolls two days later.The market knew the BOJ would hike, and knew the Fed would cut, but Ueda san's tone and the downside surprise to payrolls ignited two separate but related market risks: A US growth slowdown and the yen carry trade.The Fed's July meeting was the same day as the BOJ decision, and Chair Powell guided markets to a September rate cut. Prior to July, the FOMC was much more focused on inflation after the upside surprises in the first quarter. But as inflation softened, the dual mandate came into a finer balance. The shift in focus to both growth and inflation was not missed by markets; and then payrolls at about 114, 000 in July. Well, that was far from disastrous; but because the print was a miss relative to expectations on the heel of a shift in that focus, the market reaction was outsized.Our baseline view remains a soft landing in the United States; and those details we discussed extensively in our monthly periodical. Now, markets usually trade inflections, but with this cycle, we have tried to stress that you have to look at not just changes, but also the level of the economy. Q2 GDP was at 2.6 per cent. Consumer spending grew at 2.3 per cent. And the three-month average for payrolls was at 170, 000 -- even after the disappointing July print.Those are not terribly frightening numbers. The unemployment rate at 4.3 per cent is still low for the United States. And 17 basis points of that two-tenths rise last month; well, that was an increase in labor force participation. That's hardly the stuff of a failing labor market.So, while these data are backward looking, they are far from recessionary. Markets will always be forward looking, of course; but the recent hard data cannot be ignored. We think the economy is on its way to a soft landing, but the market is on alert for any and all signs for more dramatic weakness.The data just don't indicate any accelerated deterioration in the economy, though. Our FX Strategy colleagues have long said that Fed cuts and BOJ hikes would lead to yen appreciation. But this recent move? It was rapid, to say the least. But if we think about it, the pair really has only come into rough alignment with the Morgan Stanley targets based on just interest rate differentials alone.We also want to stress the fundamentals here for the Bank of Japan as well. We retain our view for cautious rate hikes by the BOJ with the next one coming in January. That's not anything dramatic because over the whole forecast that means that real rates will stay negative all the way through the end of 2025.These themes -- the deterioration in the US growth situation and the appreciation of the yen -- they're not going away anytime soon. We're entering a few weeks of sparse US data, though, where second tier indicators like unemployment insurance claims, which are subject to lots of seasonality, and retail sales data, which tend to be volatile month to month and have had less correlation recently with aggregate spending, well, they're going to take center stage in the absence of other harder indicators.The normalization of inflation and rates in Japan will probably take years, not just months, to sort out. The pace of convergence between the Fed and the BOJ? It's going to continue to ebb and flow. But for now, and despite all the market volatility, we retain our outlook for both economies and both central banks. We see the economic fundamentals still in line with our baseline views.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As markets adjust to global volatility, our Head of Corporate Credit Research considers when the Fed might choose to cut interest rates and how long the impacts may take to play out.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the market’s expectation for much larger rate cuts from the Federal Reserve, and how much that actually matters.It's Friday, August 9th at 2pm in London.Markets have been volatile of late. One of the drivers has been rising concern that the Fed may have left interest rates too high for too long, and now needs to more dramatically course-correct. From July 1st through August 2nd, the market’s expectation for where the Fed’s target interest rate will be in one year’s time has fallen by more than 1 percent. But…wait a second. We’re talking about interest rates here. Isn’t a shift towards expecting lower interest rates, you know, a good thing? And that seems especially relevant in the recent era, where strong markets often overlapped with fairly low interest rates. Zoom out over a longer span of history, however, and that’s not always the case.Interest rates, especially the rates from the Federal Reserve, are often a reflection of economic strength. And so high interest rates often overlap with strong growth, while a weak economy needs the support that lower rates provide. And so if interest rates are falling based on concern that the economy is weakening, which we think describes much of the last two weeks, it’s easier to argue why credit or equity markets wouldn’t like that outcome at all.That’s especially true because of the so-called lag in monetary policy. If the Fed lowered interest rates tomorrow, the full impact of that cut may not be felt in the economy for 6 to 12 months. And so if people are worried that conditions are weakening right now, they’re going to worry that the help from lower rates won’t arrive in time.The upshot is that for Credit, and I would say for other asset classes as well, rate cuts have only tended to be helpful if growth remained solid. Rate cuts and weaker growth were bad, and that was more true the larger those rate cuts were. In 2001, 2008 and February of 2020, large rate cuts as the economy weakened led to significant credit losses. Concern about what those lower rates signalled outweighed the direct benefit that a lower rate provided.We think that dynamic remains in play today, with the market over the last two weeks suggesting that a combination of weaker growth and lower rates may be taken poorly, not taken well.But there’s also some good news: Our economists think that the market's views on growth, and interest rates, may both be a little overstated. They think the US economy is still on track for a soft-landing, and that last week’s jobs report wasn’t quite as weak as it was made out to be.Because of all that, they also don’t think that the Fed will reduce interest rates as quickly as the market now expects. And so, if that’s now right, we think a stronger economy and somewhat higher rates is going to be a trade-off that credit is happy to take.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Europe Sustainability Research discusses how rising longevity is revolutionizing our fundamental approach from reactive to proactive treatment.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, we’re bringing you a variety of perspectives; and today we’re focusing on a topic that affects everyone – how much does poor health cost us? And how are ageing populations and longer life expectancy driving a fundamental shift in healthcare? It’s Thursday, August the 8th, at 4pm in London.   As populations age across the developed world, health systems need to help people live both longer and healthier. The current system is typically built around to focus on acute conditions and it’s more reactive; so it introduces clinical care or drugs to respond to a condition after it’s already arisen, rather than keeping people healthy in the first instance. So increasingly, with the burden of chronic disease becoming by far the greatest health and economic challenge we face, we need to change the structure of the healthcare system. Essentially, the key question is how much is poor health amongst the ageing population really costing society? To get a true sense of that, we need to keep in mind that workers over 50 already earn one out of every three dollars across the G20 regions. By 2035, they're projected to generate nearly 40 per cent of all household income. So with that in mind, preventable conditions amongst those people aged 50-64 at the moment, are already costing G20 economies over $1 trillion annually in productivity loss. And there’s one more key number: 19 per cent. That's how much age-diverse workforces can raise GDP per capita over the next thirty years, according to estimates from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. So clearly, keeping workers healthier for longer underpins a more productive, more efficient, and a profitable global economy. So it’s clear that [if] the current healthcare system were to shift from sick from care to prevention, the global gains would be substantial.The BioPharma sector is already contributing some targeted novel treatments in areas like smart chemotherapy and in CRISPR – which is a technology that allows for selective DNA modification. While we can credit BioPharma and MedTech for really powerful innovations in diagnostics, in AI deployment for areas like data science and material science, and in sophisticated telemedicine – all these breakthroughs together give a more personalized, targeted health system; which is a big step in the right direction, but honestly they alone can’t solve this much broader longevity challenge we face. Focus on health and prevention, ultimately, could address those underlying causes of ill-health, so that problems don’t arise even in the first instance. Governments around the world are obviously realizing the value of preventive care over sick care. And as a strategy, disease prevention fundamentally aims to promote wellness across the board, whether that’s in things like mental state, nutrition or even in things like sleep and stress. While it might be easy to kind of conflate that with wellness trends – things like green smoothies or meditation – the underlying benefits of boosting health at the cellular level have much broader and deeper implications. Things like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, supporting better health across populations can significantly reduce the incidence of a wide range of chronic conditions. It can lower the burden on health systems overall, and actually increase healthy lifespan at the end of the day. BioPharma advances are significant, but addressing longevity will require a much broader alignment across a myriad of elements; everything really from the food system to sanitation to training healthcare professionals. And of course, all of that will require consistent policy support. Regulators and policymakers are paying very close attention to their ageing population – and so are we. We’ll continue to bring you updates on this topic, which is so important to all of us.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please do leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Fixed Income Research joins our Chief Fixed Income Strategist to discuss the recent market volatility and how it impacts investor positioning within fixed income. ----- Transcript -----Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Vishy: And I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll talk about the recent market volatility and what it means for fixed income investors.It's Wednesday, August 7th at 10am in New York.Vishy, on yesterday's show, you discussed the recent growth of money market funds. But today I want to talk about a topic that's top of mind for investors trying to make sense of recent market volatility. For starters, what do you think tipped off these big moves across global markets?Vishy: Mike, a confluence of factors contributed to the volatility that we've seen in the last six or seven trading sessions. To be clear, in the last few weeks, there have been some downside surprises in incoming data. They were capped off by last Friday's US employment report that came in soft across the board. In combination, that raised questions on the soft-landing thesis that had been baked into market prices, where valuations were already pretty stretched. And this one came after a hawkish hike by Bank of Japan just two days prior.While Morgan Stanley economists were expecting it, this hike was far from consensus going in. So, what this means is that this could lead to a greater divergence of monetary policy between the Fed and the Bank of Japan. That is, investors perceiving that the Fed may need to cut more and sooner, and that Bank of Japan may need to hike more; in both cases, more than expected.As you know, when negative surprises show up together, volatility follows.Zezas: Got it. And so last week's soft US employment data raises the question of whether the Fed's overtightened and the US economy might be weaker than expected. So, from where you sit, how does this concern impact fixed income assets?Vishy: To be clear, this is really not our base case. Our economists expect US economy to slow, but not fall off the cliff. Last Friday's data do point to some slowing, on the margin more slowing than market consensus as well as our economists expected. And really what this means is the markets are likely to challenge our soft-landing hypothesis until some good data emerge. And that could take some time. This means recent weakness in spread products is warranted, and especially given tight starting levels.Zezas: So, it seems in the coming days and maybe even weeks, the path for total fixed income market returns is likely to be lower as the market adjusts to a weaker growth outlook. What areas of fixed income do you think are best positioned to weather this transition and why?Vishy: We really need more data to confirm or push back on the soft-landing hypothesis. That said, fears of growth challenges will likely build in expectations for more Fed cuts. And that is good for duration through government bonds.Zezas: And conversely, what segments of fixed income are most exposed to risk?Vishy: In one way or the other, all spread products are exposed. In my mind, the US corporate credit market recession risks are least priced into high yield single B bonds, where valuations are rich, and positioning is stretched.Zezas: So clearly the recent market volatility has affected global markets, not just the US and Japan. So, what are you seeing in other markets? And are there any surprises there?Vishy: Emerging market credit. In emerging market credit, investment grade sovereign bonds will likely outperform high yield bonds, causing us to close our preference for high yield versus investment grade. It is too soon to completely flip our view and turn bearish on the overall emerging market credit index.We do see a combination of emerging market single name CDSs as an attractive hedge. South Africa, Colombia, Mexico, for example.Zezas: So finally, where do we go from here? Do you think it's worth buying the dip?Vishy: Our message overall is that while there have been significant moves, it is not yet the time to buy on dips.Zezas: Well, Vishy, thanks for taking the time to talk.Vishy: Great speaking with you, Mike.Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Risk-averse investors have poured trillions into money-market funds since 2019. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist explains why investors shouldn’t expect this money to pivot to equities and other risk assets as rates fall. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about money market funds. It's Tuesday, August 6th at 3pm in New York. Well over $6.5 trillion sit in US money market funds. A popular view in the financial media is that the assets under management in money market funds represent money on sidelines, waiting to be allocated to risk assets, especially stocks. The underlying thesis is that the current level of interest rates and the consequent high money market yields have resulted in accumulation of assets in money market funds; and, when policy easing gets under way and money market yields decline, these funds will be allocated towards risk assets, especially stocks. To that I would say, curb your enthusiasm. Recent history provides helpful context. Since the end of 2019, money market funds have seen net inflows of about $2.6 trillion, occurring broadly in three phases. The first phase followed the outbreak of COVID, as the global economy suddenly faced a wide array of uncertainties. The second leg mainly comprised retail inflows, starting when the Fed began raising rates in 2022.The third stage came during the regional bank crisis in March-April 2023, with both retail and institutional flows fleeing regional bank deposits into money market funds. Where do we go from here? We think money market funds are unlikely to return to their pre-COVID levels of about $4 trillion, even if policy easing begins in September as our economists expect. They see three 25 basis point rate cuts in 2024 and four in 2025 as the economy achieves a soft landing; and they anticipate a shallow rate-cutting cycle, with the Fed stopping around 3.75 per cent. This means money market yields will likely stabilize around that level, albeit with a lag – but still be attractive versus cash alternatives. In a hard landing scenario, the Fed will likely deliver significantly more cuts over a shorter period of time, but we think investors would be more inclined to seek liquidity and safety, allocating more assets to money market funds than to alternative assets. Further, money market funds can delay the decline in their yields by simply extending the weighted average maturities of their portfolios and locking in current yields in the run-up to the cutting cycle. This makes money market funds more attractive than both short-term CDs and Treasury bills, whose yields reprice lower in sync with rate cuts. This relative appeal explains much of the lag between rate cuts and the peak in assets under management in money market funds. These have lagged historically, but average lag is around 12 months. Finally, it is important to distinguish between institutional and retail flows into and out of money market funds, as their motivations are likely to be very different. Institutional funds account for 61 per cent of money market funds, while funds from retail sources amount to about 37 per cent. When they reallocate from money market funds, we think institutional investors are more likely to allocate to high-quality, short-duration fixed income assets rather than riskier assets such as stocks, motivated by safety rather than level of yield. Retail investors, the smaller segment, may have greater inclination to reallocate towards risk assets such as stocks. The bottom line: While money market fund assets under management have grown meaningfully in the last few years, it is likely to stay high even as policy easing takes hold. Allocation toward risk assets looks to be both lagged and limited. Thus, this 'money on the sidelines' may not be as positive and as imminent a technical for risk assets as some people expect. 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.

Although Monday’s correction springs from multiple causes, the real questions may be what’s next and when will the correction become a buying opportunity?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the recent equity market correction and whether it’s time to step in.It's Monday, Aug 5th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it.Over the past several weeks, global equity markets have taken on a completely different tone with most major averages definitively breaking strong uptrends from last fall. Many are blaming the Fed’s decision last week to hold interest rates steady in the face of weaker jobs data while others have highlighted the technical unwind of the Japanese yen carry trade.However, if we take a step back, this topping process began in April with the first meaningful sell off since last October’s lows. Even as many stocks and indices rallied back to new highs this summer, the leadership took on a more defensive posture with sectors like Utilities, Staples and even Real Estate doing better than they have in years. As I have been discussing on this podcast this shift in leadership has coincided with softer economic data during the second quarter. This softness has continued into the summer with the all-important labor market data joining in as already noted.This rotation was an early warning sign that stocks were likely vulnerable to a correction as we highlighted in early July. After all, the third quarter is when such corrections tend to happen seasonally for several reasons. This year has turned out to be no different. The real question now is what’s next and when will this correction become a buying opportunity?Lost in the blame game is the simple fact that valuations reached very rich levels this year, something we have consistently discussed in our research. In fact, this is the main reason we have no upside to our US major averages over the next year even assuming our economists’ soft landing base case outcome for the economy. In other words, stocks were priced for perfection.Now, with the deterioration in the growth data, and a Fed that is in no rush to cut rates proactively, markets have started to get nervous. Furthermore, the Fed tends to follow 2-year yields and over the last month 2-year treasury yields have fallen by 100 basis points and is almost 170 basis points below the Fed Funds rate. What this means is that the market is telling the Fed they are way too tight and they need to cut much more aggressively than what they have guided.The dilemma for the Fed is that the next meeting is six weeks away and that’s a lifetime when markets are trading like they are today. Markets tend to be impatient and so I expect they will continue to trade with high volatility until the Fed appeases the market’s wishes. The flip side, of course, is that the Fed does an intra meeting rate cut; but that may make the markets even more nervous about growth in my view.Bottom line, markets are likely to remain vulnerable in the near term until we get better growth data or more comfort from Fed on policy support, neither of which we think is forthcoming soon.Finally, support can also come from cheap valuations, but we don’t have that yet at current prices. As of this recording the S&P 500 is still trading 20x forward 12-month earnings estimates. Our fair value multiple assuming a soft-landing outcome on the economy is closer to 19x, which means things aren’t actually cheap until we reach 17-18x, which is more than 10 per cent away from where we are trading.In the meantime, we continue to recommend more defensive stocks in sectors like Utilities, Healthcare, Consumer Staples and some Real Estate. Conversely, we continue to dislike smaller cap cyclical stocks that are most vulnerable to the current growth slowdown and tight rate policy.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.

After a dizzying week of economic and market activity, our Head of Corporate Credit Research breaks down the three top stories.----- Transcript -----It’s been a whirlwind week of economic activity in the markets as we enter the dog days of summer. Our Head of Corporate Credits Research breaks down three top stories.Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing what we’ve taken away from this eventful week.It's Friday, August 2nd at 2pm in London.For all its sophistication, financial activity is still seasonal. This is a business driven by people, and people like to take time off in the summer to rest and recharge. There’s a reason that volumes in August tend to be low.And so this week felt like that pre-vacation rush to pack, find your keys, and remember your ticket before running out the door. Important earnings releases, central bank meetings and employment numbers all hit with quick succession. Some thoughts on all that whirlwind.The first story was earnings and continued equity rotation. Equity markets are seeing big shifts between which stocks are doing well and poorly, particularly in larger technology names. These shifts are a big deal for equity investors, but we think they remain much less material for credit.Technology is a much smaller sector of the bond market than the stock market, as these tech companies have generally issued relatively little debt – relative to their size. Credit actually tends to overlap much more with the average stock, which at the moment continues to do well. And while the Technology sector has been volatile, stocks in the US financial sector – the largest segment for credit – have been seeing much better, steadier gains.Next up this week was the Bank of Japan, which raised policy rates, a notable shift from many other central banks, which are starting to lower them. For credit, the worry from such a move was somewhat roundabout: that higher rates in Japan would strengthen its currency, the yen. That such strength would be painful for foreign exchange investors, who had positioned themselves the other way around – for yen weakness. And that losses from these investors in foreign exchange could lead them to lower exposure in other areas, potentially credit. But so far, things look manageable. While the yen did strengthen this week, it hasn’t had the sort of knock-on impact to other markets that some had feared. We think that might be evidence that investor positioning in credit was not nearly as concentrated, or as large, as in certain foreign exchange strategies, and we think that remains the case.But the biggest story this week was the Federal Reserve on Wednesday, followed by the US Jobs number today. These two events need to be taken together.On Wednesday, the Fed chose to maintain its high current policy rate, while also hinting it’s open to a cut. But with inflation falling rapidly in recent months, and already at the Fed’s target on market-based measures, the question is whether the Fed should already be cutting rates to even out that policy. After all, lowering rates too late has often been a problem for the Fed in the past.Today’s weak jobs report brings these fears front-and-center, as highly restrictive monetary policy may start to look out-of-line with labor market weakness. And not cutting this week makes it more awkward for the Fed to now adjust. If they move at the next meeting, later in September; well, that means waiting more than a month and a half. But acting before that time, in an unusual intra-bank meeting cut; well, that could look reactive. The market will understandably worry that the Fed, once again, may be reacting too late. That is a bad outcome for the balance of economic risks and for credit.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 Global Cross-Asset Strategist, Serena Tang, explains where funds are moving across global markets currently, and why it matters to investors.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll dig into the concept of fund flows, how they shape global markets and why they matter to investors. It’s Thursday, August 1, at 10am in New York. Finance industry professionals often use the term “flows” when looking at where investors are, in the aggregate, moving their money. It refers to net movements of cash in and out of investment vehicles such as mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, or in and out of whole markets. By looking at flows, investors can get a good sense of where market winds are blowing and, essentially, where demand is at any given moment. Now, whether you’re a retail or institutional investor, having a perspective on market sentiment and demand are powerful tools. So today I’m going to give you a snapshot of some key flows, which should give a sense of demand and the mood right now; and what it means for investors.First of all, despite the recent rally in global equities year-to-date, we've yet to see an investor rotation, or portfolio realignment, from bonds to stocks. Flows into bonds are still leading flows into stocks by a pretty large margin. And unless stocks cheapen materially, we don’t expect this trend to reverse anytime soon. In addition, fund flows into large-cap equities still dwarf those into small-caps year-to-date. Although we saw a brief reversal of this trend in June, large caps flows have swung back to prominence. We do see hints of sector rotation within equities, as investors shift to what they see as more promising stocks; but it’s not a clean or entirely unambiguous story. The Science & Tech sectors – which saw a notable drop-off in flows from the first to the second quarter of this year – still lead year-to-date; and flows represent nearly a third into all flows into equities. More cyclical sectors like Basic Materials and Financials attracted more capital than in the first and second quarter, while defensive sectors such as Consumer Goods saw a softening of outflows compared to the same period. From a global perspective, we also look at flows in and out of particular regions or markets. So, year-to-date, US stocks received about US$43 billion in net inflows while rest-of-world stocks saw about US$15 billion in net outflows. Now, there were some exceptions – with India, Korea, and Taiwan leading – seeing significant inflows year-to-date. We look at flows within categories too, so within fixed income, for example, we are seeing flows toward less risky assets; revealing what we call a risk-off preference. Higher quality, Investment Grade funds – raked in about US$92 billion in net inflows year-to-date, while US treasuries saw only at US$25 billion. That Treasury number is actually significantly higher than what we saw from the first quarter to the second quarter, while inflows to High Yield and low-quality Investment Grade corporates have slowed compared to the start of the year. Finally, money market funds – that is mutual funds that invest in short-term higher quality securities – have not yet really seen sustained outflows, as one would expect when investors believe shorter term yields would come down, as central banks start to ease. Rather there’s been some $70 billion in net inflows through the first half of this year. Although we’re sympathetic to the view that money market outflows should begin when the Fed starts cutting rates, there’s actually a considerable lag between first cut and those outflows, as we have seen in the last two rate cutting cycles. But what does all of this mean for investors? Well, it suggests they still have a defensive tilt, and they shouldn’t really be jumping on the rotational story. The current yield environment means rotation from fixed income and money market funds into riskier assets is still some way away. Investors also shouldn’t look at the dry powder/cash on the sidelines narrative as the big tailwind for riskier assets -- because it’s not coming any time soon. That said, we still like non-government bonds because this is where cash would go first if and when those flows begin. We also like global equities, but more so because the benign macro backdrop we are forecasting supports this. We’ll keep you up to date if there’s any change in the direction of market winds and fund flows.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.

As Generative AI continues to accelerate, some agencies will be better positioned than others to reap the benefits. Our Europe Media & Entertainment analyst, Laura Metayer, explains.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Laura Metayer, from the Morgan Stanley Europe Media & Entertainment team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what the future may hold for advertising agencies amid fast-paced Generative AI developments.It’s Wednesday, July 31, at 2 PM in London. Right now we’re still in the early stages of GenAI’s impact on ad agency offerings; although the debate around technology removing the need for ad agencies is not new. Soon after the release of ChatGPT in early 2023, my colleagues in North America started mapping out the potential impact of GenAI on the ad agencies. They concluded that GenAI should represent an opportunity for the ad agencies, at least near-term. First, Gen AI would lead to productivity improvements from automatable tasks in creative, media, digital transformation consulting and central functions like HR and Finance. Second, GenAI would boost client demand for advice from agencies to help navigate the coming evolution in digital advertising.   Fast-forward to now and the impact of GenAI on the ad agencies has become an active investor debate, with concerns centering around the Creative business. Many eyes are on the Gen AI-powered text to image/video tools, which could disrupt the ad agencies' Creative & Production business. We this has weighed on agency stock prices recently.  Essentially, the bear case has been – and is – that technology would devalue agencies’ offerings and agency clients may rely more on tech platforms and in-house services. That bear case – twenty years into online advertising – has not played out. We think that in these early days of AI’s impact on marketing, there may be more upside to agency equities than risk over the next 12 to 18 months.  On the one hand, the introduction of Gen AI tools may mean reduced pricing power and challenged top-line growth. At the same time, replacing creative personnel with software may increase earnings power, even with less revenue. We think it's likely that a key value-add of the ad agencies' Creative business would be campaign personalization at scale, powered by data and technology. Looking back, technology has been commoditizing certain areas of creative and production for years, well ahead of AI; and yet creativity and creative services remain core value propositions by agencies to brands. Overall, there is as much – if not more – opportunity than risk for ad agencies over time. So let me leave you with two key takeaways:  First, we see the larger ad agencies as better positioned to remain relevant to customers in the GenAI era. However, we would caution that their large scale may also lower their ability to adapt quickly to evolving customer requirements when it comes to GenAI. Second, we expect GenAI to drive more consolidation in the industry. We think it’s likely that some of the large ad agencies take market share from other large ad agencies. As these trends play out over time, we’ll continue to keep you updated. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

A later cycle economy and continued uncertainty means that investors should be remain wary of cyclicals such as small caps, explains Mike Wilson, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about slowing growth in the context of high valuations.It's Tuesday, July 30th at 3pm in New York.So, let’s get after it.Over the past few weeks, the equity markets have taken on a different complexion with the mega cap stocks lagging and lower quality small caps doing better. What does this mean for investor portfolios? And is the market telling us something about future fundamentals? In our view, we think most of this rotation is due to the de-grossing that is occurring within portfolios that are overweight large cap quality growth and underweight lower quality and smaller cap names.We have long been in the camp that large cap quality has been the place to be – for equity investors – as opposed to diving down the quality and cap curves. That continues to be the case; though we are watching the fundamental and technical backdrop for small caps closely, and we’re respectful of the pace of the recent move in the space.For now, however, we continue to think the better risk/reward is to stay up the quality curve and avoid the more cyclical parts in the market like small caps. Our rationale for such positioning is simple — in a later cycle economy where growth is softening or not translating into earnings growth for most companies, large cap quality outperforms. Exacerbating the many imbalances across the economy is a bloated fiscal budget deficit. In our view, there are diminishing returns to fiscal spending when it starts to crowd out private companies and consumers. As I have been discussing for the past year, this crowding out has contributed to the bifurcation of performance in both the economy and equity markets, while potentially keeping the Fed's Interest rate policy tighter than it would have been otherwise.While the macro data has been mixed, there is a growing debate around the actual strength of the labor market with the household survey painting a weaker picture than the non-farm payroll data which is based on employer surveys. The bottom line is that we are in a stable, but decelerating late cycle economy from a macro data standpoint. However, on the micro front, the data has not been as stable and is showing a more meaningful deterioration in growth; particularly as it relates to the consumer.More specifically, earnings revision breadth has broken down recently for many of the cyclical parts of the market. Financials has been a bright spot here but that may be short-lived if the consumer continues to weaken. We continue to favor quality but with a greater focus on defensive sectors like utilities, staples and REITs as opposed to growthier ones like technology. The issue with the growth stocks is valuations and the quality of the earnings for some of the mega cap tech stocks.The other variable weighing on stocks at the moment is valuations which remain in the top decile of the past 20 years. It’s worth noting that valuations are very sensitive to earnings revisions breadth. The last time revision breadth rolled over into negative territory was last fall. Between July and October 2023, the market multiple declined from 20x to 17x. Two weeks ago, this multiple was 22x and is now 21x. If earnings revisions continue to fade as we expect, it’s likely these valuations have further to fall. With our 12-month base case target multiple at 19x, the risk reward for equities broadly remains quite unfavorable at the moment.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our sustainability strategists Stephen Byrd and Tim Chan discuss what’s driving new opportunities across the global nuclear power sector and some risks investors should keep in mind.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Steven Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research.Tim Chan: And I'm Tim Chan, Asia Pacific Head of Sustainability Research.Stephen Byrd: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some significant developments in the nuclear power generation space with long term implications for global markets.It’s Monday, July 29th at 8am in New York.Tim Chan: And 8 pm in Hong Kong.Stephen Byrd: Nuclear power remains divisive, but it is making a comeback.So, Tim, let's set the scene here. What's really driving this resurgence of interest in nuclear power generation?Tim Chan: One key moment was the COP28 conference last year. Over 20 countries, including the US, Canada, and France, signed a joint declaration to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. Right now, the world has about 390 gigawatts of nuclear capacity providing 10 per cent of global electricity. It took 70 years to bring global nuclear capacity to 390 gigawatts. And now the COP28 target promises to build another 740 gigawatts in less than 30 years.And if this remarkable nuclear journey is going to be achieved, that will require financing and also shorter construction time.Stephen Byrd: So, Tim, how do you size the market opportunity on a global scale over the next five to ten years?Tim Chan: We estimate that nuclear renaissance will be worth $ 1.5 trillion (USD) through 2050, in the form of capital investment in new global nuclear capacity. And the growth globally will be led by China and the US. China will also lead in the investment in nuclear, followed by the US and the EU. In addition, this new capacity will need $128 billion (USD) annually to maintain.Stephen Byrd: Well, Tim, those are some gigantic numbers, $1.5 trillion (USD) and essentially a doubling of nuclear capacity by 2050. I want to dig into China a bit and if you could just speak to how big of a role China is going to play in this.Tim Chan: In China, by 2060, nuclear is likely to account for roughly 80 per cent of the total power generation, according to the China Nuclear Association. This figure represents half of the global nuclear capacity in similar stages, which amounts to 520 gigawatts.And Stephen, can you tell us more about the US?Stephen Byrd: Sure, during COP 28, the US joined a multinational declaration to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050. In this past year, the US has seen the completion of a new nuclear power plant in Georgia, which is the first new reactor built in the United States in over 30 years.Now, beyond this, we have not seen a strong pipeline in the US on large scale nuclear plants, according to the World Nuclear Association. And for the US to triple its nuclear capacity from about 100 gigawatts currently, the nation would need to build about 200 gigawatts more capacity to meet the target.In our nuclear renaissance scenario, we assume only 50 gigawatts will be built, considering a couple of factors. So, first, clean energy options, such as wind and solar are becoming more viable; they're dropping in cost. And also, for new nuclear in the United States, we've seen significant construction delays and cost overruns for the large-scale nuclear plants. Now that said, there is still upside if we're able to meet the target in the US.And I think that's going to depend heavily on the development of small modular reactors or SMRs. I am optimistic about SMRs in the longer term. They're modular, as the name says. They're easier to design, easier to construct, and easier to install. So, I do think we could see some upside surprises later this decade and into the next decade.Tim Chan: And nuclear offers a unique opportunity to power Generative AI, which is accounting for a growing share of energy needs.Stephen Byrd: So, Tim, I was wondering how long it was going to take before we began to talk about AI.Nuclear power generators do have a unique opportunity to provide power to data centers that are located on site, and those plants can provide consistent, uninterrupted power, potentially without external connections to the grid. In the US, we believe supercomputers, which are essentially extremely large data centers used primarily for GenAI training, will be built behind the fence at one or more nuclear power plants in the US. Now these supercomputers are absolutely massive. They could use the power, potentially, of multiple nuclear power plants.Now just let that sink in. These supercomputers could cost tens of billions of dollars, possibly even $100 billion plus. And they will bring to bear unprecedented compute power in developing future Large Language Models.So, Tim, where does regulation factor into the resurgence of nuclear power or the lack of resurgence?Tim Chan: So, for the regulation, we focus a lot on the framework to provide financing: subsidies, sustainable finance taxonomies and also from the bond investor; although we note that taxonomies are still developing to offer dedicated support to nuclear. We expect nuclear financing under green bonds will become increasingly common and accepted. However, exclusion on nuclear still exists.Stephen Byrd: So finally, Tim, what are some of the key risks and constraints for nuclear development?Tim Chan: I would highlight three risks. Construction time, shortage of labor, and uranium constraint. These remain the key risks for nuclear projects to bring value creation.US and Europe had high profile delay in the past, which led to massive cost overrun. We are also watching the impacts of shortage of skilled labor, which is more likely in the developed markets versus emerging markets. And the supply of enriched uranium, which is mainly dominated by Russia.Stephen Byrd: Well, that's interesting, Tim. There are clearly some risks that could derail or slow down this nuclear renaissance. Tim, thanks for taking the time to talk.Tim Chan: Great speaking with you, Stephen.Stephen Byrd: 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 head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, notes areas of uncertainty in the credit, equity and macro landscapes that are worth tracking as we move into the fall.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about three risks we’re focused on for the third quarter.It's Friday, July 26th at 2pm in London.We like credit. But there are certainly risks we’re watching. I’d like to discuss three that are top of mind. The first is probably the mildest. Looking back over the last 35 years, August and September have historically been tougher months for riskier assets like stocks and corporate bonds. US High Yield bonds, for example, lose about 1 per cent relative to safer government bonds over August-September. That’s hardly a cataclysm, but it still represents the worst two-month stretch of any point of the year. And so all-else-equal, treading a little more cautiously in credit over the next two months has, from a seasonal perspective, made sense. The second risk is probably the most topical. Equity markets, especially US equity markets, are seeing major shifts in which stocks are doing well. Since July 8th, the Nasdaq 100, an index dominated by larger high-quality, often Technology companies, is down over 7 per cent. The Russell 2000, a different index representing smaller, often lower quality companies, is up over 11 per cent. So ask somebody – ‘How is the market?’ – and their answer is probably going to differ based on which market they’re currently in. This so-called rotation in what’s outperforming in the equity market is a risk, as Technology and large-cap equities have outperformed for more than a decade, meaning that they tend to be more widely held. But for credit, we think this risk is pretty modest. The weakness in these Large, Technology companies is having such a large impact because they make up so much of the market – roughly 40 per cent of the S&P 500 index. But those same sectors are only 6 per cent of the Investment grade credit market, which is weighted differently by the amount of debt somebody is issued. Meanwhile, Banks have been one of the best performing sectors of the stock market. And would you believe it? They are one of the largest sectors of credit, representing over 20 per cent of the US Investment Grade index. Put a slightly different way, when thinking about the Credit market, the average stock is going to map much more closely to what’s in our indices than, say, a market-weighted index. The third risk on our minds is the most serious: that economic data ends up being much weaker than we at Morgan Stanley expect. Yes, weaker data could lead the Fed and the ECB to make more interest rate cuts. But history suggests this is usually a bad bargain. When the Fed needs to cut a lot as growth weakens, it is often acting too late. And Credit consistently underperforms.We do worry that the Fed is a bit too confident that it will be able to see softness coming, given the lag that exists between when it cuts rates and the impact on the economy. We also think interest rates are probably higher than they need to be, given that inflation is rapidly falling toward the Fed’s target. But for now, the US Economy is holding up, growing at an impressive 2.8 per cent rate in the second quarter in data announced this week. Good data is good news for credit, in our view. Weaker data would make us worried. 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 are contending with greater uncertainty around the US presidential election following President Biden’s withdrawal. Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research breaks down what we know as the campaign enters a new phase.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the latest development in the US presidential race.It's Thursday, July 25th at 2:30 pm in New York. Last weekend, when President Biden decided not to seek re-election, it begged some questions from investors. First, with a new candidate at the top of the ticket, are there new policy impacts, and potential market effects, resulting from Democrats winning that we haven’t previously considered? For the moment, we think the answer is no. Consider Vice President Harris. Her policy positions are similar to Biden’s on key issues of importance to markets. And even if they weren’t, the details of key legislative policies in a Democratic win scenario will likely be shaped by the party’s elected officials overall. So, our guidance for market impacts that investors should watch for in the event that Democrats win the White House is unchanged. Second, what does it mean for the state of the race? After all, markets in the past couple of weeks began anticipating a stronger possibility of Republican victory. It was visible in stronger performance in small cap stocks, which our equity strategy team credited to investors seeing greater benefits in that sector from more aggressive tax cuts under possible Republican governance. It was also visible in steeper yield curves, which could reflect both weaker growth prospects due to tariff risks, pushing shorter maturity yields lower, and greater long-term uncertainty on economic growth, inflation, and bond supply from higher US deficits – something that could push longer-maturity Treasury yields relatively higher. So, it's understandable that investors could question the durability of these market moves if the race appeared more competitive. But the honest answer here is that it's too early to know how the race has changed. As imperfect as they are, polls are still our best tool to gauge public sentiment. And there’s scant polling on Democratic candidates not named Biden. So, on the question of which candidate more likely enjoys sufficient voter support to win the election, it could be days or weeks before we have reliable information. That said, prediction markets are communicating that they expect the race to tighten – pricing President Trump’s probability of regaining the White House at about 60-65 per cent, down from a recent high of 75-80 per cent. So bottom line, a change in the Democratic ticket hasn’t changed the very real policy stakes in this election. We’ll keep you informed here of how it's impacting our outlook for markets. 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.

Our Chief Asia Economist explains how the region’s economies and markets would be affected by higher tariffs, and other possible scenarios in the US elections.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss a question that’s drawing increasing attention – just how the U.S. presidential election would affect Asian economies and markets. It’s Wednesday, July 24th, at 8 PM in Hong Kong. As the US presidential race progresses, global markets are beginning to evaluate the possibility of a Trump win and maybe even a Republican sweep. Investors are wondering what this would   mean for Asia in particular. We believe there are three channels through which the US election outcome will matter for Asia. First, financial conditions – how the US dollar and rates will move ahead of and after the US elections. Second, tariffs. And third, US growth outcomes, which will affect global growth and end demand for Asian exports. Well, out of the three our top concern is the growth downside from higher tariffs. The 2018 experience suggests that the direct effect of tariffs is not what plays the most dominant role in affecting the macro outcomes; but rather the transmission through corporate confidence, capital expenditure, global demand and financial conditions. Let’s consider two scenarios. First, in a potential Trump win with divided government, China would likely be more affected from tariffs than Asia ex China. We see potentially two outcomes in this scenario – one where the US imposes tariffs only on China, and another where it also imposes 10 percent tariffs on the rest of the world. In the case of 60 percent tariffs on imports from China, there would be meaningful adverse effect on Asia's growth and it will be deflationary. China would remain most exposed compared to the rest of the region, which has reduced its export exposure to China over time and could see a positive offset from diversification of the supply chain away from China. In the case where the US also imposes 10 percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, we expect a bigger downside for China and the region. We believe that in this instance – in addition to the direct effect of tariffs on exports – the growth downside will be amplified by significant negative impact on corporate confidence, capex and trade. Corporate confidence will see bigger damage in this instance as compared to the one where tariffs are imposed only on China as corporate sector will have to think about on-shoring rather than continuing with friend-shoring. In the second scenario, in a potential Trump win with Republican sweep, in addition to the implications from tariffs, we would also be watching the possible fiscal policy outcomes and how they would shift the US yields and the dollar. This means that the tightening of financial conditions would pose further growth downside to Asia, over and above the effects of tariffs. How would Asia’s policymakers respond to these scenarios? As tariffs are imposed, we would expect Asian currencies to most likely come under depreciation pressure in the near term. While this helps to partly offset the negative implications of tariffs, it will constraint the ability of the central banks to cut rates. In this context, we expect fiscal easing to lead the first part of the policy response before rate cuts follow once currencies stabilize. It’s worth noting that in this cycle, the monetary policy space in Asia is much more limited than in the previous cycles because nominal rates in Asia for the most part are lower than in the US at the starting point. Of course, this is an evolving situation in the remaining months before the US elections, and we’ll continue to keep you updated on any significant developments. 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 Global Autos & Shared Mobility discusses what makes humanoid robots a pivotal trend with implications for the global economy.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Global Autos & Shared Mobility. Today I’ll be talking about an unusual but hotly debated topic: humanoid robots.It’s Tuesday, July 23rd, at 10am in New York. We've seen robots on factory floors, in displays at airports and at trade shows – doing work, performing tasks, even smiling. But over the last eighteen months, we seem to have hit a major inflection point.What's changed? Large Language Models and Generative AI. The current AI movement is drawing comparisons to the dawn of the Internet. It’s begging big, existential questions about the future of the human species and consciousness itself. But let’s look at this in more practical terms and consider why robots are taking on a human shape. The simplest answer is that we live in a world built for humans. And we’re getting to the point where – thanks to GenAI – robots are learning through observation. Not just through rudimentary instruction and rules based heuristic models. GenAI means robots can observe humans in action doing boring, dangerous and repetitive tasks in warehouses, in restaurants or in factories. And in order for these robots to learn and function most effectively, their design needs to be anthropomorphic. Another reason we're bullish on humanoid robots is because developers can have these robots experiment and learn from both simulation and physically in areas where they’re not a serious threat to other humans. You see, many of the enabling technologies driving humanoid robots have come from developments in autonomous cars. The problem with autonomous cars is that you can't train them on public roads without directly involving innocent civilians – pedestrians, children and cyclists -- into that experiment. Add to all of this the issue of critical labor shortages and challenging demographic trends. The global labor total addressable market is around $30 trillion (USD) or about one-third of global GDP. We’ve built a proprietary US total addressable market model examining labor dynamics and humanoid optionality across 831 job classifications, working with our economic team; and built a comprehensive survey across 40 sectors to understand labor intensity and humanoid ability of the workforce over time. In the United States, we forecast 40,000 humanoid units by 2030, 8 million by 2040 and 63 million by 2050 – equivalent to around $3 trillion (USD) of salary equivalent. But as early as 2028 we think you're going to see significant adoption beginning in industries like manufacturing, production, warehousing, and logistics, installation, healthcare and food prep. Then in the 2030s, you’re going to start adding more in healthcare, recreational and transportation. And then after 2040, you may see the adoption of humanoid robots go vertical. Now you might say – that’s 15 years from now. But just like autonomous cars, the end state might be 20 years away, but the capital formation is happening right now. And investors should pay close attention because we think the technological advances will only accelerate from here. Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist explains that in the event of a Republican sweep in this fall’s U.S. elections, investors should not expect a repeat of 2016 given the different business environment.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity  Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about  why investors should fade the recent rally in small caps and other pro cyclical trades. It's Monday, July 22nd at 11:30am in New York.  So let’s get after it.With Donald Trump’s odds of winning a second Presidency rising substantially over the past few weeks, we’ve fielded many questions on how to position for this outcome. In general, there is an increasing view that growth and interest rates could be higher given Trump's focus on business-friendly policies, de-regulation, higher tariffs, less immigration and additional tax cuts.  While the S&P 500 has risen alongside Trump's presidential odds this year, several of the perceived  industry outperformers under this political scenario have only just recently started to show relative outperformance. One could argue a Trump win in conjunction with a Republican sweep could be  particularly beneficial for Banks, Small Caps, Energy Infrastructure and perhaps Industrials. Although, the  Democrats' heavy fiscal spending and subsidies for the Inflation Reduction Act, Chips Act and other infrastructure projects suggest Industrial stocks may not see as much of an incremental benefit relative to the past four years. The  perceived industry underperformers are alternative energy stocks and companies likely to be affected  the most by increased tariffs. Consumer stocks stand out in terms of this latter point, and they have underperformed recently. However, macro factors are likely affecting this dynamic as well. For example, concerns around slowing services demand and an increasingly value-focused consumer have risen, too. It's interesting to note that while these cyclical areas that are perceived to outperform under a Trump Presidency did work in 2016 and through part of 2017, they did even better during Biden's first year. Our rationale on this front is that the cycle plays a larger role in how stocks trade broadly and at the sector level than who is in the White House. As a comparison, we laid out a bullish case at the end of 2016 and in early 2017 when many were less constructive on pro cyclical risk assets than we were post the 2016 election. It’s worth pointing out that the global economy was coming out of a commodity and  manufacturing recession at that time, and growth was just starting to reaccelerate, led by another China boom. Today, we face a much different macro landscape. More specifically, several of the cyclical trades mentioned above typically show their best performance in the early cycle phase of an economic  expansion like 2020-2021. They show strong, but often not quite as strong performance in mid cycle  periods like 2016-17. They tend to show less strong returns later in the cycle like today. Our late cycle view is further supported by the persistent fall in long term interest rates and inverted yield curve.  We believe the recent outperformance of lower quality, small cap stocks has been driven mainly by a combination of softer inflation data and hopes for an earlier Fed cut combined with dealer demand and short covering from investors on the back of Trump’s improved odds. For those looking to the 2016 playbook, we would point out that relative earnings revisions for small cap cyclicals are much weaker today than they were during that period.   Back in December when small caps saw a similar squeeze higher, we explored the combination of factors  that would likely need to be in place for small cap equities to see a durable, multi-month period of  outperformance. Our view was that the introduction of rate cuts in and of itself was not enough of a factor to drive small cap outperformance versus large caps. In fact, history suggests large cap growth tends to be the best performing style once the Fed begins cutting as nominal growth is often slowing at  this point in the cycle, which enables the Fed to begin cutting. We concluded that to see durable small cap  outperformance, we would need to see a much more aggressive Fed cutting cycle that revived animal spirits in a significant enough way for growth and pricing power to inflect higher, not lower like recent trends.  We are monitoring small cap earnings expectations and small business sentiment for signs that animal  spirits are building in this way. Rates and pricing power are still headwinds; while small businesses are not all that sanguine about expanding operations, they are increasingly viewing the economy more  positively — an incremental positive and something worth watching. We will continue to monitor the  data in assessing the feasibility of this small cap rally continuing. Based on the evidence to date, we  would resist the urge to chase this cohort and lean back into large cap quality and defensives. 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. 

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research shares four reasons that he believes credit spreads are likely to stay near their current lows.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why being negative credit isn’t as obvious as it looks, despite historically low spreads.It's Friday, July 19th at 2pm in London.We’re constructive on credit. We think the asset class likes moderation, and that’s exactly what Morgan Stanley forecasts expect: moderate growth, moderating inflation and moderating policy rates. Corporate activity is also modest; and even though it’s picking up, we haven’t yet seen the really aggressive types of corporate behavior that tend to make bondholders unhappy. Meanwhile, demand for the asset class is strong, and we think the start of Fed rate cuts in September could make it even stronger as money comes out of money market funds, looking to lock in current interest rates for longer in all sorts of bonds – including corporate bonds. And so while spreads are low by historical standards, our call is that helpful fundamentals and demand will keep them low, at least for the time being. But the question of credit’s valuation is important. Indeed, one of the most compelling bearish arguments in credit is pretty straightforward: current spreads are near some of their lowest levels of several prior cycles. They’ve repeatedly struggled to go lower. And if they can’t go lower, positioning for spreads to go wider and for the market to go weaker, well, it would seem like pretty good risk/reward. This is an extremely fair question! But there are four reasons why we think the case to be negative isn’t as straightforward as this logic might otherwise imply.First, a historical quirk of credit valuations is that spreads rarely trade at long-run average. They are often either much wider, in times of stress, or much tighter, in periods of calm. In statistical terms, spreads are bi-modal – and in the mid 1990s or mid 2000’s, they were able to stay near historically tight levels for a pretty extended period of time. Second, work by my colleague Vishwas Patkar and our US Credit Strategy team notes that, if you make some important adjustments to current credit spreads, for things like quality, bond price, and duration, current spreads don’t look quite as rich relative to prior lows. Current investment grade spreads in the US, for example, may still be 20 basis points wider than levels of January 2020, right before the start of COVID. Third, a number of the key buyers of corporate bonds at the moment are being driven by the level of yields, which are still high rather than spread, which are admittedly low. That could mean that demand holds up better even in the face of lower spreads. And fourth, credit is what we’d call a positive carry asset class: sellers lose money if nothing in the market changes. That’s not the case for US Treasuries, or US Equities, where those who are negative – or short – will profit if the market simply moves sideways. It’s one more factor that means that, while spreads are low, we’re mindful that being negative too early can still be costly. It’s not as simple as it looks. 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 experts discuss how high prices for auto insurance have been driving inflation, and the implications for consumers and the Fed now that price increases are due to slow.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Diego Anzoategui: I'm Diego Anzoategui from the US Economics team.Bob Huang: And I'm Bob Huang, the US Life and Property Casualty Insurance Analyst.Seth Carpenter: And on this episode, we're going to talk about a topic that -- I would have guessed -- historically we weren't going to think about too often in a macro setting; but over the past couple of years it's been a critical part of the whole story on inflation, and probably affects most of our listeners.It's auto insurance and why we think we're reaching a turning point.It's Thursday, July 18th at 10am in New York.All right, let's get started.If you drive a car in the United States, you almost surely have been hit by a big increase in your auto insurance prices. Over the past couple of years, everyone has been talking about inflation, how much consumer prices have been going up. But one of the components that lots of people see that's really gone up dramatically recently has been auto insurance.So that's why I wanted to come in and sit down with my colleagues, Diego and Bob, and talk through just what's going on here with auto insurance and how does it matter.Diego, I'm going to start with you.One thing that is remarkable is that the inflation that we're seeing now and that we've seen over the past several months is not related to the current state of the economy.But we know in markets that everyone's looking at the Fed, and the Fed is looking at the CPI data that's coming out. We just got the June CPI data for the US recently. How does this phenomenon of auto insurance fit into that reading on the data?Diego Anzoategui: Auto insurance is a relatively small component of CPI. It only represents just below 3 per cent of the CPI basket. But it has become a key driver because of the very high inflation rates has been showing. You know, the key aggregate the Fed watches carefully is core services ex-housing inflation. And the general perception is that inflation in these services is a lagged reflection of labor market tightness. But the main component driving this aggregate, at least in CPI, since 2022 has been auto insurance.So the main story behind core services ex-housing inflation in CPI is just the lagged effect of a cost shock to insurance companies.Seth Carpenter: Wait, let me stop you there. Did I understand you right? That if we're thinking about core services inflation, if you exclude housing; that is, I think, what a lot of people think is inflation that comes from a tight labor market, inflation that comes from an overheated economy. And you're saying that a lot of the movement in the past year or two is really coming from this auto insurance phenomenon.Diego Anzoategui: Yes, that's exactly true. It is the main component explaining core services ex-housing inflation.Seth: What's caused this big acceleration in auto insurance over the past few years? And just how big a deal is it for an economist like us?Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, so believe it or not, today's auto insurance inflation is related to COVID and the supply chain issues we faced in 2021 and 2022. Key cost components such as used cars, parts and equipment, and repair cost increased significantly, creating cost pressures to insurance companies. But the reaction in terms of pricing was sluggish. Some companies reacted slowly; but perhaps more importantly, regulators in key states didn't approve price increases quickly.Remember that this is a regulated industry, and insurance companies need approvals from regulators to update premiums. And, of course, losses increased as a result of this sluggish response in pricing, and several insurance started to scale back businesses, creating supply demand imbalances.And it is when these imbalances became evident that regulators started to approve large rate increases, boosting car insurance inflation rapidly from the second half of 2022 until today.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so if that's the case, what should we think about as key predictors, then, of auto insurance prices going forward? What should investors be aware of? What should consumers be aware of? Diego Anzoategui: So in terms of predictors, it is always a good idea to keep track of cost related variables. And these are leading indicators that we both Bob and I would follow closely.Used car prices, repair costs, which are also CPI components, are leading indicators of auto insurance inflation. And both of them are decelerating. Used car prices are actually falling. So there is deflation in that component. But I think rate filings are a key indicator to identify the turning point we are expecting this cycle.Seth Carpenter: Can you walk through what that means -- rate filings? Just for our listeners who might not be familiar?Diego Anzoategui: So, rate filings basically summarize how much insurers are asking to regulators to increase their premiums. And we actually have access to this data at a monthly frequency. Filings from January to May this year -- they are broadly running in line with what happened in 2023. But we are expecting deceleration in the coming months.If filings start to come down, that will be a confirmation of our view of a turning point coming and a strong sign of future deceleration in car insurance inflation.Seth Carpenter: So Bob, let me turn to you. Diego outlines with the macro considerations here. You're an analyst, you cover insurers, you cover the equity prices for those insurance, you're very much in the weeds. Are we reaching a turning point? Walk us through what actually has happened.Bob Huang: Yeah, so we certainly are reaching a turning point. And then, similar to what Diego said before, right, losses have been very high; and then that consequently resulted in ultimately regulators allowing insurance companies to increase price, and then that price increase really is what's impacting this.Now, going forward, as insurers are slowly achieving profitability in the personal auto space, personal auto insurers are aiming to grow their business. And then, if we believe that the personal auto insurance is more or less a somewhat commoditized product, and then the biggest lever that the insurance companies have really is on the pricing side. And as insurers achieve profitability, aim for growth, and that will consequently cost some more increased pricing competition.So, yes, we'll see pricing deceleration, and that's what I'm expecting for the second half of the year. And then perhaps even further out, and that could even intensify further. But we'll have to see down the road.Seth Carpenter: Is there any chance that we actually see decreases in those premiums? Or is the best we can hope for is that they just stopped rising as rapidly as they have been?Bob Huang: I think the most likely scenario is that the pricing will stabilize. For price to decrease to before COVID level, that losses have to really come down and stabilize as well. There are only a handful of insurers right now that are making what we call an underwriting profit. Some other folks are still trying to make up for the losses from before.So, from that perspective, I think, when we think about competition, when we think about pricing, stabilization of pricing will be the first point. Can price slightly decrease from here? It's possible depending on how intensive the competition is. But is it going to go back to pre-COVID level? I think that's a hard ask for the entire industry.Seth Carpenter: You were talking a lot about competition and how competition might drive pricing, but Diego reminded all of us at the beginning that this industry is a regulated industry. So can you walk us through a little bit about how we should think about this going forward?What's the interaction between competition on the one hand and regulation on the other? How big a deal is regulation? And, is any of that up for grabs given that we've got an election in November?Bob Huang: Usually what an insurer will have to do in general is that for some states -- well actually, in most cases they would have to ask for rate filings, depending on how severe those rate filings are. Regulators may have to step in and approve those rate filings.Now, as we believe that competition will gradually intensify, especially with some of the more successful carriers, what they can do is simply just not ask for price increase. And in that case, regulators don't really need to be involved. And then also implies that if you're not asking for a rate increase, then that also means that you're not really getting that pricing -- like upward pricing pressure on the variety of components that we're looking at.Seth Carpenter: To summarize, what I'm hearing from Bob at the micro level is those rate increases are probably slowing down and probably come to a halt and we'll have a stabilization. But don't get too excited, consumers. It's not clear that car insurance premiums are actually going to fall, at least not by a sizable margin.And Diego, from you, what I'm hearing is this component of inflation has really mattered when it comes to the aggregate measure of inflation, especially for services. It's been coming down. We expect it to come down further. And so, your team's forecast, the US economics team forecast, for the Fed to cut three times this year on the back of continued falls of inflation -- this is just another reason to be in that situation.So, thanks to both of you being on this. It was great for me to be able to talk to you, and hopefully our listeners enjoyed it too.Bob Huang: Thank you for having me here.Diego Anzoategui: Always a pleasure.Seth Carpenter: To the listeners, thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen; and share this podcast with a friend or a colleague today.

Financial markets can be sensitive to news cycles, but our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research offers a word of caution about reacting to recent headlines about the US presidential election.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about development in the upcoming US elections.It's Wednesday, July 17th at 10:30am in New York. Financial markets are starting to reflect the possibility of a Trump presidency. Investors may be taking cues from a few current developments. There’s the recent weakening of President Biden’s polling numbers in key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. There’s also the ongoing discussion about whether he will remain the Democratic nominee. And there's also former President Trump’s increased win probabilities in prediction markets, as well as the perception that Democrats will have more trouble pursuing their agenda in the wake of the assassination attempt against him. To that end we’ve seen moves in key areas of markets sensitive to what we have argued will be the policy impacts of a Trump presidency, including a steepening of the US Treasury yield curve. But – a word of caution. These market reactions to recent political events may be rational, but it's not clear they’re sustainable.  First, there are plausible ways investors’ perceptions of the likely outcomes of this election could shift. Voters can have very short memories, resulting in polls shifting to partisan priors. This happened with popular opinion on elected officials following notable incidents in recent years – such as the events of January 6th, 2021, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and more. Also, if President Biden were to withdraw as a candidate, it’s possible investors could perceive that a different candidate could tighten the race. For example, there have been recent surveys showing alternate Democratic candidates polling better than President Biden. Second, there’s also room for investors to misunderstand the policy path that could follow an election outcome as well as the impact of that path. For example, we’ve seen some recent press articles linking the broadening out of positive performance in the equity market to the likelihood of a Trump win on perceived benefits of friendlier tax policies that might result from this outcome. But if investors only focus on that policy, they’re not incorporating the potential offsetting effects that could come from policies that could challenge the economic growth outlook, such as higher tariffs – something former President Trump has advocated for. So bottom line, it makes sense to interrogate what seems like clear links between the upcoming election and markets.Some linkages are strong, and it’s possible that will make for a good investment strategy; others are weak and may break under scrutiny. We’ll help you sort it out here. 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.

Our Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist explains why she sees a future for the 60/40 portfolio strategy, which worked well for over half a century and may continue to perform well – with some modifications.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the future of the 60/40 equity/bond portfolio. It’s Tuesday, July 16th, at 10am in New York.Now investors have been asking: Is the 60/40 portfolio -- which allocates 60 percent to stocks and 40 percent to bonds -- dead? After all, the last two years saw some of the worst returns of this strategy in decades. Now, we think the concerns about this widely used strategy are not unfounded, but definitely a bit exaggerated. Exactly how one thinks about the right mix of equities and bonds within this type of portfolio though will need to change.The strategy of investing 60 percent of a portfolio in equities and 40 percent in bonds to lower portfolio risk evolved from modern portfolio theory in the 1950s. To succeed, bonds must be less volatile than stocks and the correlation between stock and bond returns can't be 1 -- because that would mean a perfect positive correlation between stocks and bonds. And this correlation has been below 1 and low for a long time because growth and inflation have moved up and down in tandem for a long time. Now what does this have to do with anything, you may ask. Well, typically in an environment where equities are rallying on the back of strong growth, inflation is also increasing – which in turn means that nominal yields stay high, dampening bond returns; and vice-versa in a recessionary scenario. Now, in both of those cases, the negative stock-bond return correlations is related to the positive growth inflation correlation. Which explains why the strategy of the 60/40 equity/bond portfolio worked so well for decades, particularly in the low-vol, high-growth inflation correlation, low stock-bond returns correlation environment of the late aughts to 2010s. Unfortunately for investors though, this has not been the backdrop for the last few years. The highly unusual macro environment coming out of pandemic broke that relationship between growth and inflation, which in turn broke the relationship between stocks and bonds, led to a spike in fixed income volatility, and dragged bond returns to lowest levels in decades over the last couple of years. But we believe these factors will slowly normalize, which means 60/40-like strategies should work again. While the levels of correlation and bond volatility going forward may look different from history, and definitely different from the QE period, as long as bonds have lower risks than stocks – and there’s little to suggest they won’t – bonds will continue to be good diversifiers. But it’s important for investors to ask themselves: what could drive correlation between stocks and bonds going forward? Well, longer term, the path of correlation between the two assets depends in part on the relationship between economic growth and inflation, as I touched on earlier. And this is where AI can come in. Positive productivity shocks from GenAI tech diffusion and the energy transition may change that dynamic between growth and inflation. And at the same time, decoupling in the world’s key economic regions as a result of the transition to a multipolar world can alter the correlation between regional equities and rates. So, will the 60/40 portfolio be the strategy of the future? Or is it going to be more like 70/30 or even 50/50? Slower normalization of volatility and correlation means that a portfolio with more equity could yield better risk/reward than a 60/40 mix. On the other hand, as the world’s 65+ year-old population continues to grow over the next decades, this aging demographic may demand higher allocations to less volatile assets, even at the expense of lower returns. Or maybe, just maybe, there is another solution. Instead of a simple 60/40 like strategy, investors can look beyond government bonds to other diversifiers, and building a multi-asset portfolio with more flexibility. 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 Retail analyst and U.S. Internet analyst connect the dots on how technology is helping the retail industry to cash in on the future.----- Transcript -----Simeon Gutman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley's Hardlines, Broadlines, and Food Retail Analyst.Brian Nowak: And I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's US Internet Analyst.Simeon Gutman: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll hear how retailers are using technology to make a comeback and set themselves up for the future.It's Monday, July 15th at 6pm in London.Brian Nowak: And it's 1pm in New York.Simeon Gutman: Retail has taken a big hit over the last few years. The long tail of the pandemic, outbreaks of war and inflation have had a big impact on the landscape. However, our research suggests retail is finding its feet, and technology is playing a significant role.Automation, AI, and retail media are the game changers here. And we're seeing retailers of larger scale and larger size disproportionately invest in these technologies -- which means it will not benefit all retailers equally.My colleague Brian is here to help explain the technology and how these are manifesting themselves across the internet and technology landscapes. Brian, can you talk about how these things are materializing across your coverage universe?Brian Nowak: Thanks, Simeon. Across the US internet space, we're seeing early emerging use cases for Generative AI of many types. We are seeing improved targeting on the advertising side. We are seeing new diffusion and creative models being built where advertisers can create new types of advertising copy using large language models. We are seeing new forms of customer service using large language models and Generative AI. And in effect, we are seeing companies across the entire internet space better analyze their first party data to drive more new people and customers to their platforms -- to drive higher conversion and share of wallets from those customers. And ultimately more durable multiyear top-line growth, which in some cases is also leading to higher free cash flow growth over the long term as well. It's early, but it's very encouraging with what we're seeing for Generative AI and retail media across the space.Simeon Gutman: Can you talk about in more detail how retail media is influencing the success and the prospects for some of your companies?Brian Nowak: Retail media is a emerging, rapidly growing, new high margin revenue stream that is moving across the internet space. Large companies are analyzing more of their data and essentially creating new advertising units that users and consumers can click on to drive transactions. And they're finding ways to better link these advertising dollars to transactions and ultimately creating a new revenue stream that we think is going to drive more durable top-line growth -- and because of its high margin nature, also more durable, multiyear free cash flow growth. It is benefiting the commerce players. It is benefiting the online advertising players. And it's also benefiting the advertising technology players.So with that as a backdrop, Simeon, where are you seeing Generative AI, retail media, and maybe even automation, start to manifest itself throughout the retail landscape?Simeon Gutman: Those are the three pillars of technology that are influencing retailers. Taking a quick step back, what's changing is that market share in retail is concentrating and consolidating among the largest players. And if you think about the investments required for some of these new capabilities, the companies that have the greatest ability to invest should see the greatest benefits. That means that the big could get bigger at an even faster rate. And this is why the stakes in retail are growing even faster.Now with, respect to these technologies. Let's start with AI. AI is helping retailers analyze big pieces of data that they never had an ability to do in such a quick way. That could help them refine their search criteria to consumers scanning a website. That could help them improve the algorithms in a distribution center with robots creating orders.Second, speaking of robots, bringing automation to distribution centers, supply chains for retailers can cost anywhere between 2 to 6 per cent of sales. There's a significant opportunity to reduce the amount of labor -- human labor -- in these distribution centers by automating them; whether it's dry goods, whether it's grocery items, as tricky as frozen and perishable items.And then lastly, retail media, the way that you mentioned, Brian, the benefit to your companies is very similar to retailers. There are now advertising dollars that are moving into new channels, whether it's closed loop advertising in store or retail media that's appearing on websites -- where some of the larger and more successful companies have a lot of traffic and advertisers are intrigued to show them offers and deals to try to change their perception or behaviors.So those three pieces of technology are slowly transforming the retailer. So next time you step into a retail store, there may be more technology that meets the eyes.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 Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why he expects the US Federal Reserve to make three rate cuts before the end of the year, starting in September.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why it's looking more likely that the Fed should, and will, cut interests rates several times this year.It's Friday, July 12th at 2pm in London.Last week, we discussed why the case for Fed rate cuts this year was strengthening. Credit markets generally don’t care too much about the exact timing or pace of policy rates, but they do care if a central bank is behind the curve. That’s because over the last 40 years, the worst returns for credit have repeatedly overlapped with periods where the Fed was too late in reversing tight monetary policy. After all, interest rates impact the economy with a pretty long and variable lag; and a interest rate cut today may not be fully felt in the economy for 12 months – or even longer. It’s therefore important for a central bank to be proactive. And so, with the recent US economic data softer, and the Fed appearing in little rush to act, the concern was straightforward: if the Fed is waiting for signs of economic weakness to be obvious, it will take too long to lower interest rates to blunt this. The Fed will be behind the curve. This risk of acting too late hasn’t gone away, and it’s a key reason why we think credit investors should be rooting for economic data in the second half of this year to remain solid, in line with Morgan Stanley’s base case. But this week did bring some events that suggest the Fed may start to adjust rates soon. First, in testimony before the US Congress, Chair Powell repeatedly emphasized that the risks for the US economy are becoming more balanced. Previously, the Fed had appeared to be much more focused on an upside scenario where conditions are hotter rather than a scenario where growth slowed unexpectedly. Second, in data released yesterday, US Consumer Price Inflation – or CPI – came in lower than expected. Overall, prices actually fell month-over-month, something that hasn’t happened since May of 2020, a time when the pandemic was raging, and Fed rates were near zero percent. Morgan Stanley’s base case is that moderating inflation will lead the Fed to cut interest rates by 25 basis points in September, November and December of this year. For credit, the question of “what do these rate cuts” mean is an ‘and’ statement. If the Fed is lowering rates and growth is holding up, you are potentially looking at a mid-1990s scenario, the best period for credit in the modern era. But if the Fed is cutting and growth is weak … well, over and over again, that has not been good. We remain constructive on credit, expecting three Fed rate cuts this year to coexist with moderate growth. But weaker data remains the risk. For credit, good data is good. 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 Freight Transportation & Airlines Analyst discusses the key takeaways from his mid-year corporate travel survey, which includes a number of positive trends for the second half of 2024.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley’s Freight Transportation and Airlines analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss my expectations for corporate travel in the second half of this year. It’s Thursday, July 11th, at 10am in New York. More and more business travelers are packing their bags and taking a flight for business meetings. In fact, our corporate travel survey suggests that a record 50 percent of respondents marked their travel itineraries as returning to pre-COVID levels. As well, corporate travel budgets are expected to be up five to seven percent year-over-year in 2024, and about six percent in 2025. This means significantly more flights, hotels and car bookings for corporate travel.Interestingly, this is the first survey since 2021 that larger enterprises were more optimistic on corporate travel demand compared to smaller enterprises.The shift to virtual meetings over the next two years will likely be stable. Companies continue to predict that 12-13 percent of travel volume will be replaced by virtual meetings in 2024 and 2025. Looking ahead, respondents expect this level to hold through 2025, supporting some level of permanent shift we think.For US airlines specifically, we have started to see more signs of life within the corporate space. Several US airlines are pointing to noticeable improvement in the first quarter after fairly stagnant volumes at the end of 2023. We also saw a reversal from prior surveys with larger corporations recovering faster than smaller enterprises, which had initially led the post-COVID recovery.This positive trend in airline demand is supportive of our attractive view on US aerospace, as well. Even though global air traffic has already reached pre-COVID-19 levels, it is still about 32 percent below where the trendline would have been if COVID-19 had not happened, which leaves more room for growth.For business aviation, private jet use should remain strong and stable as a large majority of survey participants are not planning to change their business jet travel. Higher interest rates and a potentially slowing economy could lead to a potential slowdown in business jet demand, but this hasn’t happened so far as there continues to be limited excess capacity in the industry as well as continued strong demand for aircraft.Our colleagues in Europe note that although near-term indicators are positive, 40 percent of European respondents now do not expect corporate travel volumes to return to 2019 levels. This is concerning for the longer-term prospects of European corporate demand growth, which appears to be weaker than US growth.Whether you're flying private jets or commercial, or choosing to keep your team meetings virtual, we'll continue to monitor corporate travel trends, and let you know of any updates to those flight manifests. 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.

U.S., French and Indian elections may have a minimal effect on equity markets, particularly in the short term, according to our Global Head of Fixed Income and our Chief Global Cross Asset Strategist.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, chief Global Cross Asset Strategist,Michael Zezas: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss what the elections in the US and Europe mean for global markets.It's Wednesday, July 9th at 10am in New York.As investors digest the results of the French election and anticipate the upcoming US presidential election, there's some key debates that are surfacing. And so I wanted to sit down with Serena to dig into these issues that are top of mind for investors.Serena, do you expect the upcoming US elections will impact markets in the run up to November?Serena Tang: Significantly, not likely -- because if we look at history, for stocks for example, in any election year, returns don't look significantly different from any other year.Serena Tang: My team ran some cross asset analysis on market behavior in and out of prior US elections using as much data as we have. And what has been very interesting is that whether a Democrat or Republican candidate eventually takes the White House, that doesn't change the trend of returns into an election.The form of the future elected government, whether it is divided or unified, that has also never really bothered stock markets before the vote. And you can see very, very similar patterns in bond yields, the dollar and gold. Now, what this means is that even if an investor has perfect foresight and know the results of the elections now, it won't necessarily give them an edge over the next few months.Serena Tang: Now, beyond the election is really when you see performance in various election outcome scenarios really diverge. So, whether the election was tight or not seemed to have led US rates to see very different levels of returns 12 months out from an election. Whether the outcome means a unified or divided government saw very large swings in gold prices.Now there are a lot of caveats. Every election is different. The economic conditions in every election is different. And as much as we talk about other historical periods, the truth is there aren't a lot of data points to work with. Data for S&P 500 going back to 1927 reaches the most far back among the major markets, but even then it only covers 23 presidential elections.So what I'm trying to say is there have been a lot of presidents, but there aren't a lot of precedents, at least for markets.Michael Zezas: The US election isn't the only election making headlines this year. For example, we just had an election in France that had a surprising result. How does the outcome there affect your outlook on the market?Serena Tang: It doesn't, in short. It doesn't change our bullish view on European equities at all. As you know, we have been constructive on that market since January and added significant exposure in our asset allocation then -- very much on the back of our European equity strategist Marina Zavolok coming out with an out of consensus bullish call for European stocks.Serena Tang: We like the market because of its cheap optionality and convexity. It has about 20 per cent revenue exposure to US but at much cheaper valuation. And it has about 20 per cent revenue exposure to EM, meaning should we get a growth surprise to the upside; you're geared to that but at much lower volatility than owning EM equities outright.Now, none of this has changed post French elections, and we also don't see significant increase in bearish tail risks. If you look at other markets like Euro IG corporate credit or the euro, those markets are suggesting risks in France are idiosyncratic, not systemic. So we maintain our overweight in European stocks.Serena Tang: Everything that I just said is also true for our bullish view on Indian equities, even after elections a month ago. Ridham Desai, head of India research, argued the election outcome there is likely to usher in more structural reforms and really reinforces our forecast of 20 per cent annual earnings growth over next five years, sustaining India's longest and strongest bull market ever. Bullish secular factors for Indian equities have not changed and therefore our bullish view on Indian equities have not changed.Michael Zezas: And elections have consequences for how countries interact with one another. And how their policies differ from one another. And one area of the markets that tend to be sensitive to this is the foreign exchange markets. So are there any impacts you're looking for around foreign currencies?Serena Tang: Yes, in particular, the dollar. But let me start with the euro first. Because I talked earlier about our bullish view on European equities; and in fact, in our asset allocation, we actually have a higher allocation to Europe versus US for stocks, bonds, and corporate credit bonds. The one European market we're more cautious on is the euro. And this actually has nothing to do with the French election results, per se -- because what matters now really is dollar strength. Now, part of this is a rates differential issue. Our US economics team are expecting the Fed to start cutting in September, while the ECB, of course, has already started easing policy. So yield differentials really favor the dollar here.But we also need to factor in the election, which seems to be the theme for today. Our FX [foreign exchange] strategy team thinks markets really need to start pricing in material likelihoods of dollar positive changes in US fiscal, foreign and trade policy as the election approaches. Meaning the dollar will continue its modest uptrend into the second half. And geopolitical uncertainty, of course, will also be dollar positive.Michael Zezas: So bottom line then. Elections clearly have consequences for markets but in the run-up to an election, there might not be a reliable pattern.Serena Tang: Exactly.Michael Zezas: Great. Well Serena, thanks for taking the time to talk.Serena Tang: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy the podcast, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Record-high prices remain a key concern for buyers in the U.S. housing market. Our Co-Heads of Securitized Product Research dig into the data, explaining why they still believe a deceleration in home price growth will come.----- 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. It's Tuesday, July 9th, at 1pm in New York. Jay Bacow: Jim, housing headlines just keep coming. Home prices are at record highs. What does that mean? How should we be thinking about that? James Egan: So, that has been a fun headline, and according to several measures of home prices, we are at record highs. But, let's put that into context. We've actually set a new record high for home prices every month for the past ten months. In fact, prior to a 12-month hiatus from July of ’22 to June of ’23, home prices had actually hit a new record high every month for 68 consecutive months. Jay Bacow: Alright, so if we're just talking about levels, it's important. But given that I'm a physicist by training, so are rates of change; and for that matter, changes to the rate of change, or acceleration, if you will. If there's something different about the current record of US home prices that is worth discussing, that would be interesting. James Egan: We think there is. Actually two months ago, home prices set a new record high. But it was also the first time in ten months that the pace of year-over-year home price appreciation did not accelerate. This month the pace of appreciation actually started to decelerate. As listeners of this podcast might remember, we've been calling for the pace of year-over-year home price appreciation to slow from above 6.5 per cent to just two percent by December. We are still above six percent today, but this could be the beginning of that deceleration. Jay Bacow: Right. And if there's going to be deceleration, Newton would say there needs to be some force that causes it. And my understanding is you thought that that force that causes it would be sale inventories increasing. Has that been the case? James Egan: Indeed, it has been actually. Total for sale inventory has increased for six consecutive months. And the pace of that growth is accelerating. Now, we do want to highlight that overall supply remains very tight. That part of the housing narrative hasn't changed. If we take a step back and look at the whole market, total months of supply are at just 4.5 per cent. Anything below six is really considered a seller's market there. On the other hand, this is the highest level that the market has experienced since the first half of 2020, which is another argument in our minds for the pace of home price appreciation to decelerate. But once we remove these pandemic era lows, four and a half months is close to the lowest level of the past 30 plus years. Jay Bacow: Alright, now sticking on the level context. Home prices weren't just the only thing that set a record level these days. Pending home sales just set a new record low in May. James Egan: Right, that's also the case. Now, we do want to put the record into context here. The pending home sales index that we're referring to only goes back to 2001. But over that 23 plus years, the May print was the lowest number that we've seen. Jay Bacow: Alright, so given all of that, how are you thinking about demand for housing amidst increasing supply? James Egan: Right. So this is a pretty important question. When it comes to demand at these levels, affordability remains very challenged. One of the primary questions for the US housing market moving forward is going to be the interplay between the absolute level of affordability and the direction and rate of change. Now, we are far from being able to declare a winner here. Sales volumes have increased off of 12 year lows from the fourth quarter of 2023; but at the same time, there are several demand indicators that are having trouble achieving liftoff, if you will. Pending home sales, for instance. They're not falling as fast as they have been, over the past two plus years; but they're also having a hard time achieving some sort of escape velocity as they continue to fall on a year-over year-basis. Mortgage applications for purchase -- another one of our leading indicators -- they're experiencing a similar dynamic. The first half of 2024 has been a noticeable second derivative improvement versus 2023, but that improvement has slowed and applications are still falling on a year-over-year basis. Now, part of this is going to be a function of mortgage rates going forward. Jay, what are we thinking there? Jay Bacow: Now, the biggest driver of mortgage rates is going to be the level of treasury rates. And our rate strategists are forecasting treasury rates to fall over the end of this year and into the middle of next year. If that happens, we would expect mortgage rates to get towards 6.25 to 6.5 per cent by next summer -- clearly materially lower than they are right now. But once again, the biggest driver of this is treasury rates. Not what's going on with the mortgage market. James Egan: And we continue to expect with that decrease affordability to improve, and that to drive year-over-year growth and sales in the second half of 2024 versus 2023. But it doesn't have to be a straight line to that outcome. And how are you thinking Jay, from a mortgage market perspective about sales volumes? Jay Bacow: So, the mortgage market is in a pretty interesting spot because there's almost two sides of it. There's the existing mortgage market, which is mostly made up of homeowners that have very low mortgage rates, and thus the coupon to the investor is relatively low; and they're trading at a discount. If turnover is low, then those bonds are outstanding for longer, which is bad for those investors. But, if that turnover is low, that means the supply to the market in the new higher coupon mortgages is relatively low, which is good for those investors in the new higher coupon mortgages. In effect, if turnover is lower, it's good for higher coupon mortgages, not so good for lower coupon mortgages. James Egan: And that's why all of this is so critical. If I were to, to summarize, we're paying attention to increasing inventory volumes in the housing market. We're paying attention to some of these demand statistics that are coming in a little softer than at least consensus estimates expected them to. We do think that home price growth is going to decelerate as a result. We also think it will remain positive. There continues to be very little overall supply in the US housing market. Jay, it was nice speaking with you. Jay Bacow: Jim, nice talking physics in the housing market with you. James Egan: Thanks for listening. And if you enjoyed this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.