{"show":{"id":"5cOfqdkomvzyhPTR7n6KFa","uri":"spotify:show:5cOfqdkomvzyhPTR7n6KFa","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/shows/5cOfqdkomvzyhPTR7n6KFa?market=AU&locale=*","name":"Thoughts on the Market","type":"show","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"episodes":{"href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/shows/5cOfqdkomvzyhPTR7n6KFa/episodes?offset=0&limit=50&market=AU&locale=*","next":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/shows/5cOfqdkomvzyhPTR7n6KFa/episodes?offset=50&limit=50&market=AU&locale=*","items":[{"id":"7cqeARYlS5FKAX3FmfY2ov","uri":"spotify:episode:7cqeARYlS5FKAX3FmfY2ov","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/7cqeARYlS5FKAX3FmfY2ov","name":"America’s Debt Story","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"For a special Independence Day episode, our Head of Corporate Credit Research considers a popular topic of debate, on holidays or otherwise – national debt.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today on a special Independence Day episode of the podcast, we're going to talk a bit about the history of U.S. debt and the contrast between corporate and federal debt trajectories.It's Thursday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle.The 4th of July, which represents the U.S. declaring independence from Great Britain, remains one of my favorite holidays. A time to gather with friends and family and celebrate what America is – and what it can still be.It is also, of course, a good excuse to talk about debt.Declaring independence is one thing, but fighting and beating the largest empire in the world at the time would take more than poetic words. The borrowing that made victory possible for the colonies also almost brought them down in the 1780s under a pile of unsustainable debt. It was a young treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton, who successfully lobbied to bring these debts under a federal umbrella – binding the nation together and securing a lower borrowing cost. As we'd say, it's a real fixed income win-win.Almost 250 years later, the benefits of that foresight are still going strong, with the United States of America enjoying the world's largest economy, and the largest and most liquid equity and bond markets. Yet lately there's been more focus on whether those bond markets are, well, too large.The U.S. currently runs a budget deficit of about 7 percent of GDP, and the current budget proposals in the house and the Senate could drive an additional 4 trillion of borrowing over the next decade above that already hefty baseline. Forecast even further out, well, they look even more challenging.We are not worried about the U.S. government's ability to pay its bills. And to be clear, in the near term, we are forecasting at Morgan Stanley, U.S. government yields to go down as growth slows and the Federal Reserve cuts rates more than expected in 2026. But all of this borrowing and all the uncertainty around it – it should increase risk premiums for longer term bonds and drive a steeper yield curve.So, it's notable then – as we celebrate America's birthday and discuss its borrowing – that it's really companies that are currently unwrapping the presents. Corporate balance sheets, in contrast, are in very good shape, as corporate borrowing trends have diverged from those of the government.Many factors are behind this. Corporate profitability is strong. Companies use the post-COVID period to refinance debt at attractive rates. And the ongoing uncertainty – well, it's kept management more conservative than they would otherwise be. Out of deference to the 4th of July, I've focused so far on the United States. But we see the same trend in Europe, where more conservative balance sheet trends and less relative issuance to governments is showing up on a year-over-year basis. With companies borrowing relatively less and governments borrowing relatively more, the difference between what companies and the government pay, that so-called spread that we talk so much about – well, we think it can stay lower and more compressed than it otherwise would.We don't think this necessarily applies to the low ratings such as single B or lower borrowers, where these better balance sheet trends simply aren't as clear. But overall, a divergent trend between corporate and government balance sheets is giving corporate bond investors something additional to celebrate over the weekend.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.","duration_ms":252368,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-07-03","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/7cqeARYlS5FKAX3FmfY2ov"},"html_description":"

For a special Independence Day episode, our Head of Corporate Credit Research considers a popular topic of debate, on holidays or otherwise – national debt.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Today on a special Independence Day episode of the podcast, we're going to talk a bit about the history of U.S. debt and the contrast between corporate and federal debt trajectories.

It's Thursday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle.

The 4th of July, which represents the U.S. declaring independence from Great Britain, remains one of my favorite holidays. A time to gather with friends and family and celebrate what America is – and what it can still be.

It is also, of course, a good excuse to talk about debt.

Declaring independence is one thing, but fighting and beating the largest empire in the world at the time would take more than poetic words. The borrowing that made victory possible for the colonies also almost brought them down in the 1780s under a pile of unsustainable debt. It was a young treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton, who successfully lobbied to bring these debts under a federal umbrella – binding the nation together and securing a lower borrowing cost. As we'd say, it's a real fixed income win-win.

Almost 250 years later, the benefits of that foresight are still going strong, with the United States of America enjoying the world's largest economy, and the largest and most liquid equity and bond markets. Yet lately there's been more focus on whether those bond markets are, well, too large.

The U.S. currently runs a budget deficit of about 7 percent of GDP, and the current budget proposals in the house and the Senate could drive an additional 4 trillion of borrowing over the next decade above that already hefty baseline. Forecast even further out, well, they look even more challenging.

We are not worried about the U.S. government's ability to pay its bills. And to be clear, in the near term, we are forecasting at Morgan Stanley, U.S. government yields to go down as growth slows and the Federal Reserve cuts rates more than expected in 2026. But all of this borrowing and all the uncertainty around it – it should increase risk premiums for longer term bonds and drive a steeper yield curve.

So, it's notable then – as we celebrate America's birthday and discuss its borrowing – that it's really companies that are currently unwrapping the presents. Corporate balance sheets, in contrast, are in very good shape, as corporate borrowing trends have diverged from those of the government.

Many factors are behind this. Corporate profitability is strong. Companies use the post-COVID period to refinance debt at attractive rates. And the ongoing uncertainty – well, it's kept management more conservative than they would otherwise be. Out of deference to the 4th of July, I've focused so far on the United States. But we see the same trend in Europe, where more conservative balance sheet trends and less relative issuance to governments is showing up on a year-over-year basis. With companies borrowing relatively less and governments borrowing relatively more, the difference between what companies and the government pay, that so-called spread that we talk so much about – well, we think it can stay lower and more compressed than it otherwise would.

We don't think this necessarily applies to the low ratings such as single B or lower borrowers, where these better balance sheet trends simply aren't as clear. But overall, a divergent trend between corporate and government balance sheets is giving corporate bond investors something additional to celebrate over the weekend.

Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/00lM0UcqCTwychXuWUDXh5/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"24fUuK8sqK9uJM5C12nTfp","uri":"spotify:episode:24fUuK8sqK9uJM5C12nTfp","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/24fUuK8sqK9uJM5C12nTfp","name":"Three Possibilities for What’s Next on Tariffs","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our analysts Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore discuss the upcoming expiration of reciprocal tariffs and the potential impacts for U.S. trade.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, US Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we're talking about the outlook for US trade policy. It's Wednesday, July 2nd at 10:00 AM in New York.We have a big week ahead as next Wednesday marks the expiration of the 90 day pause on reciprocal tariffs. Ariana, what's the setup?Ariana Salvatore: So this is a really key inflection point. That pause that you mentioned was initiated back on April 9th, and unless it's extended, we could see a reposition of tariffs on several of our major trading partners. Our base case is that the administration, broadly speaking, tries to kick the can down the road, meaning that it extends the pause for most countries, though the reality might be closer to a few countries seeing their rates go up while others announce bilateral framework deals between now and next week.But before we get into the key assumptions underlying our base case. Let's talk about the bigger picture. Michael, what do we think the administration is actually trying to accomplish here?Michael Zezas: So when it comes to defining their objectives, we think multiple things can be true at the same time. So the administration's talked about the virtue of tariffs as a negotiating tactic. They've also floated the idea of a tiered framework for global trading partners. Think of it as a ranking system based on trade deficits, non tariff barriers, VAT levels, and any other characteristics that they think are important for the bilateral trade relationship. A lot of this is similar to the rhetoric we saw ahead of the April 2nd \"Liberation Day\" tariffs.Ariana Salvatore: Right, and around that time we started hearing about the potential, at least for bilateral trade deals, but have we seen any real progress in that area?Michael Zezas: Not much, at least not publicly, aside from the UK framework agreement. And here's an important detail, three of our four largest trading partners aren't even scoped for higher rates next week. Mexico and Canada were never subject to the reciprocal tariffs. And China's on a separate track with this Geneva framework that doesn't expire until August 12th. So we're not expecting a sweeping overhaul by Wednesday.Ariana Salvatore: Got it. So what are the scenarios that we're watching?Michael Zezas: So there's roughly three that we're looking at and let me break them down here.So our base case is that the administration extends the current pause, citing progress in bilateral talks, and maybe there's a few exceptions along the way in either direction, some higher and some lower. This broadly resets the countdown clock, but keeps the current tariff structure intact: 10% baseline for most trading partners, though some potentially higher if negotiations don't progress in the next week. That outcome would be most in line, we think, with the current messaging coming out of the administration.There's also a more aggressive path if there's no visible progress. For example, the administration could reimpose tariffs with staggered implementation dates. The EU might face a tougher stance due to the complexity of that relationship and Vietnam could see delayed threats as a negotiating tactic. A strong macro backdrop, resilient data for markets that could all give the administration cover to go this route.But there's also a more constructive outcome. The administration can announce regional or bilateral frameworks, not necessarily full trade deals, but enough to remove the near term threat of higher tariffs, reducing uncertainty, though maybe not to pre-2024 levels.Ariana Salvatore: So wide bands of uncertainty, and it sounds like the more constructive outcome is quite similar to our base case, which is what we have in place right now. But translating that more aggressive path into what that means for the economy, we think it would reinforce our house view that the risks here are skewed to the downside.Our economists estimate that tariffs begin to impact inflation about four months after implementation with the growth effects lagging by about eight months. That sets us up for weak but not quite recessionary growth. We're talking 1% GDP on an annual basis in 2025 and 2026, and the tariff passed through to prices and inflation data probably starting in August.Michael Zezas: So bottom line, watch carefully on Wednesday and be vigilant for changes to the status quo on tariff levels. There's a lot of optionality in how this plays out, as trade policy uncertainty in the aggregate is still high. Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Michael.Michael Zezas: And 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.","duration_ms":284760,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-07-02","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/24fUuK8sqK9uJM5C12nTfp"},"html_description":"

Our analysts Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore discuss the upcoming expiration of reciprocal tariffs and the potential impacts for U.S. trade.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.

Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, US Public Policy Strategist.

Michael Zezas: Today we're talking about the outlook for US trade policy. It's Wednesday, July 2nd at 10:00 AM in New York.

We have a big week ahead as next Wednesday marks the expiration of the 90 day pause on reciprocal tariffs. Ariana, what's the setup?

Ariana Salvatore: So this is a really key inflection point. That pause that you mentioned was initiated back on April 9th, and unless it's extended, we could see a reposition of tariffs on several of our major trading partners. Our base case is that the administration, broadly speaking, tries to kick the can down the road, meaning that it extends the pause for most countries, though the reality might be closer to a few countries seeing their rates go up while others announce bilateral framework deals between now and next week.

But before we get into the key assumptions underlying our base case. Let's talk about the bigger picture. Michael, what do we think the administration is actually trying to accomplish here?

Michael Zezas: So when it comes to defining their objectives, we think multiple things can be true at the same time. So the administration's talked about the virtue of tariffs as a negotiating tactic. They've also floated the idea of a tiered framework for global trading partners. Think of it as a ranking system based on trade deficits, non tariff barriers, VAT levels, and any other characteristics that they think are important for the bilateral trade relationship. A lot of this is similar to the rhetoric we saw ahead of the April 2nd "Liberation Day" tariffs.

Ariana Salvatore: Right, and around that time we started hearing about the potential, at least for bilateral trade deals, but have we seen any real progress in that area?

Michael Zezas: Not much, at least not publicly, aside from the UK framework agreement. And here's an important detail, three of our four largest trading partners aren't even scoped for higher rates next week. Mexico and Canada were never subject to the reciprocal tariffs. And China's on a separate track with this Geneva framework that doesn't expire until August 12th. So we're not expecting a sweeping overhaul by Wednesday.

Ariana Salvatore: Got it. So what are the scenarios that we're watching?

Michael Zezas: So there's roughly three that we're looking at and let me break them down here.

So our base case is that the administration extends the current pause, citing progress in bilateral talks, and maybe there's a few exceptions along the way in either direction, some higher and some lower. This broadly resets the countdown clock, but keeps the current tariff structure intact: 10% baseline for most trading partners, though some potentially higher if negotiations don't progress in the next week. That outcome would be most in line, we think, with the current messaging coming out of the administration.

There's also a more aggressive path if there's no visible progress. For example, the administration could reimpose tariffs with staggered implementation dates. The EU might face a tougher stance due to the complexity of that relationship and Vietnam could see delayed threats as a negotiating tactic. A strong macro backdrop, resilient data for markets that could all give the administration cover to go this route.

But there's also a more constructive outcome. The administration can announce regional or bilateral frameworks, not necessarily full trade deals, but enough to remove the near term threat of higher tariffs, reducing uncertainty, though maybe not to pre-2024 levels.

Ariana Salvatore: So wide bands of uncertainty, and it sounds like the more constructive outcome is quite similar to our base case, which is what we have in place right now. But translating that more aggressive path into what that means for the economy, we think it would reinforce our house view that the risks here are skewed to the downside.

Our economists estimate that tariffs begin to impact inflation about four months after implementation with the growth effects lagging by about eight months. That sets us up for weak but not quite recessionary growth. We're talking 1% GDP on an annual basis in 2025 and 2026, and the tariff passed through to prices and inflation data probably starting in August.

Michael Zezas: So bottom line, watch carefully on Wednesday and be vigilant for changes to the status quo on tariff levels. There's a lot of optionality in how this plays out, as trade policy uncertainty in the aggregate is still high. Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Michael.

Michael Zezas: And 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.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/78fLoOPpHy1PwPVIJ4zEv9/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"1fu2YjlpQRbgMNhqPmJwrR","uri":"spotify:episode:1fu2YjlpQRbgMNhqPmJwrR","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/1fu2YjlpQRbgMNhqPmJwrR","name":"How AI Could Transform the Real Estate Sector","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Ron Kamdem, our U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts & Commercial Real Estate Analyst, discusses how GenAI could save the real estate industry $34 billion and where the savings are most likely to be found.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ron Kamdem, Head of Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Commercial Real Estate research. Today I’ll talk about the ways GenAI is disrupting the real estate industry.It’s Tuesday, July 1st, at 10am in New York.What if the future of real estate isn’t about location, location, location – but automation, automation, automation?While it may be too soon to say exactly how AI will affect demand for real estate, what we can say is that it is transforming the business of real estate, namely by making operations more efficient. If you’re a customer dealing with a real estate company, you can now expect to interact with virtual leasing assistants. And when it comes to drafting your lease documents, AI can help you do this in minutes rather than hours – or even days.In fact, our recent work suggests that GenAI could automate nearly 40 percent of tasks across half a million occupations in the real estate investment trusts industry – or REITs. Indeed, across 162 public REITs and commercial real estate services companies or CRE with $92 billion of total labor costs, the financial impact may be $34 billion, or over 15 percent of operating cash flow. Our proprietary job posting database suggests the top four occupations with automation potential are management – so think about middle management – sales, office and administrative support, and installation maintenance and repairs.Certain sub-sectors within REITs and CRE services stand to gain more than others. For instance, lodging and resorts, along with brokers and services, and healthcare REITs could see more than 15 percent improvement in operating cash flow due to labor automation. On the other hand, sectors like gaming, triple net, self-storage, malls, even shopping centers might see less than a 5 percent benefit, which suggests a varied impact across the industry.Brokers and services, in particular, show the highest potential for automation gains, with nearly 34 percent increase in operating cash flow. These companies may be the furthest along in adopting GenAI tools at scale. In our view, they should benefit not only from the labor cost savings but also from enhanced revenue opportunities through productivity improvement and data center transactions facilitated by GenAI tools.Lodging and resorts have the second highest potential upside from automating occupations, with an estimated 23 percent boost in operating cash flow. The integration of AI in these businesses not only streamline operations but also opens new avenues for return on investments, and mergers and acquisitions.Some companies are already using AI in their operations. For example, some self-storage companies have integrated AI into their digital platforms, where 85 percent of customer interactions now occur through self-selected digital options. As a result, they have reduced on-property labor hours by about 30 percent through AI-powered staffing optimization. Similarly, some apartment companies have reduced their full-time staff by about 15 percent since 2021 through AI-driven customer interactions and operational efficiencies.Meanwhile, this increased application of AI is driving new revenue to AI-enablers. Businesses like data centers, specialty, CRE services could see significant upside from the infrastructure buildout from GenAI. Advanced revenue management systems, customer acquisition tools, predictive analytics are just a few areas where GenAI can add value, potentially enhancing the $290 billion of revenue stream in the REIT and CRE services space.However, the broader economic impact of GenAI on labor markets remains hotly debated. Job growth is the key driver of real estate demand and the impact of AI on the 164 million jobs in the U.S. economy remains to be determined. If significant job losses materialize and the labor force shrinks, then the real estate industry may face top-line pressure with potentially disproportionate impact on office and lodging. While AI-related job losses are legitimate concerns, our economists argue that the productivity effects of GenAI could ultimately lead to net positive job growth, albeit with a significant need for re-skilling.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.","duration_ms":331232,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-07-01","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/1fu2YjlpQRbgMNhqPmJwrR"},"html_description":"

Ron Kamdem, our U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts & Commercial Real Estate Analyst, discusses how GenAI could save the real estate industry $34 billion and where the savings are most likely to be found.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ron Kamdem, Head of Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Commercial Real Estate research. Today I’ll talk about the ways GenAI is disrupting the real estate industry.

It’s Tuesday, July 1st, at 10am in New York.

What if the future of real estate isn’t about location, location, location – but automation, automation, automation?

While it may be too soon to say exactly how AI will affect demand for real estate, what we can say is that it is transforming the business of real estate, namely by making operations more efficient. If you’re a customer dealing with a real estate company, you can now expect to interact with virtual leasing assistants. And when it comes to drafting your lease documents, AI can help you do this in minutes rather than hours – or even days.

In fact, our recent work suggests that GenAI could automate nearly 40 percent of tasks across half a million occupations in the real estate investment trusts industry – or REITs. Indeed, across 162 public REITs and commercial real estate services companies or CRE with $92 billion of total labor costs, the financial impact may be $34 billion, or over 15 percent of operating cash flow. Our proprietary job posting database suggests the top four occupations with automation potential are management – so think about middle management – sales, office and administrative support, and installation maintenance and repairs.

Certain sub-sectors within REITs and CRE services stand to gain more than others. For instance, lodging and resorts, along with brokers and services, and healthcare REITs could see more than 15 percent improvement in operating cash flow due to labor automation. On the other hand, sectors like gaming, triple net, self-storage, malls, even shopping centers might see less than a 5 percent benefit, which suggests a varied impact across the industry.

Brokers and services, in particular, show the highest potential for automation gains, with nearly 34 percent increase in operating cash flow. These companies may be the furthest along in adopting GenAI tools at scale. In our view, they should benefit not only from the labor cost savings but also from enhanced revenue opportunities through productivity improvement and data center transactions facilitated by GenAI tools.

Lodging and resorts have the second highest potential upside from automating occupations, with an estimated 23 percent boost in operating cash flow. The integration of AI in these businesses not only streamline operations but also opens new avenues for return on investments, and mergers and acquisitions.

Some companies are already using AI in their operations. For example, some self-storage companies have integrated AI into their digital platforms, where 85 percent of customer interactions now occur through self-selected digital options. As a result, they have reduced on-property labor hours by about 30 percent through AI-powered staffing optimization. Similarly, some apartment companies have reduced their full-time staff by about 15 percent since 2021 through AI-driven customer interactions and operational efficiencies.

Meanwhile, this increased application of AI is driving new revenue to AI-enablers. Businesses like data centers, specialty, CRE services could see significant upside from the infrastructure buildout from GenAI. Advanced revenue management systems, customer acquisition tools, predictive analytics are just a few areas where GenAI can add value, potentially enhancing the $290 billion of revenue stream in the REIT and CRE services space.

However, the broader economic impact of GenAI on labor markets remains hotly debated. Job growth is the key driver of real estate demand and the impact of AI on the 164 million jobs in the U.S. economy remains to be determined. If significant job losses materialize and the labor force shrinks, then the real estate industry may face top-line pressure with potentially disproportionate impact on office and lodging. While AI-related job losses are legitimate concerns, our economists argue that the productivity effects of GenAI could ultimately lead to net positive job growth, albeit with a significant need for re-skilling.

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.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/4A5RSVBwnqBTTPAPdLhWmg/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"2jnQAl9yxy3RQ6hyANxo1t","uri":"spotify:episode:2jnQAl9yxy3RQ6hyANxo1t","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/2jnQAl9yxy3RQ6hyANxo1t","name":"The U.S. Housing Market Slowdown","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"The U.S. housing market appears to be stuck. Our co-heads of Securitized Product research, Jay Bacow and James Egan, explain how supply and demand, as well as mortgage rates, play a role in the cooling market.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And after getting through last week's blistering hot temperatures, today we're going to talk about what may be a cooling housing market. It's Monday, June 30th at 2:30pm in New York. Now, Jim, home prices. We just got another index. They set another record high, but the pace of growth – the acceleration as a physicist in me wants to say – appears to be slowing. What's going on here?James Egan: The pace of home price growth reported this month was 2.7 percent. That is the lowest that it's been since August of 2023. And in our view, the reason's pretty simple. Supply is increasing, while demand has stalled.Jay Bacow: But Jim, this was a report for the spring selling season. I know we got it in June, but this is supposed to be the busiest time of the year. People are happy to go around. They're looking at moving over the summer when the kids aren't in school. We should be expecting the supply to increase. Are you saying that it's happening more than it's anticipated?James Egan: That is what we're saying. Now, we should be expecting inventories today to be higher than they were in, call it January or February. That's exactly the seasonality that you're referring to. But it's the year-over-year growth we're paying attention to here. Homes listed for sale are up year-over-year, 18 months in a row. And that pace, it's been accelerating. Over the past 40 years, the pace of growth from this past month was only eclipsed one time, the Great Financial Crisis.Jay Bacow: [sighs] I always get a little worried when the housing analyst brings up the Great Financial Crisis. Are you saying that this time the demand isn't responding?James Egan: That is what we're saying. So, through the first five months of this year, existing home sales are only down about 2 percent versus the first five months of 2024. So they've basically kind of plateaued at these levels. But that also means that we're seeing the fewest number of transactions through May in a calendar year since 2009. And that combination of easing inventory and lackluster demand, it's pushed months of supply back to levels that we haven't seen since the beginning of this pandemic. Call it the fourth quarter of 2019, first quarter of 2020, right before inventory has really plummeted to historic lows.Jay Bacow: All right, so 2009, another financial crisis reference. But you're also – you're speaking around a national level, and as a housing analyst, I feel like you haven't really spoken about the three most important factors when we think about things which are: Location. Location. And location.James Egan: Absolutely. And the deceleration that we're seeing in home price growth – and I would point out it is still growth – has been pervasive across the country. Year-over-year, HPA is now decelerating in 100 percent of the top 100 MSAs, for which we have data. In fact, a full quarter of them, 25 percent of these cities are now actually seeing prices decline on a year-over-year basis. And that's up from just 5 percent with declining home prices one year ago.Jay Bacow: As a homeowner, I do like the home price growth. And is it the same story when you look more narrowly around supply and demand?James Egan: So, there might be some geographical nuances, but we do think that it largely boils down to that. Local inventory growth has been a very good indicator of weaker home price performance, particularly the level of for-sale inventory today versus that fourth quarter of 2019. If we look at it on a geographic basis, of 14 MSAs that have the highest level of inventory today compared to 2019, 11 of them are in either Florida or Texas. On the other end of the spectrum, the cities where inventory remains furthest away from where it was four and a half years ago, they're in the Northeast, they're in the Midwest.Jay Bacow: As somebody who lives in the Northeast, I'd like to hear that again. But you're also; you're quoting existing prices, which that's been the outperformer in the housing market. Right?James Egan: Exactly. New home prices have actually been decreasing year-over-year for the past year and a half at this point. It's actually brought the basis between new home prices, which tend to trade at a little bit of a premium to existing sales; it's brought that basis to its tightest level that we've seen in at least 30 years. And that's before we take into account the fact that home builders have been buying down some of these mortgage rates. But Jay, you've recently done some work trying to size this.Jay Bacow: Yeah. First it might help to explain what a buydown is.A home builder might have a new home listed at say, $450,000. And with mortgage rates in the context of about 6.5 percent right now, the home buyer might not be able to afford that, so they offer to pay less. The home builder – often many of them also have an origination arm as well. They'll say, you know what? We'll sell it to you at that $450,000, but we'll give you a lower mortgage rate; instead of 6.5 percent, we'll sell it to you for $450,000 with a 5 percent mortgage rate. Then maybe the home buyer can afford that.James Egan: And so, new home prices are actually coming down. And by that we're specifically referring to the median price of new home transactions. They're falling despite the fact that these buy downs might be influencing prices a little bit higher.Jay Bacow: Right. And when we look at how often this is happening, it's a little actually hard to get it from the data because they don't have to report it. But when we look at the distribution of mortgage rates in a given month – prior to 2022, there were effectively no purchase loans that were originated less than one point below the prevailing mortgage rate for a given month.However, more recently we're up to about 12 percent of Ginnie Mae purchases, and those are the more credit constrained borrowers that might have a harder time buying a home. And about 5 percent of conventional purchase loans are getting originated with a rate 1 percent below the outstanding marketJames Egan: And so, this might be another sign that we're seeing a little bit of softening in home prices. But what are the implications on the agency mortgage side?Jay Bacow: I would say there's probably two things that we're keeping an eye out on. Because these are homeowners that are getting below market rate, the investors are getting a below market coupon. And because they're getting sold at a discount, they don't want that, but they're going to stay around for a while. So, investors are getting these rates that they don't want for longer.And then the other thing you think about from the home buyer perspective is, you know, maybe they – it's good for them right now. But if they want to sell that home, because they're getting a below market mortgage rate, they bought the home for maybe more than other people would've. So, unless they can sell it with that mortgage attached, which is very difficult to do, they probably have to sell it for a lower price than when they bought it.Now Jim, what does all this mean for home prices going forward?James Egan: Now, when we think about home prices, we're talking about the home price indices, right? And so those are going to be repeat sales. It’s going to, by definition, look at existing prices and not necessarily the dynamics we're talking in the new home price market.Jay Bacow: Okay, so all this builder buy down stuff is interesting for what it means for new home prices – but doesn't impact all the HPA indices that you reference.James Egan: Exactly, and at the national level, despite what we've been talking about on this podcast, we do think that home prices remain more supported than what we are seeing locally. Inventory is increasing, but it also remains near historically low levels. Months of supply that I mentioned at the top of this podcast, it's picked up to the highest level it's been since the beginning of this pandemic. We're also talking about four to four and a half months of supply. Anything below six is a tight environment that has been historically associated with home prices continuing to climb.That's why our base case is for positive HPA this year. We're at +2 percent. That's slower than where we are now. We think you're going to continue to see deceleration. And because of what we're seeing from a supply and demand perspective, we are a little bit more skewed to the downside in our bear case. Instead of that +2, we're at -3 percent than we are towards the upside in our bull case. Instead of that plus two, we’re at plus 5 percent in the bull case. So slower HPA from here, but still positive.Jay Bacow: Well, Jim, it's always a pleasure talking to you, particularly when you're highlighting that the home price growth is going to be stronger in the place where I own a home.James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to all of you listening, thank you for listening to another episode of Thoughts on the Market. Please leave a review or a like wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.","duration_ms":484963,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-30","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/2jnQAl9yxy3RQ6hyANxo1t"},"html_description":"

The U.S. housing market appears to be stuck. Our co-heads of Securitized Product research, Jay Bacow and James Egan, explain how supply and demand, as well as mortgage rates, play a role in the cooling market.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.

Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And after getting through last week's blistering hot temperatures, today we're going to talk about what may be a cooling housing market.

It's Monday, June 30th at 2:30pm in New York.

Now, Jim, home prices. We just got another index. They set another record high, but the pace of growth – the acceleration as a physicist in me wants to say – appears to be slowing. What's going on here?

James Egan: The pace of home price growth reported this month was 2.7 percent. That is the lowest that it's been since August of 2023. And in our view, the reason's pretty simple. Supply is increasing, while demand has stalled.

Jay Bacow: But Jim, this was a report for the spring selling season. I know we got it in June, but this is supposed to be the busiest time of the year. People are happy to go around. They're looking at moving over the summer when the kids aren't in school. We should be expecting the supply to increase. Are you saying that it's happening more than it's anticipated?

James Egan: That is what we're saying. Now, we should be expecting inventories today to be higher than they were in, call it January or February. That's exactly the seasonality that you're referring to. But it's the year-over-year growth we're paying attention to here. Homes listed for sale are up year-over-year, 18 months in a row. And that pace, it's been accelerating. Over the past 40 years, the pace of growth from this past month was only eclipsed one time, the Great Financial Crisis.

Jay Bacow: [sighs] I always get a little worried when the housing analyst brings up the Great Financial Crisis. Are you saying that this time the demand isn't responding?

James Egan: That is what we're saying. So, through the first five months of this year, existing home sales are only down about 2 percent versus the first five months of 2024. So they've basically kind of plateaued at these levels. But that also means that we're seeing the fewest number of transactions through May in a calendar year since 2009. And that combination of easing inventory and lackluster demand, it's pushed months of supply back to levels that we haven't seen since the beginning of this pandemic. Call it the fourth quarter of 2019, first quarter of 2020, right before inventory has really plummeted to historic lows.

Jay Bacow: All right, so 2009, another financial crisis reference. But you're also – you're speaking around a national level, and as a housing analyst, I feel like you haven't really spoken about the three most important factors when we think about things which are: Location. Location. And location.

James Egan: Absolutely. And the deceleration that we're seeing in home price growth – and I would point out it is still growth – has been pervasive across the country. Year-over-year, HPA is now decelerating in 100 percent of the top 100 MSAs, for which we have data. In fact, a full quarter of them, 25 percent of these cities are now actually seeing prices decline on a year-over-year basis. And that's up from just 5 percent with declining home prices one year ago.

Jay Bacow: As a homeowner, I do like the home price growth. And is it the same story when you look more narrowly around supply and demand?

James Egan: So, there might be some geographical nuances, but we do think that it largely boils down to that. Local inventory growth has been a very good indicator of weaker home price performance, particularly the level of for-sale inventory today versus that fourth quarter of 2019. If we look at it on a geographic basis, of 14 MSAs that have the highest level of inventory today compared to 2019, 11 of them are in either Florida or Texas. On the other end of the spectrum, the cities where inventory remains furthest away from where it was four and a half years ago, they're in the Northeast, they're in the Midwest.

Jay Bacow: As somebody who lives in the Northeast, I'd like to hear that again. But you're also; you're quoting existing prices, which that's been the outperformer in the housing market. Right?

James Egan: Exactly. New home prices have actually been decreasing year-over-year for the past year and a half at this point. It's actually brought the basis between new home prices, which tend to trade at a little bit of a premium to existing sales; it's brought that basis to its tightest level that we've seen in at least 30 years. And that's before we take into account the fact that home builders have been buying down some of these mortgage rates. But Jay, you've recently done some work trying to size this.

Jay Bacow: Yeah. First it might help to explain what a buydown is.

A home builder might have a new home listed at say, $450,000. And with mortgage rates in the context of about 6.5 percent right now, the home buyer might not be able to afford that, so they offer to pay less. The home builder – often many of them also have an origination arm as well. They'll say, you know what? We'll sell it to you at that $450,000, but we'll give you a lower mortgage rate; instead of 6.5 percent, we'll sell it to you for $450,000 with a 5 percent mortgage rate. Then maybe the home buyer can afford that.

James Egan: And so, new home prices are actually coming down. And by that we're specifically referring to the median price of new home transactions. They're falling despite the fact that these buy downs might be influencing prices a little bit higher.

Jay Bacow: Right. And when we look at how often this is happening, it's a little actually hard to get it from the data because they don't have to report it. But when we look at the distribution of mortgage rates in a given month – prior to 2022, there were effectively no purchase loans that were originated less than one point below the prevailing mortgage rate for a given month.

However, more recently we're up to about 12 percent of Ginnie Mae purchases, and those are the more credit constrained borrowers that might have a harder time buying a home. And about 5 percent of conventional purchase loans are getting originated with a rate 1 percent below the outstanding market

James Egan: And so, this might be another sign that we're seeing a little bit of softening in home prices. But what are the implications on the agency mortgage side?

Jay Bacow: I would say there's probably two things that we're keeping an eye out on. Because these are homeowners that are getting below market rate, the investors are getting a below market coupon. And because they're getting sold at a discount, they don't want that, but they're going to stay around for a while. So, investors are getting these rates that they don't want for longer.

And then the other thing you think about from the home buyer perspective is, you know, maybe they – it's good for them right now. But if they want to sell that home, because they're getting a below market mortgage rate, they bought the home for maybe more than other people would've. So, unless they can sell it with that mortgage attached, which is very difficult to do, they probably have to sell it for a lower price than when they bought it.

Now Jim, what does all this mean for home prices going forward?

James Egan: Now, when we think about home prices, we're talking about the home price indices, right? And so those are going to be repeat sales. It’s going to, by definition, look at existing prices and not necessarily the dynamics we're talking in the new home price market.

Jay Bacow: Okay, so all this builder buy down stuff is interesting for what it means for new home prices – but doesn't impact all the HPA indices that you reference.

James Egan: Exactly, and at the national level, despite what we've been talking about on this podcast, we do think that home prices remain more supported than what we are seeing locally. Inventory is increasing, but it also remains near historically low levels. Months of supply that I mentioned at the top of this podcast, it's picked up to the highest level it's been since the beginning of this pandemic. We're also talking about four to four and a half months of supply. Anything below six is a tight environment that has been historically associated with home prices continuing to climb.

That's why our base case is for positive HPA this year. We're at +2 percent. That's slower than where we are now. We think you're going to continue to see deceleration. And because of what we're seeing from a supply and demand perspective, we are a little bit more skewed to the downside in our bear case. Instead of that +2, we're at -3 percent than we are towards the upside in our bull case. Instead of that plus two, we’re at plus 5 percent in the bull case. So slower HPA from here, but still positive.

Jay Bacow: Well, Jim, it's always a pleasure talking to you, particularly when you're highlighting that the home price growth is going to be stronger in the place where I own a home.

James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to all of you listening, thank you for listening to another episode of Thoughts on the Market. Please leave a review or a like wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/7BwXtVT4v5PmjyKYcjKpvU/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"2VKovN1yih8qWdGVgPJ8BH","uri":"spotify:episode:2VKovN1yih8qWdGVgPJ8BH","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/2VKovN1yih8qWdGVgPJ8BH","name":"Watching the Canary in the Coalmine","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Stock tickers may not immediately price in uncertainty during times of geopolitical volatility. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets suggests a different indicator to watch.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about how we're trying to simplify the complicated questions of recent geopolitical events.It's Friday, June 27th at 2pm in London.Recent U.S. airstrikes against Iran and the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel have dominated the headlines. The situation is complicated, uncertain, and ever changing. From the time that this episode is recorded to when you listen to it, conditions may very well have changed again.Geopolitical events such as this one often have a serious human, social and financial cost, but they do not consistently have an impact on markets. As analysis by my colleague, Michael Wilson and his team have shown, over a number of key geopolitical events over the last 30 years, the impact on the S&P 500 has often been either fleeting or somewhat non-existent. Other factors, in short, dominate markets.So how to deal with this conundrum? How to take current events seriously while respecting that historical precedent that they often can have more limited market impact? How to make a forecast when quite simply few investors feel like they have an edge in predicting where these events will go next?In our view, the best way to simplify the market's response is to watch oil prices. Oil remains an important input to the world economy, where changes in price are felt quickly by businesses and consumers.So when we look back at past geopolitical events that did move markets in a more sustained way, a large increase in oil prices often meaning a rise of more than 75 percent year-over-year was often part of the story. Such a rise in such an important economic input in such a short period of time increases the risk of recession; something that credit markets and many other markets need to care about. So how can we apply this today?Well, for all the seriousness and severity of the current conflict, oil prices are actually down about 20 percent relative to a year ago. This simply puts current conditions in a very different category than those other periods be they the 1970s or more recently, Russia's invasion of Ukraine that represented genuine oil price shocks. Why is oil down? Well, as my colleague Martin Rats referred to on an earlier episode of this program, oil markets do have very healthy levels of supply, which is helping to cushion these shocks.With oil prices actually lower than a year ago, we think the credit will focus on other things. To the positive, we see an alignment of a few short-term positive factors, specifically a pretty good balance of supply and demand in the credit market, low realized volatility, and a historically good window in the very near term for performance. Indeed, over the last 15 years, July has represented the best month of the year for returns in both investment grade and high yield credit in both the U.S. and in Europe.And what could disrupt this? Well, a significant spike in oil prices could be one culprit, but we think a more likely catalyst is a shift of those favorable conditions, which could happen from August and beyond. From here, Morgan Stanley economists’ forecasts see a worsening mix of growth in inflation in the U.S., while seasonal return patterns to flip from good to bad.In the meantime, however, we will keep watching oil.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today. ","duration_ms":240692,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-27","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/2VKovN1yih8qWdGVgPJ8BH"},"html_description":"

Stock tickers may not immediately price in uncertainty during times of geopolitical volatility. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets suggests a different indicator to watch.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Today I'm going to talk about how we're trying to simplify the complicated questions of recent geopolitical events.

It's Friday, June 27th at 2pm in London.

Recent U.S. airstrikes against Iran and the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel have dominated the headlines. The situation is complicated, uncertain, and ever changing. From the time that this episode is recorded to when you listen to it, conditions may very well have changed again.

Geopolitical events such as this one often have a serious human, social and financial cost, but they do not consistently have an impact on markets. As analysis by my colleague, Michael Wilson and his team have shown, over a number of key geopolitical events over the last 30 years, the impact on the S&P 500 has often been either fleeting or somewhat non-existent. Other factors, in short, dominate markets.

So how to deal with this conundrum? How to take current events seriously while respecting that historical precedent that they often can have more limited market impact? How to make a forecast when quite simply few investors feel like they have an edge in predicting where these events will go next?

In our view, the best way to simplify the market's response is to watch oil prices. Oil remains an important input to the world economy, where changes in price are felt quickly by businesses and consumers.

So when we look back at past geopolitical events that did move markets in a more sustained way, a large increase in oil prices often meaning a rise of more than 75 percent year-over-year was often part of the story. Such a rise in such an important economic input in such a short period of time increases the risk of recession; something that credit markets and many other markets need to care about. So how can we apply this today?

Well, for all the seriousness and severity of the current conflict, oil prices are actually down about 20 percent relative to a year ago. This simply puts current conditions in a very different category than those other periods be they the 1970s or more recently, Russia's invasion of Ukraine that represented genuine oil price shocks. Why is oil down? Well, as my colleague Martin Rats referred to on an earlier episode of this program, oil markets do have very healthy levels of supply, which is helping to cushion these shocks.

With oil prices actually lower than a year ago, we think the credit will focus on other things. To the positive, we see an alignment of a few short-term positive factors, specifically a pretty good balance of supply and demand in the credit market, low realized volatility, and a historically good window in the very near term for performance. Indeed, over the last 15 years, July has represented the best month of the year for returns in both investment grade and high yield credit in both the U.S. and in Europe.

And what could disrupt this? Well, a significant spike in oil prices could be one culprit, but we think a more likely catalyst is a shift of those favorable conditions, which could happen from August and beyond. From here, Morgan Stanley economists’ forecasts see a worsening mix of growth in inflation in the U.S., while seasonal return patterns to flip from good to bad.

In the meantime, however, we will keep watching oil.

Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/3zaIirUDVqtEXYLYuP1w1f/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"6yL6jzSC5JsfDfqGGo6zjn","uri":"spotify:episode:6yL6jzSC5JsfDfqGGo6zjn","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/6yL6jzSC5JsfDfqGGo6zjn","name":"Why the Fed Will Cut Late, But Cut More","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matt Hornbach and U.S. Economist Michael Gapen assess the Fed’s path forward in light of inflation and a weaker economy, and the likely market outcomes.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Matt Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matt Hornbach: Today we're discussing the outcome of the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting and our expectations for rates, inflation, and the U.S. dollar from here. It's Thursday, June 26th at 10am in New York. Matt Hornbach: Mike, the Federal Reserve decided to hold the federal funds rate steady, remaining within its target range of 4.25 to 4.5 percent. It still anticipates two rate cuts by the end of 2025; but participants adjusted their projections further out suggesting fewer cuts in 2026 and 2027. You, on the other hand, continue to think the Fed will stay on hold for the rest of this year, with a lot of cuts to follow in 2026. What specifically is behind your view, and are there any underappreciated dynamics here? Michael Gapen: So, we've been highlighting three reasons why we think the Fed will cut late but cut more. The first is tariffs introduce differential timing effects on the economy. They tend to push inflation higher in the near term and they weaken consumer spending with a lag. If tariffs act as a tax on consumption, that tax is applied by pushing prices higher – and then only subsequently do consumers spend less because they have less real income to spend. So, we think the Fed will be seeing more inflation first before it sees the weaker labor market later. The second part of our story is immigration. Immigration controls mean it's likely to be much harder to push the unemployment rate higher. That's because when we go from about 3 million immigrants per year down to about 300,000 – that means much lower growth in the labor force. So even if the economy does slow and labor demand moderates, the unemployment rate is likely to remain low. So again, that's similar to the tariff story where the Fed's likely to see more inflation now before it sees a weaker labor market later. And third, we don't really expect a big impulse from fiscal policy. The bill that's passed the house and is sitting in the Senate, we’ll see where that ultimately ends up. But the details that we have in hand today about those bills don't lead us to believe that we'll have a big impulse or a big boost to growth from fiscal policy next year. So, in total the Fed will see a lot of inflation in the near term and a weaker economy as we move into 2026. So, the Fed will be waiting to ensure that that inflation impulse is indeed transitory, but a Fed that cuts late will ultimately end up cutting more. So we don't have rate hikes this year, Matt, as you noted. But we do have 175 basis points in rate cuts next year. Matt Hornbach: So, Mike, looking through the transcript of the press conference, the word tariffs was used almost 30 times. What does the Fed's messaging say to you about its expectations around tariffs? Michael Gapen: Yeah, so it does look like in this meeting, participants did take a stand that tariffs were going to be higher, and they likely proceeded under the assumption of about a 14 percent effective tariff rate. So, I think you can see three imprints that tariffs have on their forecast.First, they're saying that inflation moves higher, and in the press conference Powell said explicitly that the Fed thinks inflation will be moving higher over the summer months. And they revised their headline and core PCE forecast higher to about 3 percent and 3.1 percent – significant upward revisions from where they had things earlier in the year in March before tariffs became clear. The second component here is the Fed thinks any inflation story will be transitory. Famous last words, of course. But the Fed forecast that inflation will fall back towards the 2 percent target in 2026 and 2027; so near-term impulse that fades over time. And third, the Fed sees tariffs as slowing economic growth. The Fed revised lower its outlook for growth in real GDP this year. So, in some [way], by incorporating tariffs and putting such a significant imprint on the forecast, the Fed's outlook has actually moved more in the direction of our own forecast. Matt Hornbach: I'd like to stay on the topic of geopolitics. In contrast to the word tariffs, the words Middle East only was mentioned three times during the press conference. With the weekend events there, investor concerns are growing about a spike in oil prices. How do you think the Fed will think about any supply-driven rise in energy, commodity prices here? Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think the Fed will view this as another element that suggests slower growth and stickier inflation. I think it will reinforce the Fed's view of what tariffs and immigration controls do to the outlook. Because historically when we look at shocks to oil prices in the U.S.; if you get about a 10 percent rise in oil prices from here, like another $10 increase in oil prices; history would suggest that will move headline inflation higher because it gets passed directly into retail gasoline prices. So maybe a 30 to 40 basis point increase in a year-on-year rate of inflation. But the evidence also suggests very limited second round effects, and almost no change in core inflation. So, you get a boost to headline inflation, but no persistence elements – very similar to what the Fed thinks tariffs will do. And of course, the higher cost of gasoline will eat into consumer purchasing power. So, on that, I think it's another force that suggests a slower growth, stickier inflation outlook is likely to prevail.Okay Matt, you've had me on the hot seat. Now it's your turn. How do you think about the market pricing of the Fed's policy path from here? It certainly seems to conflict with how I'm thinking about the most likely path. Matt Hornbach: So, when we look at market prices, we have to remember that they are representing an average path across all various paths that different investors might think are more likely than not. So, the market price today, has about 100 basis points of cuts by the end of 2026. That contrasts both with your path in terms of magnitude. You are forecasting 175 basis points of rate cuts; the market is only pricing in 100. But also, the market pricing contrasts with your policy path in that the market does have some rate cuts in the price for this year, whereas your most likely path does not. So that's how I look at the market price. You know, the question then becomes, where does it go to from here? And that's something that we ultimately are incorporating into our forecasts for the level of Treasury yields. Michael Gapen: Right. So, turning to that, so moving a little further out the curve into those longer dated Treasury yields. What do you think about those? Your forecast suggests lower yields over the next year and a half. When do you think that process starts to play out? Matt Hornbach: So, in our projections, we have Treasury yields moving lower, really beginning in the fourth quarter of this year. And that is to align with the timing of when you see the Fed beginning to lower rates, which is in the first quarter of next year. So, market prices tend to get ahead of different policy actions, and we expect that to remain the case this year as well. As we approach the end of the year, we are expecting Treasury yields to begin falling more precipitously than they have over recent months. But what are the risks around that projection? In our view, the risks are that this process starts earlier rather than later. In other words, where we have most conviction in our projections is in the direction of travel for Treasury yields as opposed to the timing of exactly when they begin to fall. So, we are recommending that investors begin gearing up for lower Treasury yields even today. But in our projections, you'll see our numbers really begin to fall in the fourth quarter of the year, such that the 10-year Treasury yield ends this year around 4 percent, and it ends 2026 closer to 3 percent. Michael Gapen: And these days it's really impossible to talk about movements in Treasury yields without thinking about the U.S. dollar. So how are you thinking about the dollar amidst the conflict in the Middle East and your outlook for Treasury yields? Matt Hornbach: So, we are projecting the U.S. dollar will depreciate another 10 percent over the next 12 to 18 months. That's coming on the back of a pretty dramatic decline in the value of the dollar in the first six months of this year, where it also declined by about 10 percent in terms of its value against other currencies. So, we are expecting a continued depreciation, and the conflict in the Middle East and what it may end up doing to the energy complex is a key risk to our view that the dollar will continue to depreciate, if we end up seeing a dramatic rise in crude oil prices. That rise would end up benefiting countries, and the currencies of those countries who are net exporters of oil; and may end up hurting the countries and the currencies of the countries that are net importers of oil. The good news is that the United States doesn't really import a lot of oil these days, but neither is it a large net exporter either.So, the U.S. in some sense turns out to be a bit of a neutral party in this particular issue. But if we see a rise in energy prices that could benefit other currencies more than it benefits the U.S. dollar. And therefore, we could see a temporary reprieve in the dollar’s depreciation, which would then push our forecast perhaps a little bit further into the future. So, with that, Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michael Gapen: It's great speaking with you, Matt. Matt Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.","duration_ms":674690,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-26","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/6yL6jzSC5JsfDfqGGo6zjn"},"html_description":"

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matt Hornbach and U.S. Economist Michael Gapen assess the Fed’s path forward in light of inflation and a weaker economy, and the likely market outcomes.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Matt Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.

Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.

Matt Hornbach: Today we're discussing the outcome of the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting and our expectations for rates, inflation, and the U.S. dollar from here.

It's Thursday, June 26th at 10am in New York.

Matt Hornbach: Mike, the Federal Reserve decided to hold the federal funds rate steady, remaining within its target range of 4.25 to 4.5 percent. It still anticipates two rate cuts by the end of 2025; but participants adjusted their projections further out suggesting fewer cuts in 2026 and 2027.

You, on the other hand, continue to think the Fed will stay on hold for the rest of this year, with a lot of cuts to follow in 2026. What specifically is behind your view, and are there any underappreciated dynamics here?

Michael Gapen: So, we've been highlighting three reasons why we think the Fed will cut late but cut more. The first is tariffs introduce differential timing effects on the economy. They tend to push inflation higher in the near term and they weaken consumer spending with a lag. If tariffs act as a tax on consumption, that tax is applied by pushing prices higher – and then only subsequently do consumers spend less because they have less real income to spend. So, we think the Fed will be seeing more inflation first before it sees the weaker labor market later.

The second part of our story is immigration. Immigration controls mean it's likely to be much harder to push the unemployment rate higher. That's because when we go from about 3 million immigrants per year down to about 300,000 – that means much lower growth in the labor force. So even if the economy does slow and labor demand moderates, the unemployment rate is likely to remain low. So again, that's similar to the tariff story where the Fed's likely to see more inflation now before it sees a weaker labor market later.

And third, we don't really expect a big impulse from fiscal policy. The bill that's passed the house and is sitting in the Senate, we’ll see where that ultimately ends up. But the details that we have in hand today about those bills don't lead us to believe that we'll have a big impulse or a big boost to growth from fiscal policy next year.

So, in total the Fed will see a lot of inflation in the near term and a weaker economy as we move into 2026. So, the Fed will be waiting to ensure that that inflation impulse is indeed transitory, but a Fed that cuts late will ultimately end up cutting more.

So we don't have rate hikes this year, Matt, as you noted. But we do have 175 basis points in rate cuts next year.

Matt Hornbach: So, Mike, looking through the transcript of the press conference, the word tariffs was used almost 30 times. What does the Fed's messaging say to you about its expectations around tariffs?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, so it does look like in this meeting, participants did take a stand that tariffs were going to be higher, and they likely proceeded under the assumption of about a 14 percent effective tariff rate. So, I think you can see three imprints that tariffs have on their forecast.

First, they're saying that inflation moves higher, and in the press conference Powell said explicitly that the Fed thinks inflation will be moving higher over the summer months. And they revised their headline and core PCE forecast higher to about 3 percent and 3.1 percent – significant upward revisions from where they had things earlier in the year in March before tariffs became clear. The second component here is the Fed thinks any inflation story will be transitory. Famous last words, of course. But the Fed forecast that inflation will fall back towards the 2 percent target in 2026 and 2027; so near-term impulse that fades over time. And third, the Fed sees tariffs as slowing economic growth. The Fed revised lower its outlook for growth in real GDP this year. So, in some [way], by incorporating tariffs and putting such a significant imprint on the forecast, the Fed's outlook has actually moved more in the direction of our own forecast.

Matt Hornbach: I'd like to stay on the topic of geopolitics. In contrast to the word tariffs, the words Middle East only was mentioned three times during the press conference. With the weekend events there, investor concerns are growing about a spike in oil prices. How do you think the Fed will think about any supply-driven rise in energy, commodity prices here?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think the Fed will view this as another element that suggests slower growth and stickier inflation. I think it will reinforce the Fed's view of what tariffs and immigration controls do to the outlook. Because historically when we look at shocks to oil prices in the U.S.; if you get about a 10 percent rise in oil prices from here, like another $10 increase in oil prices; history would suggest that will move headline inflation higher because it gets passed directly into retail gasoline prices. So maybe a 30 to 40 basis point increase in a year-on-year rate of inflation. But the evidence also suggests very limited second round effects, and almost no change in core inflation.

So, you get a boost to headline inflation, but no persistence elements – very similar to what the Fed thinks tariffs will do. And of course, the higher cost of gasoline will eat into consumer purchasing power. So, on that, I think it's another force that suggests a slower growth, stickier inflation outlook is likely to prevail.

Okay Matt, you've had me on the hot seat. Now it's your turn. How do you think about the market pricing of the Fed's policy path from here? It certainly seems to conflict with how I'm thinking about the most likely path.

Matt Hornbach: So, when we look at market prices, we have to remember that they are representing an average path across all various paths that different investors might think are more likely than not. So, the market price today, has about 100 basis points of cuts by the end of 2026. That contrasts both with your path in terms of magnitude. You are forecasting 175 basis points of rate cuts; the market is only pricing in 100. But also, the market pricing contrasts with your policy path in that the market does have some rate cuts in the price for this year, whereas your most likely path does not.

So that's how I look at the market price. You know, the question then becomes, where does it go to from here? And that's something that we ultimately are incorporating into our forecasts for the level of Treasury yields.

Michael Gapen: Right. So, turning to that, so moving a little further out the curve into those longer dated Treasury yields. What do you think about those? Your forecast suggests lower yields over the next year and a half. When do you think that process starts to play out?

Matt Hornbach: So, in our projections, we have Treasury yields moving lower, really beginning in the fourth quarter of this year. And that is to align with the timing of when you see the Fed beginning to lower rates, which is in the first quarter of next year. So, market prices tend to get ahead of different policy actions, and we expect that to remain the case this year as well. As we approach the end of the year, we are expecting Treasury yields to begin falling more precipitously than they have over recent months.

But what are the risks around that projection? In our view, the risks are that this process starts earlier rather than later. In other words, where we have most conviction in our projections is in the direction of travel for Treasury yields as opposed to the timing of exactly when they begin to fall. So, we are recommending that investors begin gearing up for lower Treasury yields even today. But in our projections, you'll see our numbers really begin to fall in the fourth quarter of the year, such that the 10-year Treasury yield ends this year around 4 percent, and it ends 2026 closer to 3 percent.

Michael Gapen: And these days it's really impossible to talk about movements in Treasury yields without thinking about the U.S. dollar. So how are you thinking about the dollar amidst the conflict in the Middle East and your outlook for Treasury yields?

Matt Hornbach: So, we are projecting the U.S. dollar will depreciate another 10 percent over the next 12 to 18 months. That's coming on the back of a pretty dramatic decline in the value of the dollar in the first six months of this year, where it also declined by about 10 percent in terms of its value against other currencies.

So, we are expecting a continued depreciation, and the conflict in the Middle East and what it may end up doing to the energy complex is a key risk to our view that the dollar will continue to depreciate, if we end up seeing a dramatic rise in crude oil prices. That rise would end up benefiting countries, and the currencies of those countries who are net exporters of oil; and may end up hurting the countries and the currencies of the countries that are net importers of oil. The good news is that the United States doesn't really import a lot of oil these days, but neither is it a large net exporter either.

So, the U.S. in some sense turns out to be a bit of a neutral party in this particular issue. But if we see a rise in energy prices that could benefit other currencies more than it benefits the U.S. dollar. And therefore, we could see a temporary reprieve in the dollar’s depreciation, which would then push our forecast perhaps a little bit further into the future.

So, with that, Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Michael Gapen: It's great speaking with you, Matt.

Matt Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/7eyAvFW7MK5c3NkPJV55Uo/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"1DpZUS0o4Pg3RmdV0v3Uru","uri":"spotify:episode:1DpZUS0o4Pg3RmdV0v3Uru","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/1DpZUS0o4Pg3RmdV0v3Uru","name":"Humanoids’ Insatiable Hunger for Minerals","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our Australia Materials Analyst Rahul Anand discusses why critical minerals may be the Achilles’ heel of humanoids as demand significantly outpaces supply amid geopolitical uncertainties.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Rahul Anand: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rahul Anand, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Australia Materials Research team.Today, I'll dig deeper into one of the vital necessities for the development of robotics – critical minerals – and why they're so vital to be front of mind for the Western world today. It's Wednesday, June 25th at 8am in Sydney, Australia. Humanoid robots will soon become an integral part of our daily lives. A few weeks ago, you heard my colleagues Adam Jonas and Sheng Zhong discuss how humanoids are going to transform the economy and markets. Morgan Stanley Research expects this market to reach more than a billion units by 2050 and generate almost [$] 5 trillion in annual revenue. When we think about that market, and we think about what it could do for critical minerals demand, that could skyrocket. And the key areas of critical minerals demand would basically be focused on rare earths, lithium and graphite. Each one of these complex machines is going to require about a kilo of rare earths, 2 kgs of lithium, 6.5 kgs kilos of copper, 1.5 kgs of nickel, 3 kgs of graphite, and about 200 grams of cobalt. Importantly, this market from a cumulative standpoint by the year 2050, could be to the tune of about $800 billion U.S., which is staggering.And beyond that market size of $800 billion U.S., I think it's important to drill a bit deeper – because if we now consider how these markets are dominated currently, comes the China angle. And China currently dominates 88 percent of rare earth supply, 93 percent of graphite supply and 75 percent of refined lithium supply. China recently placed controls on seven heavy rare earths and permanent magnet exports in response to tariff announcements that were made by the U.S., and a comprehensive deal there is still awaited. It's very important that we have to think about diversification today, not just because these critical minerals are so heavily dominated by China. But more importantly, if we think about how the supply chain comes about, it's now taking circa 18 years to get a new mine online, and that's the statistic for the past five years of mines that came online. That number is up nearly 50 percent from last decade, and that's been driven basically by very long approval processes now in the Western world, alongside very long exploration times that are required to get some of these mines up and running. On top of that, when we think about the supply demand balance, by 2040 we're expecting that the NdPr, or the rare earth, market would be in a 26 percent deficit. Lithium could be in a deficit close to 80 percent. So, it's not just about supply security. It's also about how long it will take to bring these mines on. And on top of that, how big the amount of supply that's required is really going to be. I know when you think about 2040, it sounds very long dated, but it's important to understand that we have to act now. And in this humanoid piece of research that we have done as the global materials team, which was led by the Australian materials team, we basically have provided 34 global stocks to play this thematic in the rare earths, lithium and rare earth magnet space. It's also very important to remember and keep front of mind that as part of the London negotiations that happened between U.S. and China, no agreement was reached on critical military use rare earth magnets and exports. Now that's an important point because that's going to play as a key point of leverage in any future trade deal that comes about between the two countries. This remains an evolving situation, and this is something that we are going to continue monitoring and will bring you the latest on as time progresses.Look, 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.","duration_ms":270288,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-25","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/1DpZUS0o4Pg3RmdV0v3Uru"},"html_description":"

Our Australia Materials Analyst Rahul Anand discusses why critical minerals may be the Achilles’ heel of humanoids as demand significantly outpaces supply amid geopolitical uncertainties.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Rahul Anand: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rahul Anand, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Australia Materials Research team.

Today, I'll dig deeper into one of the vital necessities for the development of robotics – critical minerals – and why they're so vital to be front of mind for the Western world today.

It's Wednesday, June 25th at 8am in Sydney, Australia.

Humanoid robots will soon become an integral part of our daily lives. A few weeks ago, you heard my colleagues Adam Jonas and Sheng Zhong discuss how humanoids are going to transform the economy and markets. Morgan Stanley Research expects this market to reach more than a billion units by 2050 and generate almost [$] 5 trillion in annual revenue.

When we think about that market, and we think about what it could do for critical minerals demand, that could skyrocket. And the key areas of critical minerals demand would basically be focused on rare earths, lithium and graphite.

Each one of these complex machines is going to require about a kilo of rare earths, 2 kgs of lithium, 6.5 kgs kilos of copper, 1.5 kgs of nickel, 3 kgs of graphite, and about 200 grams of cobalt. Importantly, this market from a cumulative standpoint by the year 2050, could be to the tune of about $800 billion U.S., which is staggering.

And beyond that market size of $800 billion U.S., I think it's important to drill a bit deeper – because if we now consider how these markets are dominated currently, comes the China angle. And China currently dominates 88 percent of rare earth supply, 93 percent of graphite supply and 75 percent of refined lithium supply. China recently placed controls on seven heavy rare earths and permanent magnet exports in response to tariff announcements that were made by the U.S., and a comprehensive deal there is still awaited.

It's very important that we have to think about diversification today, not just because these critical minerals are so heavily dominated by China. But more importantly, if we think about how the supply chain comes about, it's now taking circa 18 years to get a new mine online, and that's the statistic for the past five years of mines that came online. That number is up nearly 50 percent from last decade, and that's been driven basically by very long approval processes now in the Western world, alongside very long exploration times that are required to get some of these mines up and running.

On top of that, when we think about the supply demand balance, by 2040 we're expecting that the NdPr, or the rare earth, market would be in a 26 percent deficit. Lithium could be in a deficit close to 80 percent. So, it's not just about supply security. It's also about how long it will take to bring these mines on. And on top of that, how big the amount of supply that's required is really going to be.

I know when you think about 2040, it sounds very long dated, but it's important to understand that we have to act now. And in this humanoid piece of research that we have done as the global materials team, which was led by the Australian materials team, we basically have provided 34 global stocks to play this thematic in the rare earths, lithium and rare earth magnet space.

It's also very important to remember and keep front of mind that as part of the London negotiations that happened between U.S. and China, no agreement was reached on critical military use rare earth magnets and exports. Now that's an important point because that's going to play as a key point of leverage in any future trade deal that comes about between the two countries.

This remains an evolving situation, and this is something that we are going to continue monitoring and will bring you the latest on as time progresses.

Look, 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.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/2DIXYmJczI4cIo8xepoQnN/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"5FmfYOEh5hQCnG510HfuoO","uri":"spotify:episode:5FmfYOEh5hQCnG510HfuoO","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/5FmfYOEh5hQCnG510HfuoO","name":"India Outperforms with High Growth and Low Volatility","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Equity Strategist Jonathan Garner explains why Indian equities are our most preferred market in Asia.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Equity Strategist. Today I’ll discuss why we remain positive on India’s long-term equity story.It’s Tuesday, the 24th of June at 9am in Singapore.We’ve had a long-standing bullish outlook on the India economy and its stock market. In the last five years MSCI India has delivered a total return in U.S. dollars of 145 percent versus 94 percent for global equities and just 39 percent for emerging markets. Indian equities are our most preferred market within Asia for three key reasons. First, India’s superior economic and earnings growth. Second, lower exposure to trade tariffs. And third, a strong domestic investor base. And all of this adds up to structural outperformance not just in Asia but indeed globally, and with significantly lower volatility than peer group markets. So let’s dive deeper. To start with – the macroeconomic backdrop. We expect India to account for 20 percent of overall incremental global GDP growth in the coming decade. Manufacturing competitiveness is improving thanks to bolstered infrastructure in power, ports, roads, freight transport systems as well as investments in social infrastructure such as water, sewage and hospitals. Additionally, India's growing middle class offers market opportunities to companies across many product categories. There’s robust domestic consumption, a strong investment cycle led by public and private capital expenditure and continuing structural reforms, including in the legal sphere. GDP growth in the first quarter was more than 7 percent and our team expects over 6 percent in the medium term, which would be by far the highest of the major economies. Furthermore, we continue to expect robust corporate earnings growth. Since the end of COVID, MSCI India has delivered around 12 percent per annum [U.S.] dollar earnings per share growth versus low single digits for Emerging Markets overall. And we forecast 14 percent and 16 percent over the next two fiscal years. Growth drivers in the short term include an emerging private CapEx cycle, re-leveraging of corporate balance sheets, and a structural rise in discretionary consumption – signaling increased business and consumer confidence, after last year’s elections. Another key reason that we’re positive on India currently is its lower-than-average vulnerability to ongoing trade and tariff disputes between the U.S. and its trade partners. Exports of goods to the U.S. amount to only 2 percent of India’s GDP versus, for example, 10 percent in Thailand or 14 percent in Taiwan. And India’s total goods exports are only around 12 percent of GDP. Moreover, for the time being, India’s very large services sector’s exports are not exposed to tariff actions, and are actually early beneficiaries of AI adoption. Finally, India’s strong individual stock ownership means that there’s persistent retail buying, which underpins the equity market. Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) flows driven by a young urbanizing population are making new highs, and in May amounted to over U.S.$3 billion. They provide consistent capital inflows. That means that this domestic bid on stocks is unlikely to fade anytime soon. This provides a strong foundation for the market and supports valuations which are slightly above emerging market averages. It also means that its market beta to global equities are low and falling, approximately 0.4 versus 1.1 ten years ago. And price volatility is well below other emerging markets. All told, making India an attractive play in volatile times. 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.","duration_ms":252917,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-24","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/5FmfYOEh5hQCnG510HfuoO"},"html_description":"

Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Equity Strategist Jonathan Garner explains why Indian equities are our most preferred market in Asia.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Equity Strategist. Today I’ll discuss why we remain positive on India’s long-term equity story.

It’s Tuesday, the 24th of June at 9am in Singapore.

We’ve had a long-standing bullish outlook on the India economy and its stock market. In the last five years MSCI India has delivered a total return in U.S. dollars of 145 percent versus 94 percent for global equities and just 39 percent for emerging markets. Indian equities are our most preferred market within Asia for three key reasons. First, India’s superior economic and earnings growth. Second, lower exposure to trade tariffs. And third, a strong domestic investor base. And all of this adds up to structural outperformance not just in Asia but indeed globally, and with significantly lower volatility than peer group markets.

So let’s dive deeper. To start with – the macroeconomic backdrop. We expect India to account for 20 percent of overall incremental global GDP growth in the coming decade. Manufacturing competitiveness is improving thanks to bolstered infrastructure in power, ports, roads, freight transport systems as well as investments in social infrastructure such as water, sewage and hospitals.

Additionally, India's growing middle class offers market opportunities to companies across many product categories. There’s robust domestic consumption, a strong investment cycle led by public and private capital expenditure and continuing structural reforms, including in the legal sphere. GDP growth in the first quarter was more than 7 percent and our team expects over 6 percent in the medium term, which would be by far the highest of the major economies.

Furthermore, we continue to expect robust corporate earnings growth. Since the end of COVID, MSCI India has delivered around 12 percent per annum [U.S.] dollar earnings per share growth versus low single digits for Emerging Markets overall. And we forecast 14 percent and 16 percent over the next two fiscal years. Growth drivers in the short term include an emerging private CapEx cycle, re-leveraging of corporate balance sheets, and a structural rise in discretionary consumption – signaling increased business and consumer confidence, after last year’s elections.

Another key reason that we’re positive on India currently is its lower-than-average vulnerability to ongoing trade and tariff disputes between the U.S. and its trade partners. Exports of goods to the U.S. amount to only 2 percent of India’s GDP versus, for example, 10 percent in Thailand or 14 percent in Taiwan. And India’s total goods exports are only around 12 percent of GDP. Moreover, for the time being, India’s very large services sector’s exports are not exposed to tariff actions, and are actually early beneficiaries of AI adoption.

Finally, India’s strong individual stock ownership means that there’s persistent retail buying, which underpins the equity market. Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) flows driven by a young urbanizing population are making new highs, and in May amounted to over U.S.$3 billion. They provide consistent capital inflows. That means that this domestic bid on stocks is unlikely to fade anytime soon.

This provides a strong foundation for the market and supports valuations which are slightly above emerging market averages. It also means that its market beta to global equities are low and falling, approximately 0.4 versus 1.1 ten years ago. And price volatility is well below other emerging markets. All told, making India an attractive play in volatile times.

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.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/0t8jayW1GCmGfnqdE1l9aI/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"7gaZf8fk2tGo1DWfrGumdG","uri":"spotify:episode:7gaZf8fk2tGo1DWfrGumdG","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/7gaZf8fk2tGo1DWfrGumdG","name":"Why Stocks Can Be Resilient Despite Geopolitical Risk","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why investors have largely remained calm amid recent developments in the Middle East.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to think about the tensions in the Middle East for U.S. equities. It's Monday, June 23rd at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. Over the weekend, the United States executed a surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. While the extent of the damage has yet to be confirmed, President Trump has indicated Iran’s nuclear weapon development efforts have been diminished substantially, if not fully. If true, then this could be viewed as a peak rate of change for this risk. In many ways this fits our overall narrative for U.S. equities that we have likely passed the worst for many risks that were weighing on stocks in the first quarter of the year. Things like immigration enforcement, fiscal spending cuts, tariffs and AI CapEx deceleration all contributed to dragging down earnings forecasts. Fast forward to today and all of these items have peaked in terms of their negative impact, and earnings forecasts have rebounded since Mid-April. In fact, the rebound in earnings revision breadth is one of the sharpest on record and provides a fundamental reason for why U.S. stocks have been so strong since bottoming the week of April 7th. Add in the events of this past weekend and it makes sense why equities are not selling off this morning as many might have expected. For further context, we looked at 23 major geopolitical events since 1950 and the impact on stock prices. What we found may surprise listeners, but it is a well understood fact by seasoned investors. Geopolitical shocks are typically followed by higher, not lower equity prices, especially over 6 to12 months. Only five of the 23 outcomes were negative. And importantly, all the negative outcomes were accompanied by oil prices that were at least 75 percent higher on a year-over-year basis. As of this morning, oil prices are down 10 percent year-over-year and this is after the actions over the weekend. In other words, the conditions are not in place for lower equity prices on a 6 to12 month horizon. Having said that, we continue to recommend large cap higher quality equities rather than small cap lower quality names. This is mostly a function of sticky long term interest rates and the fact that we remain in a late cycle environment in which the Fed is on hold. Should that change and the Fed begin to signal rate cuts, we would pivot to a more cyclical areas of the market. Our favorite sectors remain Industrials which are geared to higher capital spending for power and infrastructure, Financials which will benefit from deregulation this fall and software stocks that remain immune from tariffs and levered to the next area of spending for AI diffusion across the economy. We also like Energy over consumer discretionary as a hedge against the risk of higher oil prices in the near term. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found today's episode informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!","duration_ms":211147,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-23","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/7gaZf8fk2tGo1DWfrGumdG"},"html_description":"

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why investors have largely remained calm amid recent developments in the Middle East.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to think about the tensions in the Middle East for U.S. equities.

It's Monday, June 23rd at 11:30am in New York.

So, let’s get after it.

Over the weekend, the United States executed a surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. While the extent of the damage has yet to be confirmed, President Trump has indicated Iran’s nuclear weapon development efforts have been diminished substantially, if not fully. If true, then this could be viewed as a peak rate of change for this risk. In many ways this fits our overall narrative for U.S. equities that we have likely passed the worst for many risks that were weighing on stocks in the first quarter of the year. Things like immigration enforcement, fiscal spending cuts, tariffs and AI CapEx deceleration all contributed to dragging down earnings forecasts.

Fast forward to today and all of these items have peaked in terms of their negative impact, and earnings forecasts have rebounded since Mid-April. In fact, the rebound in earnings revision breadth is one of the sharpest on record and provides a fundamental reason for why U.S. stocks have been so strong since bottoming the week of April 7th. Add in the events of this past weekend and it makes sense why equities are not selling off this morning as many might have expected.

For further context, we looked at 23 major geopolitical events since 1950 and the impact on stock prices. What we found may surprise listeners, but it is a well understood fact by seasoned investors. Geopolitical shocks are typically followed by higher, not lower equity prices, especially over 6 to12 months. Only five of the 23 outcomes were negative. And importantly, all the negative outcomes were accompanied by oil prices that were at least 75 percent higher on a year-over-year basis. As of this morning, oil prices are down 10 percent year-over-year and this is after the actions over the weekend. In other words, the conditions are not in place for lower equity prices on a 6 to12 month horizon.

Having said that, we continue to recommend large cap higher quality equities rather than small cap lower quality names. This is mostly a function of sticky long term interest rates and the fact that we remain in a late cycle environment in which the Fed is on hold. Should that change and the Fed begin to signal rate cuts, we would pivot to a more cyclical areas of the market.

Our favorite sectors remain Industrials which are geared to higher capital spending for power and infrastructure, Financials which will benefit from deregulation this fall and software stocks that remain immune from tariffs and levered to the next area of spending for AI diffusion across the economy. We also like Energy over consumer discretionary as a hedge against the risk of higher oil prices in the near term.

Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found today's episode informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/7lpVoAMP73s58V7MsG9R9j/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"4kZwguDBOLG5HHPKePfYiC","uri":"spotify:episode:4kZwguDBOLG5HHPKePfYiC","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/4kZwguDBOLG5HHPKePfYiC","name":"Midyear Credit Outlook: An Odd Disconnect in Asia","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Kelvin Pang explain why international issuers may be interested in so-called ‘dim sum’ bonds, despite Asia’s growth drag.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Kelvin Pang: And I'm Kelvin Pang, Head of Asia Credit Strategy. Andrew Sheets: And today in the program we're going to finish our global tour of credit markets with a discussion of Asia. It's Friday, June 20th at 2pm in London. Kelvin Pang: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, thank you for joining us. Thank you especially for joining us so late in your day – to complete this credit World tour. And before we get into the Asia credit market, I think it would just be helpful to frame at a very high level – how you see the economic picture in the region. Kelvin Pang: We do think that the talks and potential deals will probably provide some reprieve towards the growth for the region, but not a big relief. We do think that tariff uncertainty will linger here, and it will keep growth low here; especially if we do think that CapEx of the region will be weaker due to tariff uncertainty. A weaker U.S. dollar, for example, plus monetary easing will help offset some of this growth drag. But overall, we do think that the Asia region could see 90 basis point down in real GDP growth from last year. Andrew Sheets: So, we've got weaker growth in Asia as a function of high tariffs and high tariff uncertainty that can't be offset by further policy easing. In the context of that weaker growth backdrop, higher uncertainty – are credit spreads in the region wide? Kelvin Pang: No, they're actually really low. They're probably at like the lowest since we start having a data in 2013. So definitely like a 12 to 13 year low of the range. Andrew Sheets: And so why is that? Why do you have this kind of seemingly odd disconnect between some real growth challenges? And as you just mentioned, really some of the tightest credit spreads, some of the lowest risk premiums that we've seen in quite some time? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we get this question a lot from clients, and the short answer is that, you know, the technicals, right? Because the last two years, two-three years, we've been seeing negative net supply for Asia credit. A lot of that is driven by China credit. And if you look at year-to-date, non supply remain still negative net supply. And demand side, for example, has not really picked up that strongly. But it still offsets any outflows that we see the last two-three years; is offset by this negative net supply. So, you put this two together, we have this very strong technicals that support very tight spread. And that's why spread has been tight at historical end in the last, I would say, one to two years. Andrew Sheets: Do you see this changes? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we do think it's changed. We have a framework that we call the normalization of Asia Credit technicals. And for that to change, essentially our framework is saying that Treasury yields use need to go down, and dollar funding need to go down. Cheaper dollar funding will bring back issuers. Net supply should pick up. Demand for credit tends to do well in a rate cut cycle. Demand tends to pick up in a rate cut cycle. So, if we have these two supports, we do think that Asia credit technicals will normalize. It's just that, you know, we have four stages of normalization. Unfortunately we are in stage two now, and we still have a bit of room to see some further normalization, especially if we don't get rate cuts. Andrew Sheets: Got it. So, you know, we do think that if Morgan Stanley's yield forecasts are correct, yields are going to fall. Issuers will look at those lower yields as more attractive. They'll issue more paper in Asia and that will kind of help rebalance the market some. But we're just not quite there yet. Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we feel like this road to rate cuts has been delayed a few times, in the last two-three years. And that has really been a big conundrum for a lot of Asia credit investors. So hopefully third time's a charm, right. So next year's a big year. Andrew Sheets: So, I guess while we're waiting for that, you also have this dynamic where for companies in Asia, or I guess for any company in the world, borrowing money locally in Asia is quite cheap. You have very low yields in China. You have very low local yields in Japan. How do those yields compare with the economics of borrowing in dollars? And what do you think that, kind of, means for your market? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, I think the short answer is that we are going to see more foreign issuers in local currency market. And, you know, we wrote a report in in March to just to pick on the dim sum corporate bond market. It benefits… Andrew Sheets: And Kelvin, just to stop you there, could you just describe to the listener what a dim sum bond is? And probably why you don't want to eat it? Kelvin Pang: Yes. So dim sum bond is basically a bond denominator in CNH. So, CNH is a[n] offshore Chinese renminbi, sort of, proxy. And it's called dim sum because it's like the most local cuisine in Hong Kong. Most – a lot of dim sum bonds are issued in Hong Kong. A lot of these CNH bonds are issued in Hong Kong, And that's why, [it has] this, you know, sort nickname called dim sum. Andrew Sheets: So, what is the outlook for that market and the economics for issuers who might be interested in it? Kelvin Pang: Yeah. We think it's a great place for global issuers who have natural demand for renminbi or CNH to issue; 10 years CGB is now is like 1.5-1.6 percent. That makes it a very attractive yield. And for a lot of these multinationals, they have natural renminbi needs. So, they don't need to worry about the hedging part of it. And what – and for a lot of investor base, the demands are picking up because we are seeing that renminbi internationalization are making some progress. You know, progress in that means better demand. So, overall, we do think that there is a good chance that the renminbi market or the dim sum market can be a bit more global player – or global, sort of, friendly market for investors. Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, another sector I wanted to ask you about was the China property sector. This was a sector that generated significant headlines over the last several years. It's faced significant credit challenges. It's very large, even by global standards. What's the latest on how China Property Credit is doing and how does that influence your overall view? Kelvin Pang: it's been four plus years, since first default started. and we've been through like 44 China property defaults, close to about 127 billion of total dollar bonds that defaulted. So, we are close to the end of the default cycle. Unfortunately, the end or default cycle doesn't mean that we are in the recovery phase, or we are in the speedy recovery phase. We are seeing a lot of companies struggling to come out restructuring. There are companies that come out restructuring and re-enter defaults. So, we do think that it is a long way to go for a lot of these property developers to come out restructuring and to get back to a going concern, kind of, status – I think we are still a bit far. We need to see the recovery in the physical property markets. And for that to happen, we do need to see the China economy to pick up, which give confidence to the home buyers in that sense. Andrew Sheets: So, Kelvin, we started this conversation with this kind of odd disconnect that kind of defines your market. You have a region that has some of the most significant growth risks from tariffs, some of the highest tariff exposure, and yet also has some of the lowest credit risk premiums with these quite tight spreads. If you look more broadly, are there any other kind of disconnects in your market that you think investors around the world should be aware of? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we do think that investors need to take advantage of the disconnect because what we have now is a very compressed spread. And we like to be in high quality, right? Whether it is switching our Asia high yield into Asia investment grade, whether it is switching out of, you know, BBB credit into A credit. We think, you know, investors don't lose a lot of spread by doing that. But they manage to pick out higher quality credit. At the same time, we do think that one thing unique about Asia credit is that we have significant exposure to tariff risk. Asia countries are one of the few that are, you know; seven out the 10 countries that are having trade surplus with the U.S. And that's why we think that the iTraxx Asia Ex-Japan CDS index could be a good way to get exposure to tariffs. And the index did very well during the Liberation Day sell off. Now it's trading back to more like normal level of 70-75 basis point. We do think that, you know, for investors who want long tariff with risk, that could be a good way to add risk. Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, it's been great talking to you. Thanks for taking the time to talk. Kelvin Pang: Thank you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And thank you listeners as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts of the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.","duration_ms":540813,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-20","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/4kZwguDBOLG5HHPKePfYiC"},"html_description":"

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Kelvin Pang explain why international issuers may be interested in so-called ‘dim sum’ bonds, despite Asia’s growth drag.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Kelvin Pang: And I'm Kelvin Pang, Head of Asia Credit Strategy.

Andrew Sheets: And today in the program we're going to finish our global tour of credit markets with a discussion of Asia.

It's Friday, June 20th at 2pm in London.

Kelvin Pang: And 9pm in Hong Kong.

Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, thank you for joining us. Thank you especially for joining us so late in your day – to complete this credit World tour. And before we get into the Asia credit market, I think it would just be helpful to frame at a very high level – how you see the economic picture in the region.

Kelvin Pang: We do think that the talks and potential deals will probably provide some reprieve towards the growth for the region, but not a big relief. We do think that tariff uncertainty will linger here, and it will keep growth low here; especially if we do think that CapEx of the region will be weaker due to tariff uncertainty. A weaker U.S. dollar, for example, plus monetary easing will help offset some of this growth drag. But overall, we do think that the Asia region could see 90 basis point down in real GDP growth from last year.

Andrew Sheets: So, we've got weaker growth in Asia as a function of high tariffs and high tariff uncertainty that can't be offset by further policy easing. In the context of that weaker growth backdrop, higher uncertainty – are credit spreads in the region wide?

Kelvin Pang: No, they're actually really low. They're probably at like the lowest since we start having a data in 2013. So definitely like a 12 to 13 year low of the range.

Andrew Sheets: And so why is that? Why do you have this kind of seemingly odd disconnect between some real growth challenges? And as you just mentioned, really some of the tightest credit spreads, some of the lowest risk premiums that we've seen in quite some time?

Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we get this question a lot from clients, and the short answer is that, you know, the technicals, right? Because the last two years, two-three years, we've been seeing negative net supply for Asia credit. A lot of that is driven by China credit. And if you look at year-to-date, non supply remain still negative net supply. And demand side, for example, has not really picked up that strongly. But it still offsets any outflows that we see the last two-three years; is offset by this negative net supply.

So, you put this two together, we have this very strong technicals that support very tight spread. And that's why spread has been tight at historical end in the last, I would say, one to two years.

Andrew Sheets: Do you see this changes?

Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we do think it's changed. We have a framework that we call the normalization of Asia Credit technicals. And for that to change, essentially our framework is saying that Treasury yields use need to go down, and dollar funding need to go down. Cheaper dollar funding will bring back issuers. Net supply should pick up. Demand for credit tends to do well in a rate cut cycle. Demand tends to pick up in a rate cut cycle.

So, if we have these two supports, we do think that Asia credit technicals will normalize. It's just that, you know, we have four stages of normalization. Unfortunately we are in stage two now, and we still have a bit of room to see some further normalization, especially if we don't get rate cuts.

Andrew Sheets: Got it. So, you know, we do think that if Morgan Stanley's yield forecasts are correct, yields are going to fall. Issuers will look at those lower yields as more attractive. They'll issue more paper in Asia and that will kind of help rebalance the market some. But we're just not quite there yet.

Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we feel like this road to rate cuts has been delayed a few times, in the last two-three years. And that has really been a big conundrum for a lot of Asia credit investors. So hopefully third time's a charm, right. So next year's a big year.

Andrew Sheets: So, I guess while we're waiting for that, you also have this dynamic where for companies in Asia, or I guess for any company in the world, borrowing money locally in Asia is quite cheap. You have very low yields in China. You have very low local yields in Japan. How do those yields compare with the economics of borrowing in dollars? And what do you think that, kind of, means for your market?

Kelvin Pang: Yeah, I think the short answer is that we are going to see more foreign issuers in local currency market. And, you know, we wrote a report in in March to just to pick on the dim sum corporate bond market. It benefits…

Andrew Sheets: And Kelvin, just to stop you there, could you just describe to the listener what a dim sum bond is? And probably why you don't want to eat it?

Kelvin Pang: Yes. So dim sum bond is basically a bond denominator in CNH. So, CNH is a[n] offshore Chinese renminbi, sort of, proxy. And it's called dim sum because it's like the most local cuisine in Hong Kong. Most – a lot of dim sum bonds are issued in Hong Kong. A lot of these CNH bonds are issued in Hong Kong, And that's why, [it has] this, you know, sort nickname called dim sum.

Andrew Sheets: So, what is the outlook for that market and the economics for issuers who might be interested in it?

Kelvin Pang: Yeah. We think it's a great place for global issuers who have natural demand for renminbi or CNH to issue; 10 years CGB is now is like 1.5-1.6 percent. That makes it a very attractive yield. And for a lot of these multinationals, they have natural renminbi needs. So, they don't need to worry about the hedging part of it. And what – and for a lot of investor base, the demands are picking up because we are seeing that renminbi internationalization are making some progress. You know, progress in that means better demand. So, overall, we do think that there is a good chance that the renminbi market or the dim sum market can be a bit more global player – or global, sort of, friendly market for investors.

Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, another sector I wanted to ask you about was the China property sector. This was a sector that generated significant headlines over the last several years. It's faced significant credit challenges. It's very large, even by global standards. What's the latest on how China Property Credit is doing and how does that influence your overall view?

Kelvin Pang: it's been four plus years, since first default started. and we've been through like 44 China property defaults, close to about 127 billion of total dollar bonds that defaulted. So, we are close to the end of the default cycle. Unfortunately, the end or default cycle doesn't mean that we are in the recovery phase, or we are in the speedy recovery phase. We are seeing a lot of companies struggling to come out restructuring.

There are companies that come out restructuring and re-enter defaults. So, we do think that it is a long way to go for a lot of these property developers to come out restructuring and to get back to a going concern, kind of, status – I think we are still a bit far. We need to see the recovery in the physical property markets. And for that to happen, we do need to see the China economy to pick up, which give confidence to the home buyers in that sense.

Andrew Sheets: So, Kelvin, we started this conversation with this kind of odd disconnect that kind of defines your market. You have a region that has some of the most significant growth risks from tariffs, some of the highest tariff exposure, and yet also has some of the lowest credit risk premiums with these quite tight spreads. If you look more broadly, are there any other kind of disconnects in your market that you think investors around the world should be aware of?

Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we do think that investors need to take advantage of the disconnect because what we have now is a very compressed spread. And we like to be in high quality, right? Whether it is switching our Asia high yield into Asia investment grade, whether it is switching out of, you know, BBB credit into A credit.

We think, you know, investors don't lose a lot of spread by doing that. But they manage to pick out higher quality credit. At the same time, we do think that one thing unique about Asia credit is that we have significant exposure to tariff risk. Asia countries are one of the few that are, you know; seven out the 10 countries that are having trade surplus with the U.S. And that's why we think that the iTraxx Asia Ex-Japan CDS index could be a good way to get exposure to tariffs. And the index did very well during the Liberation Day sell off. Now it's trading back to more like normal level of 70-75 basis point.

We do think that, you know, for investors who want long tariff with risk, that could be a good way to add risk.

Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, it's been great talking to you. Thanks for taking the time to talk.

Kelvin Pang: Thank you, Andrew.

Andrew Sheets: And thank you listeners as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts of the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/2Q1RDEaV1NpOADTE5ILZ2Y/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"4JpdygvCu3HkMP0MEqrVch","uri":"spotify:episode:4JpdygvCu3HkMP0MEqrVch","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/4JpdygvCu3HkMP0MEqrVch","name":"How Oil Could Price Amid Mideast Tensions","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats explores three possible scenarios for oil prices in light of geopolitical shifts in the Middle East.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research may reference jurisdiction(s) or person(s) which are the subject of sanctions administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the United Kingdom, the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to jurisdictions, persons (individuals or entities), debt or equity instruments, or projects that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the relevant economic sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such jurisdictions, persons, instruments, or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Martijn Rats: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martin Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Today I'll talk about oil price dynamics amidst escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. It's Wednesday, June 18th at 3pm in London. Industry watchers with an eye on the Brent Forward Curve recently noticed a rare smile shape: downward sloping in the first couple of months, but then an upward sloping curve later this year, and into 2026. Now that changed last Friday. The oil market creates these various shapes in the Forward Curve, depending on how it sees the supply demand balance. When the forward curve is downward sloping, holding inventory really is quite unattractive; so typically, operators release barrels from storage under those conditions. The market creates that structure when the conditions are tight, and barrels indeed need to be released from storage.Now on the other end, when the market is oversupplied, oil needs to be put into inventory, and the market makes this possible by creating an upward sloping curve. So, the curve that existed until only recently told the story of some near-term tightness first, but then a substantial surplus later this year and into 2026. Now when the tensions in the Middle East escalated late last week, the oil complex responded strongly. But not only did the front-month Brent future, i.e. oil for delivery next month rise quite sharply by about 17 percent, the impact of the conflict was also felt across all future delivery dates. By now, the entire forward curve is downward sloping, which means that the oil market no longer is pricing in any surplus next year – a big change from only a few days ago. Now, no doubt, Friday's events have sharply widened the range of possible future oil price paths. However, looking ahead, we would argue that oil prices fall in three main scenarios. Together they provide a framework to navigate the oil market in the next couple of weeks and months. First, let's consider the most benign scenario. Military conflict does not always correlate with disruptions to oil supply, even in major oil producing regions. So far, there is no reduction in supply from the region. If oil and gas infrastructure remains out of the crosshairs, it is entirely possible that that continues. In that case, we might see brand prices retract to around about $60 per barrel, down from the current level of about $76 per barrel.Our second scenario recognizes that Iran's oil exports could be at risk either because of attacks on physical infrastructure or because of sanctions – mirroring the reductions that we saw during 2018’s Maximum Pressure Campaign by the United States. If Iran were to lose most of its export capacity, that would broadly offset the surplus that we are currently modeling for the oil market next year, which would then in turn leave a broadly balanced market. Now in a balanced oil market, oil prices are probably in a $75 to $80 per barrel range. The third and most severe scenario encompasses a broad regional disruption, possibly pushing prices as high as 2022 levels of around $120 a barrel. Now, that could unfold if Iran targets oil infrastructure across the wider Gulf region, including critical routes like the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world's oil transits. The situation remains very fluid, and we could see a wide spectrum of potential oil price outcomes. We believe the most likely scenario remains the first – our base case – with supply eventually remaining stable. However, the probabilities of the more severe disruptions whilst currently still lower, still justify a risk premium of about $10 per barrel for the foreseeable future. As we monitor these developments, investors should stay alert to signs such as further attacks on all infrastructure or escalations in sanctions, which could signal shifts towards our more severe scenarios. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.","duration_ms":267363,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-18","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/4JpdygvCu3HkMP0MEqrVch"},"html_description":"

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats explores three possible scenarios for oil prices in light of geopolitical shifts in the Middle East.

Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research may reference jurisdiction(s) or person(s) which are the subject of sanctions administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the United Kingdom, the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to jurisdictions, persons (individuals or entities), debt or equity instruments, or projects that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the relevant economic sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such jurisdictions, persons, instruments, or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Martijn Rats: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martin Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist.

Today I'll talk about oil price dynamics amidst escalating tensions between Israel and Iran.

It's Wednesday, June 18th at 3pm in London.

Industry watchers with an eye on the Brent Forward Curve recently noticed a rare smile shape: downward sloping in the first couple of months, but then an upward sloping curve later this year, and into 2026. Now that changed last Friday.

The oil market creates these various shapes in the Forward Curve, depending on how it sees the supply demand balance. When the forward curve is downward sloping, holding inventory really is quite unattractive; so typically, operators release barrels from storage under those conditions. The market creates that structure when the conditions are tight, and barrels indeed need to be released from storage.

Now on the other end, when the market is oversupplied, oil needs to be put into inventory, and the market makes this possible by creating an upward sloping curve. So, the curve that existed until only recently told the story of some near-term tightness first, but then a substantial surplus later this year and into 2026.

Now when the tensions in the Middle East escalated late last week, the oil complex responded strongly. But not only did the front-month Brent future, i.e. oil for delivery next month rise quite sharply by about 17 percent, the impact of the conflict was also felt across all future delivery dates. By now, the entire forward curve is downward sloping, which means that the oil market no longer is pricing in any surplus next year – a big change from only a few days ago.

Now, no doubt, Friday's events have sharply widened the range of possible future oil price paths. However, looking ahead, we would argue that oil prices fall in three main scenarios. Together they provide a framework to navigate the oil market in the next couple of weeks and months.

First, let's consider the most benign scenario. Military conflict does not always correlate with disruptions to oil supply, even in major oil producing regions. So far, there is no reduction in supply from the region. If oil and gas infrastructure remains out of the crosshairs, it is entirely possible that that continues. In that case, we might see brand prices retract to around about $60 per barrel, down from the current level of about $76 per barrel.

Our second scenario recognizes that Iran's oil exports could be at risk either because of attacks on physical infrastructure or because of sanctions – mirroring the reductions that we saw during 2018’s Maximum Pressure Campaign by the United States. If Iran were to lose most of its export capacity, that would broadly offset the surplus that we are currently modeling for the oil market next year, which would then in turn leave a broadly balanced market. Now in a balanced oil market, oil prices are probably in a $75 to $80 per barrel range.

The third and most severe scenario encompasses a broad regional disruption, possibly pushing prices as high as 2022 levels of around $120 a barrel. Now, that could unfold if Iran targets oil infrastructure across the wider Gulf region, including critical routes like the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world's oil transits.

The situation remains very fluid, and we could see a wide spectrum of potential oil price outcomes. We believe the most likely scenario remains the first – our base case – with supply eventually remaining stable. However, the probabilities of the more severe disruptions whilst currently still lower, still justify a risk premium of about $10 per barrel for the foreseeable future. As we monitor these developments, investors should stay alert to signs such as further attacks on all infrastructure or escalations in sanctions, which could signal shifts towards our more severe scenarios.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/3wKzUgp8IC0KBkN3DZugNp/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"6MnwG4d7m6ghkFR0XJsvqh","uri":"spotify:episode:6MnwG4d7m6ghkFR0XJsvqh","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/6MnwG4d7m6ghkFR0XJsvqh","name":"Why Markets Should Keep an Eye on Japan’s AI Playbook","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our Senior Japan Economics Advisor discusses Japan’s systematic approach to AI and the lessons it offers for other markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Robert Feldman, Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities in Tokyo. Today I’d like to discuss Japan’s crucial contributions in global AI development.It’s Tuesday, June 17, at 2 PM in Tokyo.Japan has always been a world leader in advanced technology infrastructure and robotics. So it comes as no surprise that Japanese devices and materials play critical roles in the global AI supply chain. For investors, however, it's vital to understand Japan's unique systematic approach to AI and the lessons it offers other countries. In Japan, AI has historically developed through this symbiotic interaction of four elements: Hardware, Software, Data, and Ethics. Japanese technology advances not only evolve, but they co-evolve – meaning that advances in one element make advances in others more urgent. And when those latter advances occur, chokepoints arise in yet other elements. However, unlike co-evolution in nature, where chance mutations just happen to reinforce each other, co-evolution in AI is driven by human intent. That is, humans see a chokepoint and address it with innovation. These chokepoints – or bottlenecks in development – they’re crucial to the way we think about AI. Identifying the chokepoints allows firms and industries to innovate. And Investors should also pay particular attention to these chokepoints because that’s where the investment opportunities are. For example, at a recent event, we asked a medium-sized Japanese retail food manufacturing company president – who is an energetic AI advocate – which factor was the biggest chokepoint for his firm. And he replied unequivocally, immediately, “Data.” His firm has some data; so do his competitors. But there is no common protocol for recording the data, contributing information to a common database, and still maintaining anonymity. So clearly, the chokepoint around Data suggests that this company will need innovative data solutions so that it can then take advantage of the other three key elements: the Hardware, the Software, and the Ethics. Ethics is crucial because people won’t use AI unless there is an ethical basis. So in terms of this element – the ethics element – Japan's commitment to ethical AI development has been very flexible. On one hand, Japan has robust legal frameworks, like the Act for the Protection of Personal Information and subsequent amendments. These laws ensure that AI advances within a secure and ethical boundary. And the laws are not just on paper. They are actively enforced. A few years ago there was a landmark court ruling that upheld data privacy against unauthorized AI use. However, Japan also is flexible. The data rules are tweaked, to allow more practical approach to developing large language models. Another unique part of Japan’s approach to ethics is the proactive emphasis on AI literacy. From corporate giants to small businesses, there is a concerted effort to train personnel not just in the AI technology but also in the ethical application, and thus ensure this well-rounded acceptable advancement in AI capability. This approach to training workers is not just altruism; Japan faces a severe labor shortage, and AI is widely viewed as a critical part of the solution. So good ethics are bringing faster AI diffusion. Ultimately, on a global macroeconomic level, the winners from AI will be the corporations and the nations that do three things: First quickly introduce the technology; second, rapidly innovate new products and processes that use AI; and third, retrain labor and reallocate capital to produce these new and innovative products. With this macro backdrop, Japan’s intentional use of the symbiosis between Hardware, Software, Data, and Ethics gives Japan some unique advantages in accelerating AI diffusion and spurring economic growth. 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.","duration_ms":290742,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-17","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/6MnwG4d7m6ghkFR0XJsvqh"},"html_description":"

Our Senior Japan Economics Advisor discusses Japan’s systematic approach to AI and the lessons it offers for other markets.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Robert Feldman, Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities in Tokyo. Today I’d like to discuss Japan’s crucial contributions in global AI development.

It’s Tuesday, June 17, at 2 PM in Tokyo.

Japan has always been a world leader in advanced technology infrastructure and robotics. So it comes as no surprise that Japanese devices and materials play critical roles in the global AI supply chain. For investors, however, it's vital to understand Japan's unique systematic approach to AI and the lessons it offers other countries.

In Japan, AI has historically developed through this symbiotic interaction of four elements: Hardware, Software, Data, and Ethics. Japanese technology advances not only evolve, but they co-evolve – meaning that advances in one element make advances in others more urgent. And when those latter advances occur, chokepoints arise in yet other elements. However, unlike co-evolution in nature, where chance mutations just happen to reinforce each other, co-evolution in AI is driven by human intent. That is, humans see a chokepoint and address it with innovation.

These chokepoints – or bottlenecks in development – they’re crucial to the way we think about AI. Identifying the chokepoints allows firms and industries to innovate. And Investors should also pay particular attention to these chokepoints because that’s where the investment opportunities are.

For example, at a recent event, we asked a medium-sized Japanese retail food manufacturing company president – who is an energetic AI advocate – which factor was the biggest chokepoint for his firm. And he replied unequivocally, immediately, “Data.” His firm has some data; so do his competitors. But there is no common protocol for recording the data, contributing information to a common database, and still maintaining anonymity. So clearly, the chokepoint around Data suggests that this company will need innovative data solutions so that it can then take advantage of the other three key elements: the Hardware, the Software, and the Ethics.

Ethics is crucial because people won’t use AI unless there is an ethical basis. So in terms of this element – the ethics element – Japan's commitment to ethical AI development has been very flexible. On one hand, Japan has robust legal frameworks, like the Act for the Protection of Personal Information and subsequent amendments. These laws ensure that AI advances within a secure and ethical boundary. And the laws are not just on paper. They are actively enforced. A few years ago there was a landmark court ruling that upheld data privacy against unauthorized AI use. However, Japan also is flexible. The data rules are tweaked, to allow more practical approach to developing large language models.

Another unique part of Japan’s approach to ethics is the proactive emphasis on AI literacy. From corporate giants to small businesses, there is a concerted effort to train personnel not just in the AI technology but also in the ethical application, and thus ensure this well-rounded acceptable advancement in AI capability. This approach to training workers is not just altruism; Japan faces a severe labor shortage, and AI is widely viewed as a critical part of the solution. So good ethics are bringing faster AI diffusion.

Ultimately, on a global macroeconomic level, the winners from AI will be the corporations and the nations that do three things: First quickly introduce the technology; second, rapidly innovate new products and processes that use AI; and third, retrain labor and reallocate capital to produce these new and innovative products. With this macro backdrop, Japan’s intentional use of the symbiosis between Hardware, Software, Data, and Ethics gives Japan some unique advantages in accelerating AI diffusion and spurring economic growth.

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.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/5irZnB80zq0onO5fpadDQO/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"2XrMVW9P0EBCfhVHy1Myon","uri":"spotify:episode:2XrMVW9P0EBCfhVHy1Myon","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/2XrMVW9P0EBCfhVHy1Myon","name":"A Bullish Case for Large Cap U.S. Equities","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"While market sentiment on U.S. large caps turns cautious, our Chief CIO and U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why there's still room to stay constructive.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing why we remain more constructive than the consensus on large cap U.S. equities – and which sectors in particular. It's Monday, June 16th at 9:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. We remain more constructive on U.S. equities than the consensus mainly because key gauges we follow are pointing to a stronger earnings backdrop than others expect over the next 12 months. First, our main earnings model is showing high-single-digit Earnings Per Share growth over the next year. Second, earnings revision breadth is inflecting sharply higher from -25 percent in mid-April to -9 percent today. Third, we have a secondary Earnings Leading model that takes into account the cost side of the equation; and that one is forecasting mid-teens Earnings Per Share growth by the first half of 2026. More specifically, it’s pointing to higher profitability due to cost efficiencies. Interestingly, this was something we heard frequently last week at the Morgan Stanley Financials Conference with many companies highlighting the adoption of Artificial Intelligence to help streamline operations. Finally, the most underappreciated tailwind for S&P 500 earnings remains the weaker dollar which is down 11 percent from the January highs. As a reminder, our currency strategists expect another 7 percent downside over the next 12 months. The combination of a stronger level of earnings revisions breadth and a robust rate of change on earnings revisions breadth since growth expectations troughed in mid-April is a powerful tailwind for many large cap stocks, with the strongest impact in the Capital Goods and Software industries. These industries have compelling structural growth drivers. For Capital Goods, it’s tied to a renewed focus on global infrastructure spending. The rate of change on capacity utilization is in positive territory for the first time in two and a half years and aggregate commercial and industrial loans are growing again, reaching the highest level since 2020. The combination of structural tech diffusion and a global infrastructure focus in many countries is leading to a more capital intensive backdrop. Bonus depreciation in the U.S. should be another tailwind here – as it incentivizes a pickup in equipment investment, benefitting Capital Goods companies most directly. Meanwhile, Software is in a strong position to drive free cash flow via GenAI solutions from both a revenue and cost standpoint. Another sector we favor is large cap financials which could start to see meaningful benefits of de-regulation in the second half of the year. The main risk to our more constructive view remains long term interest rates. While Wednesday's below consensus consumer price report was helpful in terms of keeping yields contained, we find it interesting that rates did not fall on Friday with the rise in geopolitical tensions. As a result, the 10-year yield remains in close distance of our key 4.5 percent level, above which rate sensitivity should increase for stocks. On the positive side, interest rate volatility is well off its highs in April and closer to multi-year lows. Our long-standing Consumer Discretionary Goods underweight is based on tariff-related headwinds, weaker pricing power and a late cycle backdrop, which typically means underperformance of this sector. Staying underweight the group also provides a natural hedge should oil prices rise further amid rising tensions in the Middle East. We also continue to underweight small caps which are hurt the most from higher oil prices and sticky interest rates. These companies also suffer from a weaker dollar via higher costs and a limited currency translation benefit on the revenue side given their mostly domestic operations. Finally, the concern that comes up most frequently in our client discussions is high valuations. Our more sanguine view here is based on the fact that the rate of change on valuation is more important than the level. In our mid-year outlook, we showed that when Earnings Per Share growth is above the historical median of 7 percent, and the Fed Funds Rate is down on a year-over-year basis, the S&P 500's market multiple is up 90 percent of the time, regardless of the starting point. In fact, when these conditions are met, the S&P's forward P/E ratio has risen by 9 percent on average. Therefore, our forecast for the market multiple to stay near current levels of 21.5x could be viewed as conservative. Should history repeat and valuations rise 10 percent, our bull case for the S&P 500 over the next year becomes very achievable. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found this episode informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!","duration_ms":317831,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-16","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/2XrMVW9P0EBCfhVHy1Myon"},"html_description":"

While market sentiment on U.S. large caps turns cautious, our Chief CIO and U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why there's still room to stay constructive.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing why we remain more constructive than the consensus on large cap U.S. equities – and which sectors in particular.

It's Monday, June 16th at 9:30am in New York.

So, let’s get after it.

We remain more constructive on U.S. equities than the consensus mainly because key gauges we follow are pointing to a stronger earnings backdrop than others expect over the next 12 months. First, our main earnings model is showing high-single-digit Earnings Per Share growth over the next year. Second, earnings revision breadth is inflecting sharply higher from -25 percent in mid-April to -9 percent today. Third, we have a secondary Earnings Leading model that takes into account the cost side of the equation; and that one is forecasting mid-teens Earnings Per Share growth by the first half of 2026. More specifically, it’s pointing to higher profitability due to cost efficiencies.

Interestingly, this was something we heard frequently last week at the Morgan Stanley Financials Conference with many companies highlighting the adoption of Artificial Intelligence to help streamline operations. Finally, the most underappreciated tailwind for S&P 500 earnings remains the weaker dollar which is down 11 percent from the January highs. As a reminder, our currency strategists expect another 7 percent downside over the next 12 months.

The combination of a stronger level of earnings revisions breadth and a robust rate of change on earnings revisions breadth since growth expectations troughed in mid-April is a powerful tailwind for many large cap stocks, with the strongest impact in the Capital Goods and Software industries.

These industries have compelling structural growth drivers. For Capital Goods, it’s tied to a renewed focus on global infrastructure spending. The rate of change on capacity utilization is in positive territory for the first time in two and a half years and aggregate commercial and industrial loans are growing again, reaching the highest level since 2020. The combination of structural tech diffusion and a global infrastructure focus in many countries is leading to a more capital intensive backdrop. Bonus depreciation in the U.S. should be another tailwind here – as it incentivizes a pickup in equipment investment, benefitting Capital Goods companies most directly. Meanwhile, Software is in a strong position to drive free cash flow via GenAI solutions from both a revenue and cost standpoint.

Another sector we favor is large cap financials which could start to see meaningful benefits of de-regulation in the second half of the year. The main risk to our more constructive view remains long term interest rates. While Wednesday's below consensus consumer price report was helpful in terms of keeping yields contained, we find it interesting that rates did not fall on Friday with the rise in geopolitical tensions. As a result, the 10-year yield remains in close distance of our key 4.5 percent level, above which rate sensitivity should increase for stocks. On the positive side, interest rate volatility is well off its highs in April and closer to multi-year lows.

Our long-standing Consumer Discretionary Goods underweight is based on tariff-related headwinds, weaker pricing power and a late cycle backdrop, which typically means underperformance of this sector. Staying underweight the group also provides a natural hedge should oil prices rise further amid rising tensions in the Middle East. We also continue to underweight small caps which are hurt the most from higher oil prices and sticky interest rates. These companies also suffer from a weaker dollar via higher costs and a limited currency translation benefit on the revenue side given their mostly domestic operations.

Finally, the concern that comes up most frequently in our client discussions is high valuations. Our more sanguine view here is based on the fact that the rate of change on valuation is more important than the level. In our mid-year outlook, we showed that when Earnings Per Share growth is above the historical median of 7 percent, and the Fed Funds Rate is down on a year-over-year basis, the S&P 500's market multiple is up 90 percent of the time, regardless of the starting point.

In fact, when these conditions are met, the S&P's forward P/E ratio has risen by 9 percent on average. Therefore, our forecast for the market multiple to stay near current levels of 21.5x could be viewed as conservative. Should history repeat and valuations rise 10 percent, our bull case for the S&P 500 over the next year becomes very achievable.

Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found this episode informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/2axhlsKIPYBNY3FD7Qv0Je/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"6uKp9Yl0KCs4RP862eHalC","uri":"spotify:episode:6uKp9Yl0KCs4RP862eHalC","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/6uKp9Yl0KCs4RP862eHalC","name":"The Economic Stakes of President Trump’s Immigration Policy","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our economists Michael Gapen and Sam Coffin discuss how a drop in immigration is tightening labor markets, and what that means for the U.S. economic outlook and Fed policy. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Sam Coffin: And I'm Sam Coffin, Senior Economist on our U.S. Economics research team.Michael Gapen: Today we're going to have a discussion about the potential economic consequences of the administration’s shift in immigration policies. In particular, we’ll focus much of our attention on the influence that immigration reform is having on the U.S. labor market. And what it means for our outlook on Federal Reserve policy.It's Friday, June 13th at 9am in New York.So, Sam, news headlines have been dominated by developments in the President's immigration policies; what is being called by, at least some commentators, as a toughening in his stance.But I'd like to set the stage first with any new information that you think we've received on border encounters and interior removals. The administration has released new data on that recently that covered at least some of the activity earlier this year. What did it tell you? And did it differ markedly from your expectations?Sam Coffin: What we saw at first was border encounters falling sharply to 30,000 a month from 200,000 or 300,000 a month last year. It was perhaps a surprise that they fell that sharply. And on the flip side, interior removals turned out to be much more difficult than the administration had suggested. They'd been targeting maybe 500,000 per year in removals, 1500 a day. And we're hitting a third or a half of that pace.Michael Gapen: So maybe the recent escalation in ICE raids could be in response to this, right? The fact that interior removals have not been as large as some in the administration would desire.Sam Coffin: That's correct. And we think those efforts will continue. The House Budget Reconciliation Bill, for example, has about $155 billion more in the budget for ICE, a large increase over its current budget. This will likely mean greater efforts at interior removals. About half of it goes to stricter border enforcement. The other half goes to new agents and more operations. We'll see what the final bill looks like, but it would be about a five-fold increase in funding.Michael Gapen: Okay. So much fewer encounters, meaning fewer migrants entering the U.S., and stepped-up enforcement on interior removals. So, I guess, shifting gears on the back of that data. Two important visa programs have also been in the news. One is the so-called CHNV Parole Program that's allowed Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans to enter the U.S. on parole. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the administration could proceed with removing their immigration status.We also have immigrants on TPS, or Temporary Protected Status, which is subject to periodic removal; if the administration determines that the circumstances that warranted their immigration into the U.S. are no longer present. So, these would be immigrants coming to the U.S. in response to war, conflict, environmental disasters, hurricanes, so forth.So, Sam, how do you think about the ramping up of immigration controls in these areas? Is the end of these temporary programs important? How many immigrants are on them? And what would the cancellation of these mean in terms of your outlook for immigration?Sam Coffin: Yeah, for CHNV Paroles, there are about 500,000 people paroled into the U.S. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration can cancel those paroles. We expect now that those 500,000 are probably removed from the country over the next six months or so. And the temporary protected status; similarly, there are about 800,000 people on temporary protected status. About 600,000 of them have their temporary status revoked at this point or at least revoked sometime soon. And it looks like we'll get a couple hundred thousand in deportations out from that program this year and the rest next year.The result is net immigration probably falling to 300,000 people this year. We'd expected about a million, when we came into this year, but the faster pace of deportation takes that down. So, 300,000 this year and 300,000 next year, between the reduction in border encounters and the increase in deportations.Michael Gapen: So that's a big shift from what we thought coming into the year. What does that mean for population growth and growth in the labor force? And how would this compare – just put it in context from where we were coming out of the pandemic when immigration inflows were quite large.Sam Coffin: Yeah. Population growth before the pandemic was running 0.5 to 0.75 percent per year. With the large increase in immigration, it accelerated 1-1.25 percent during the years of the fastest immigration. At this point, it falls by about a point to 0.3-0.4 percent population growth over the next couple of years.Michael Gapen: So almost flat growth in the labor force, right? So, translate that into what economists would call a break-even employment rate. How much employment do you need to push the unemployment rate down or push the unemployment rate up?Sam Coffin: Yeah, so last year – I mean, we have the experience of last year. And last year about 200,000 a month in payroll growth was consistent with a flat unemployment rate. So far this year, that's full on to 160,000-170,000 a month, consistent with a flat unemployment rate. With further reduction in labor force growth, it would probably decline to about 70,000 a month. So much slower payrolls to hold the unemployment rate flat.Michael Gapen: So, as you know, we've taken the view, Sam, that immigration controls and restrictions will mean a few important things for the economy, right? One is fewer consuming households and softening demand, but the foreign-born worker has a much higher participation rate than domestic workers; about 4 to 5 percentage points higher.So, a lot less labor force growth, as you mentioned. How have these developments changed your view on exactly how hard it's going to be to push the unemployment rate higher?Sam Coffin: So, so far this year, payrolls have averaged about 140,000 a month, and the unemployment rate's been going sideways at 4.2 percent. It's been going sideways since – for about nine months now, in fact. We do expect that payroll growth slows over the course of this year, along with the slowing in domestic demand. We have payroll growth falling around 50,000 a month by late in the year; but the unemployment rate going sideways, 4.3 percent this year because of that decline in breakeven payrolls.For next year, we also have weak payroll growth. We also expect weak payroll growth of about 50,000 a month. But the unemployment rate rising somewhat more to 4.8 percent by the end of the year.Michael Gapen: So, immigration controls really mean the unemployment rate will rise, but less than you might expect and later than you might expect, right? So that's I guess what we would classify as the cyclical effect of immigration.But we also think immigration controls and a much slower growth in the labor force means downward pressure on potential. Where are we right now in terms of potential growth and where's that vis-a-vis where we were? And if these immigration controls go into place, where do we think potential growth is going?Sam Coffin: Well, GDP potential is measured as the sum of productivity growth and growth in trend hours worked. The slower immigration means slower labor force growth and less capacity for hours. We estimated potential growth between 2.5 and 3 percent growth in 2022 to 2024. But we have it falling to 2.0 percent presently – or back to where it was before COVID. If we're right on immigration going forward and we see those faster deportations and the continued stoppage at the border, it could mean potential growth of only 1.5 percent next year.Michael Gapen: That’s a big change, of course, from where the economy was just, you know, 12 to 18 months ago. And I'd like to circle back to one point that you made in bringing up the recent employment numbers. In the May job report that was released last week, we also saw a decline in labor force participation. It went down two-tenths on the month.Now, on one hand that may have prevented a rise in the unemployment rate. It was 4.2 but could have been maybe 4.5 percent or so – had the participation rate held constant. So maybe the labor market weakened, and we just don't know it yet. But you have an idea that you've put forward in some of our reports that there might be another explanation behind the drop in the participation rate. What is that?Sam Coffin: It could be that the threat of increased deportations has created a chilling effect on the participation rate of undocumented workers.Michael Gapen: So, explain to listeners what we mean by a chilling effect in participation, right? We're not talking about restricting inflows or actual deportations. What are we referring to?Sam Coffin: Perhaps undocumented workers step out of the workforce temporarily to avoid detection, similar to how people stayed out of the workforce during the pandemic because of fear of infection or need to take care of children or parents. If this is the case, some of the foreign-born population may be stepping out of the labor force for a longer period of time.Michael Gapen: Right. Which would mean the unemployment rate at 4.2 percent is real and does not mask weakness in the labor market. So, whether it's less in migration, more interior removals, or a chilling effect on participation, then the labor market still stays tight.Sam Coffin: And this is why we think the Fed moves later but ultimately cuts more. It's a combination of tariffs and immigration.Michael Gapen: That's right. So, our baseline is that tariffs push inflation higher first, and so the Fed sees that. But if we're right on immigration and your forecast is that the unemployment rate finishes the year at 4.3, then the Fed just stays on hold. And it's not until the unemployment rate starts rising in 2026 that the Fed turns to cuts, right. So, we have cuts starting in March of next year. And the Fed cutting all the way down to 250 to 275.Well, I think altogether, Sam, this is what we know now. It's certainly a fluid situation. Headlines are changing rapidly, so our thoughts may evolve over time as the policy backdrop evolves. But Sam, thank you for speaking with me.Sam Coffin: Thank you very much.Michael Gapen: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.","duration_ms":648124,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-13","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/6uKp9Yl0KCs4RP862eHalC"},"html_description":"

Our economists Michael Gapen and Sam Coffin discuss how a drop in immigration is tightening labor markets, and what that means for the U.S. economic outlook and Fed policy.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.

Sam Coffin: And I'm Sam Coffin, Senior Economist on our U.S. Economics research team.

Michael Gapen: Today we're going to have a discussion about the potential economic consequences of the administration’s shift in immigration policies. In particular, we’ll focus much of our attention on the influence that immigration reform is having on the U.S. labor market. And what it means for our outlook on Federal Reserve policy.

It's Friday, June 13th at 9am in New York.

So, Sam, news headlines have been dominated by developments in the President's immigration policies; what is being called by, at least some commentators, as a toughening in his stance.

But I'd like to set the stage first with any new information that you think we've received on border encounters and interior removals. The administration has released new data on that recently that covered at least some of the activity earlier this year. What did it tell you? And did it differ markedly from your expectations?

Sam Coffin: What we saw at first was border encounters falling sharply to 30,000 a month from 200,000 or 300,000 a month last year. It was perhaps a surprise that they fell that sharply. And on the flip side, interior removals turned out to be much more difficult than the administration had suggested. They'd been targeting maybe 500,000 per year in removals, 1500 a day. And we're hitting a third or a half of that pace.

Michael Gapen: So maybe the recent escalation in ICE raids could be in response to this, right? The fact that interior removals have not been as large as some in the administration would desire.

Sam Coffin: That's correct. And we think those efforts will continue. The House Budget Reconciliation Bill, for example, has about $155 billion more in the budget for ICE, a large increase over its current budget. This will likely mean greater efforts at interior removals. About half of it goes to stricter border enforcement. The other half goes to new agents and more operations. We'll see what the final bill looks like, but it would be about a five-fold increase in funding.

Michael Gapen: Okay. So much fewer encounters, meaning fewer migrants entering the U.S., and stepped-up enforcement on interior removals. So, I guess, shifting gears on the back of that data. Two important visa programs have also been in the news. One is the so-called CHNV Parole Program that's allowed Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans to enter the U.S. on parole. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the administration could proceed with removing their immigration status.

We also have immigrants on TPS, or Temporary Protected Status, which is subject to periodic removal; if the administration determines that the circumstances that warranted their immigration into the U.S. are no longer present. So, these would be immigrants coming to the U.S. in response to war, conflict, environmental disasters, hurricanes, so forth.

So, Sam, how do you think about the ramping up of immigration controls in these areas? Is the end of these temporary programs important? How many immigrants are on them? And what would the cancellation of these mean in terms of your outlook for immigration?

Sam Coffin: Yeah, for CHNV Paroles, there are about 500,000 people paroled into the U.S. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration can cancel those paroles. We expect now that those 500,000 are probably removed from the country over the next six months or so. And the temporary protected status; similarly, there are about 800,000 people on temporary protected status. About 600,000 of them have their temporary status revoked at this point or at least revoked sometime soon. And it looks like we'll get a couple hundred thousand in deportations out from that program this year and the rest next year.

The result is net immigration probably falling to 300,000 people this year. We'd expected about a million, when we came into this year, but the faster pace of deportation takes that down. So, 300,000 this year and 300,000 next year, between the reduction in border encounters and the increase in deportations.

Michael Gapen: So that's a big shift from what we thought coming into the year. What does that mean for population growth and growth in the labor force? And how would this compare – just put it in context from where we were coming out of the pandemic when immigration inflows were quite large.

Sam Coffin: Yeah. Population growth before the pandemic was running 0.5 to 0.75 percent per year. With the large increase in immigration, it accelerated 1-1.25 percent during the years of the fastest immigration. At this point, it falls by about a point to 0.3-0.4 percent population growth over the next couple of years.

Michael Gapen: So almost flat growth in the labor force, right? So, translate that into what economists would call a break-even employment rate. How much employment do you need to push the unemployment rate down or push the unemployment rate up?

Sam Coffin: Yeah, so last year – I mean, we have the experience of last year. And last year about 200,000 a month in payroll growth was consistent with a flat unemployment rate. So far this year, that's full on to 160,000-170,000 a month, consistent with a flat unemployment rate. With further reduction in labor force growth, it would probably decline to about 70,000 a month. So much slower payrolls to hold the unemployment rate flat.

Michael Gapen: So, as you know, we've taken the view, Sam, that immigration controls and restrictions will mean a few important things for the economy, right? One is fewer consuming households and softening demand, but the foreign-born worker has a much higher participation rate than domestic workers; about 4 to 5 percentage points higher.

So, a lot less labor force growth, as you mentioned. How have these developments changed your view on exactly how hard it's going to be to push the unemployment rate higher?

Sam Coffin: So, so far this year, payrolls have averaged about 140,000 a month, and the unemployment rate's been going sideways at 4.2 percent. It's been going sideways since – for about nine months now, in fact. We do expect that payroll growth slows over the course of this year, along with the slowing in domestic demand. We have payroll growth falling around 50,000 a month by late in the year; but the unemployment rate going sideways, 4.3 percent this year because of that decline in breakeven payrolls.

For next year, we also have weak payroll growth. We also expect weak payroll growth of about 50,000 a month. But the unemployment rate rising somewhat more to 4.8 percent by the end of the year.

Michael Gapen: So, immigration controls really mean the unemployment rate will rise, but less than you might expect and later than you might expect, right? So that's I guess what we would classify as the cyclical effect of immigration.

But we also think immigration controls and a much slower growth in the labor force means downward pressure on potential. Where are we right now in terms of potential growth and where's that vis-a-vis where we were? And if these immigration controls go into place, where do we think potential growth is going?

Sam Coffin: Well, GDP potential is measured as the sum of productivity growth and growth in trend hours worked. The slower immigration means slower labor force growth and less capacity for hours. We estimated potential growth between 2.5 and 3 percent growth in 2022 to 2024. But we have it falling to 2.0 percent presently – or back to where it was before COVID. If we're right on immigration going forward and we see those faster deportations and the continued stoppage at the border, it could mean potential growth of only 1.5 percent next year.

Michael Gapen: That’s a big change, of course, from where the economy was just, you know, 12 to 18 months ago. And I'd like to circle back to one point that you made in bringing up the recent employment numbers. In the May job report that was released last week, we also saw a decline in labor force participation. It went down two-tenths on the month.

Now, on one hand that may have prevented a rise in the unemployment rate. It was 4.2 but could have been maybe 4.5 percent or so – had the participation rate held constant. So maybe the labor market weakened, and we just don't know it yet. But you have an idea that you've put forward in some of our reports that there might be another explanation behind the drop in the participation rate. What is that?

Sam Coffin: It could be that the threat of increased deportations has created a chilling effect on the participation rate of undocumented workers.

Michael Gapen: So, explain to listeners what we mean by a chilling effect in participation, right? We're not talking about restricting inflows or actual deportations. What are we referring to?

Sam Coffin: Perhaps undocumented workers step out of the workforce temporarily to avoid detection, similar to how people stayed out of the workforce during the pandemic because of fear of infection or need to take care of children or parents. If this is the case, some of the foreign-born population may be stepping out of the labor force for a longer period of time.

Michael Gapen: Right. Which would mean the unemployment rate at 4.2 percent is real and does not mask weakness in the labor market. So, whether it's less in migration, more interior removals, or a chilling effect on participation, then the labor market still stays tight.

Sam Coffin: And this is why we think the Fed moves later but ultimately cuts more. It's a combination of tariffs and immigration.

Michael Gapen: That's right. So, our baseline is that tariffs push inflation higher first, and so the Fed sees that. But if we're right on immigration and your forecast is that the unemployment rate finishes the year at 4.3, then the Fed just stays on hold. And it's not until the unemployment rate starts rising in 2026 that the Fed turns to cuts, right. So, we have cuts starting in March of next year. And the Fed cutting all the way down to 250 to 275.

Well, I think altogether, Sam, this is what we know now. It's certainly a fluid situation. Headlines are changing rapidly, so our thoughts may evolve over time as the policy backdrop evolves. But Sam, thank you for speaking with me.

Sam Coffin: Thank you very much.

Michael Gapen: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/1rlTW0huhF4G4FOe2zd09Z/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"0fYyfJCzGJINCb0dWkUIGm","uri":"spotify:episode:0fYyfJCzGJINCb0dWkUIGm","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/0fYyfJCzGJINCb0dWkUIGm","name":"Midyear Credit Outlook: Slowdown in Europe","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Aron Becker explain why European credit markets’ performance for the rest of 2025 could be tied to U.S. growth.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Aron Becker: And I'm Aron Becker, Head of European Credit Strategy.Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, we're continuing a series of conversations covering the outlook for credit around the world. Morgan Stanley has recently updated its forecast for the next 12 months, and here we're going to bring you the latest views on what matters for European credit.It's Thursday, June 12th at 2pm in London.So, Aron, it's great to have this conversation with you. Today we're going to be talking about the European credit outlook. We talked with our colleague Vishwas in the other week about the U.S. credit outlook. But let's really dive into Europe and how that looks from the perspective of a credit investor.And maybe the place to start is, from your perspective, how do you see the economic backdrop in Europe, and what do you think that means for credit?Aron Becker: Right. So, on the European side, our growth expectations remain somewhat more challenging. Our economists are expecting growth after a fairly strong start to slow down in the back half of this year. The German fiscal package that was announced earlier this year will take time to lift growth further out in 2026. So, in the near term, we see a softening backdrop for the domestic economy.But I think what's important to emphasize here is that U.S. growth, as Vishwas and you have talked about last time around, is also set to decelerate on our economists forecast more meaningfully. And that matters for Europe.Two reasons why I think the U.S. growth outlook matters for European credit. One, nearly a quarter of European companies’ revenues are generated in the U.S. And two, U.S. companies themselves have been very actively tapping the European corporate bond markets. And in fact, if you look at the outstanding notion of bonds in the euro benchmarks, the largest country by far is U.S. issuers. And so, I do think that we need to think about the outlook on the macro side, more in a global perspective, when we think about the outlook for European credit. And if we look at history, what we can deduct from the simple correlation between growth and credit spreads is current credit valuations imply growth would be around 3 percent. And that's a stark contrast to our economists’ forecast where both Europe and U.S. is decelerating to below 1 percent over the next 12 months.Andrew Sheets: But Aron, you know, you talked about the slow growth, here in Europe. You talked about a slower growth picture in the U.S. You talked about, you know, pretty extensive exposure of European companies into the U.S. story. All of which sound like pretty challenging things. And yet, if one looks at your forecasts for credit spreads, we think they remain relatively tight, especially in investment grade.So, how does one square that? What's driving what might look like, kind of, a more optimistic forecast picture despite those macro challenges?Aron Becker: Right. That's a very important question. I think that it's not all about the growth, and there are a number of factors that I think can alleviate the pressures from the macro side. The first is that unlike in the U.S., in Europe we are expecting inflation to decelerate more meaningfully over the coming year. And we do think that the ECB and the Bank of England will continue to ease policy. That's good for the economy and the eventual rebound. And we also think that it's good for demand for credit products. For yield buyers where the cash alternative is getting less and less compelling, I think they will see yields on corporate credit much more attractive. And I do think that credit yields right now in Europe are actually quite attractive.Andrew Sheets: So, Aron, you know, another question I had is, if you think about some of those dynamics. The fact that interest rates are above where they've been over the last 10 years. You think about a growth environment in Europe, which is; it's not a recession, but growth is, kind of, 1 percent or a little bit below.I mean, some ways this is very similar to the dynamic we had last year. So, what do you think is similar and what do you think is different, in terms of how investors should think about, say, the next 12 months – versus where we've been?Aron Becker: Right. So, what's really similar is, for example, the yield, like I just mentioned. I think the yield is attractive. That hasn't really changed over the past 12 months. If you just think about credit as a carry product, you're still getting around between 3-3.5 percent on an IG corporate bond today.What's really different is that over the same period, the ECB has already lowered front-end rates by 200 basis points. And at the same time, if you think about the fiscal developments in Germany or broader rates dynamics, we've seen a sharp steepening of yield curves; and curves are actually at the steepest levels in two years now. And what this leaves us with is not only high carry from the yield on corporate bonds, but also investors are now rolling down on a much steeper curve if they buy bonds today, especially further out the curve.So, by our estimate, if you aggregate the two figures in terms of your expected total return, credit offers actually total returns much higher than over the past 12 months, and closer to where we were in the LDI crisis in 2022.Andrew Sheets: So, Aron, another development I wanted to ask you about is, if you look at our forecast for the year ahead, our global forecast. One theme is that on the government side there's projected to be a lot more borrowing. There's more borrowing in Germany, and then there's more borrowing in the U.S., especially under certain versions of the current budget proposals being debated. So, you know, it does seem like you have this contrast between more borrowing and kind of a worsening fiscal picture in governments, a better fiscal picture among corporates. We talk about the spread. The spread is the difference between that corporate and government borrowing.So, I guess looking forward first, do you think European companies are going to be borrowing more money? And certainly more money on a relative, incremental basis at these yield levels, which are higher than what they're used to in the past. And, secondly, how do you think about the relative valuation of European credit versus some of the sovereign issuers in Europe, which is often a debate that we'll have with investors?Aron Becker: Big picture? We have seen companies be very active in tapping the corporate bond markets this year. We had a record issuance in May in terms of supply. Now I would push back on the view that that's negative for investors, and expectations for spreads to widen as a result for a number of reasons. One is a lot of gross issuance tends to be good for investors who want to pick up some new issue premiums – as these new bonds do come a little bit cheap to what's out there in terms of available secondary bonds.And second, it creates a lot of liquidity for investors to actually deploy capital, when they do want to enter the bond market to invest. And what we really need to remember here is all this strong issuance activity is coming against very high maturing, volumes of bonds. Redemptions this year are rising by close to 20 percent versus last year. And so, even though we are projecting this year to be a record year for growth issuance from investment grade companies, we think net supply will be lower year-on-year as a result of those elevated, maturities.So overall, I think that's going to be a fairly positive technical backdrop. And as you alluded to it, that's a stark contrast to what the sovereign market is facing at the moment.Andrew Sheets: So, on that net basis, on the amount that they're issuing relative to what they're paying back, that actually is probably looking lower than last year, on your numbers.Aron Becker: Exactly.Andrew Sheets: And finally, Aron, you know, so we've talked a bit about the market dynamics, we've talked about the economic backdrop, we've talked about the issuance backdrop. Where does this leave your thoughts for investors? What do you think looks, kind of, most attractive for those who are looking at the European credit space?Aron Becker: Opportunities are abound, but I think you need to be quite selective of where to actually increase your risk exposure, in my view. One part which we are quite out of consensus on here at Morgan Stanley is our recommendation in European credit to extend duration further out the curve.This goes back to the point I made earlier, that curves are very steep and a lot of that carry and roll down that I think look particularly attractive; you do need to extend duration for that. But there are a number of reasons why I think that that type of trade can work in this backdrop.For one, like I said, valuations are attractive. Two, I also think that from an issuer perspective, it is expensive to tap very long dated bonds now because of that yield dynamic, and I don't necessarily see a lot of supply coming through further out the curve. Three, our rates team do expect curves to bull steepen on the rate side and historically that has tended to favor excess returns further out the curve.And fourth is, a word we love to throw around – convexity. Cash prices further out the curve are very low in investment grade credit. That tends to be actually quite attractive because then even if you get the name wrong, for example, and there are some credit challenges down the line for some of these issuers, your loss given default may be more muted if you entered the bond at a lower cash price.Andrew Sheets: Aron, thanks for taking the time to talk.Aron Becker: Thanks, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And to our listeners, thank you for sharing a few minutes of your day with us. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen to this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.","duration_ms":599301,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-12","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/0fYyfJCzGJINCb0dWkUIGm"},"html_description":"

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Aron Becker explain why European credit markets’ performance for the rest of 2025 could be tied to U.S. growth.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Aron Becker: And I'm Aron Becker, Head of European Credit Strategy.

Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, we're continuing a series of conversations covering the outlook for credit around the world. Morgan Stanley has recently updated its forecast for the next 12 months, and here we're going to bring you the latest views on what matters for European credit.

It's Thursday, June 12th at 2pm in London.

So, Aron, it's great to have this conversation with you. Today we're going to be talking about the European credit outlook. We talked with our colleague Vishwas in the other week about the U.S. credit outlook. But let's really dive into Europe and how that looks from the perspective of a credit investor.

And maybe the place to start is, from your perspective, how do you see the economic backdrop in Europe, and what do you think that means for credit?

Aron Becker: Right. So, on the European side, our growth expectations remain somewhat more challenging. Our economists are expecting growth after a fairly strong start to slow down in the back half of this year. The German fiscal package that was announced earlier this year will take time to lift growth further out in 2026. So, in the near term, we see a softening backdrop for the domestic economy.

But I think what's important to emphasize here is that U.S. growth, as Vishwas and you have talked about last time around, is also set to decelerate on our economists forecast more meaningfully. And that matters for Europe.

Two reasons why I think the U.S. growth outlook matters for European credit. One, nearly a quarter of European companies’ revenues are generated in the U.S. And two, U.S. companies themselves have been very actively tapping the European corporate bond markets. And in fact, if you look at the outstanding notion of bonds in the euro benchmarks, the largest country by far is U.S. issuers. And so, I do think that we need to think about the outlook on the macro side, more in a global perspective, when we think about the outlook for European credit. And if we look at history, what we can deduct from the simple correlation between growth and credit spreads is current credit valuations imply growth would be around 3 percent. And that's a stark contrast to our economists’ forecast where both Europe and U.S. is decelerating to below 1 percent over the next 12 months.

Andrew Sheets: But Aron, you know, you talked about the slow growth, here in Europe. You talked about a slower growth picture in the U.S. You talked about, you know, pretty extensive exposure of European companies into the U.S. story. All of which sound like pretty challenging things. And yet, if one looks at your forecasts for credit spreads, we think they remain relatively tight, especially in investment grade.

So, how does one square that? What's driving what might look like, kind of, a more optimistic forecast picture despite those macro challenges?

Aron Becker: Right. That's a very important question. I think that it's not all about the growth, and there are a number of factors that I think can alleviate the pressures from the macro side. The first is that unlike in the U.S., in Europe we are expecting inflation to decelerate more meaningfully over the coming year. And we do think that the ECB and the Bank of England will continue to ease policy. That's good for the economy and the eventual rebound. And we also think that it's good for demand for credit products. For yield buyers where the cash alternative is getting less and less compelling, I think they will see yields on corporate credit much more attractive. And I do think that credit yields right now in Europe are actually quite attractive.

Andrew Sheets: So, Aron, you know, another question I had is, if you think about some of those dynamics. The fact that interest rates are above where they've been over the last 10 years. You think about a growth environment in Europe, which is; it's not a recession, but growth is, kind of, 1 percent or a little bit below.

I mean, some ways this is very similar to the dynamic we had last year. So, what do you think is similar and what do you think is different, in terms of how investors should think about, say, the next 12 months – versus where we've been?

Aron Becker: Right. So, what's really similar is, for example, the yield, like I just mentioned. I think the yield is attractive. That hasn't really changed over the past 12 months. If you just think about credit as a carry product, you're still getting around between 3-3.5 percent on an IG corporate bond today.

What's really different is that over the same period, the ECB has already lowered front-end rates by 200 basis points. And at the same time, if you think about the fiscal developments in Germany or broader rates dynamics, we've seen a sharp steepening of yield curves; and curves are actually at the steepest levels in two years now. And what this leaves us with is not only high carry from the yield on corporate bonds, but also investors are now rolling down on a much steeper curve if they buy bonds today, especially further out the curve.

So, by our estimate, if you aggregate the two figures in terms of your expected total return, credit offers actually total returns much higher than over the past 12 months, and closer to where we were in the LDI crisis in 2022.

Andrew Sheets: So, Aron, another development I wanted to ask you about is, if you look at our forecast for the year ahead, our global forecast. One theme is that on the government side there's projected to be a lot more borrowing. There's more borrowing in Germany, and then there's more borrowing in the U.S., especially under certain versions of the current budget proposals being debated. So, you know, it does seem like you have this contrast between more borrowing and kind of a worsening fiscal picture in governments, a better fiscal picture among corporates. We talk about the spread. The spread is the difference between that corporate and government borrowing.

So, I guess looking forward first, do you think European companies are going to be borrowing more money? And certainly more money on a relative, incremental basis at these yield levels, which are higher than what they're used to in the past. And, secondly, how do you think about the relative valuation of European credit versus some of the sovereign issuers in Europe, which is often a debate that we'll have with investors?

Aron Becker: Big picture? We have seen companies be very active in tapping the corporate bond markets this year. We had a record issuance in May in terms of supply. Now I would push back on the view that that's negative for investors, and expectations for spreads to widen as a result for a number of reasons. One is a lot of gross issuance tends to be good for investors who want to pick up some new issue premiums – as these new bonds do come a little bit cheap to what's out there in terms of available secondary bonds.

And second, it creates a lot of liquidity for investors to actually deploy capital, when they do want to enter the bond market to invest. And what we really need to remember here is all this strong issuance activity is coming against very high maturing, volumes of bonds. Redemptions this year are rising by close to 20 percent versus last year. And so, even though we are projecting this year to be a record year for growth issuance from investment grade companies, we think net supply will be lower year-on-year as a result of those elevated, maturities.

So overall, I think that's going to be a fairly positive technical backdrop. And as you alluded to it, that's a stark contrast to what the sovereign market is facing at the moment.

Andrew Sheets: So, on that net basis, on the amount that they're issuing relative to what they're paying back, that actually is probably looking lower than last year, on your numbers.

Aron Becker: Exactly.

Andrew Sheets: And finally, Aron, you know, so we've talked a bit about the market dynamics, we've talked about the economic backdrop, we've talked about the issuance backdrop. Where does this leave your thoughts for investors? What do you think looks, kind of, most attractive for those who are looking at the European credit space?

Aron Becker: Opportunities are abound, but I think you need to be quite selective of where to actually increase your risk exposure, in my view. One part which we are quite out of consensus on here at Morgan Stanley is our recommendation in European credit to extend duration further out the curve.

This goes back to the point I made earlier, that curves are very steep and a lot of that carry and roll down that I think look particularly attractive; you do need to extend duration for that. But there are a number of reasons why I think that that type of trade can work in this backdrop.

For one, like I said, valuations are attractive. Two, I also think that from an issuer perspective, it is expensive to tap very long dated bonds now because of that yield dynamic, and I don't necessarily see a lot of supply coming through further out the curve. Three, our rates team do expect curves to bull steepen on the rate side and historically that has tended to favor excess returns further out the curve.

And fourth is, a word we love to throw around – convexity. Cash prices further out the curve are very low in investment grade credit. That tends to be actually quite attractive because then even if you get the name wrong, for example, and there are some credit challenges down the line for some of these issuers, your loss given default may be more muted if you entered the bond at a lower cash price.

Andrew Sheets: Aron, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Aron Becker: Thanks, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And to our listeners, thank you for sharing a few minutes of your day with us. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen to this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/4Ex2E1kDSU1Ew7DXTEizQH/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"7dVgOqPKieMkEEGgC2SulW","uri":"spotify:episode:7dVgOqPKieMkEEGgC2SulW","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/7dVgOqPKieMkEEGgC2SulW","name":"What the New Tax Bill Means for Cross-Border Portfolios","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas reads the fine print of U.S. tax legislation to understand how it might affect foreign companies operating in the U.S. and foreign investors holding U.S. debt.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we're talking about a proposal tucked away in U.S. tax legislation that could impact investors in meaningful ways: Section 899.It’s Wednesday, June 11th, at 12 pm in New York. So, Section 899 is basically a new rule that's part of a bigger bill that passed the House. It would give the U.S. Treasury the power to hit back with taxes on foreign companies if they think other countries are unfairly taxing U.S. businesses. And this rule could override existing tax agreements between countries, even applying to government funds and pension plans.The immediate concern is whether foreign holdings of U.S. bonds would be taxed – something that’s not entirely clear in the draft language. Making the costs of ownership higher would affect holders of tens of trillions of U.S. securities. That includes about 25 percent of the U.S. corporate bond market. In short, the concern is that this would disincentivize ownership of U.S. bonds by overseas investors, creating extra costs or risk premium – meaning higher yields. The good news is that there's a decent chance the Senate will tweak or clarify Section 899. Consider the evidence that the motive of those who drafted this provision doesn’t seem to have been to tax fixed income securities. If it was, you’d expect the official estimates of how much tax revenue this provision would generate to be far higher than what was scored by Congress. Public comments by Senators seem to mirror this, signaling changes are coming. But while that might mitigate one acute risk associated with 899, other risks could linger. If the provision were enacted, it acts as an extra cost on foreign multinationals investing in building businesses in the U.S. That means weaker demand for U.S. dollars overall. So while this is not at the core of our FX strategy team’s thesis on why the dollar weakens further this year, it does reinforce the view. For European equities, our equity strategy team flags that Section 899 adds a whole new layer of worry on top of the tariff concerns everyone's been talking about. While people have been focused on European goods exports to the U.S., Section 899 could affect a much broader range of European companies doing business in America. The most vulnerable sectors include Business Services, Healthcare, Travel & Leisure, Media, and Software – basically, any European company with significant U.S. business.The bottom line, even if modified, if section 899 stays in the bill and is enacted, there’s key ramifications for the U.S. dollar and European stocks. But pay careful attention in the coming days. The provision could be jettisoned from the Senate bill. It's still possible that it's too big of a law change to comply with the Senate’s budget reconciliation procedure, and so would get thrown out for reasons of process, rather than politics. We’ll be tracking it and keep you in the loop.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market please leave us a review. And tell your friends. We want everyone to listen. ","duration_ms":203467,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-11","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/7dVgOqPKieMkEEGgC2SulW"},"html_description":"

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas reads the fine print of U.S. tax legislation to understand how it might affect foreign companies operating in the U.S. and foreign investors holding U.S. debt.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.

Today we're talking about a proposal tucked away in U.S. tax legislation that could impact investors in meaningful ways: Section 899.

It’s Wednesday, June 11th, at 12 pm in New York.

So, Section 899 is basically a new rule that's part of a bigger bill that passed the House. It would give the U.S. Treasury the power to hit back with taxes on foreign companies if they think other countries are unfairly taxing U.S. businesses. And this rule could override existing tax agreements between countries, even applying to government funds and pension plans.

The immediate concern is whether foreign holdings of U.S. bonds would be taxed – something that’s not entirely clear in the draft language. Making the costs of ownership higher would affect holders of tens of trillions of U.S. securities. That includes about 25 percent of the U.S. corporate bond market. In short, the concern is that this would disincentivize ownership of U.S. bonds by overseas investors, creating extra costs or risk premium – meaning higher yields.

The good news is that there's a decent chance the Senate will tweak or clarify Section 899. Consider the evidence that the motive of those who drafted this provision doesn’t seem to have been to tax fixed income securities. If it was, you’d expect the official estimates of how much tax revenue this provision would generate to be far higher than what was scored by Congress. Public comments by Senators seem to mirror this, signaling changes are coming.

But while that might mitigate one acute risk associated with 899, other risks could linger. If the provision were enacted, it acts as an extra cost on foreign multinationals investing in building businesses in the U.S. That means weaker demand for U.S. dollars overall. So while this is not at the core of our FX strategy team’s thesis on why the dollar weakens further this year, it does reinforce the view.

For European equities, our equity strategy team flags that Section 899 adds a whole new layer of worry on top of the tariff concerns everyone's been talking about. While people have been focused on European goods exports to the U.S., Section 899 could affect a much broader range of European companies doing business in America. The most vulnerable sectors include Business Services, Healthcare, Travel & Leisure, Media, and Software – basically, any European company with significant U.S. business.

The bottom line, even if modified, if section 899 stays in the bill and is enacted, there’s key ramifications for the U.S. dollar and European stocks. But pay careful attention in the coming days. The provision could be jettisoned from the Senate bill. It's still possible that it's too big of a law change to comply with the Senate’s budget reconciliation procedure, and so would get thrown out for reasons of process, rather than politics. We’ll be tracking it and keep you in the loop.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market please leave us a review. And tell your friends. We want everyone to listen.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/3QDUd5rqzUOTNYTyHv0zji/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"0PeXtLw90U3ZeIJfDNXcho","uri":"spotify:episode:0PeXtLw90U3ZeIJfDNXcho","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/0PeXtLw90U3ZeIJfDNXcho","name":"How China Is Rewriting the AI Code","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our Head of Asia Technology Research Shawn Kim discusses China's distinctly different approach to AI development and its investment implications.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Asia Technology Team. Today: a behind-the-scenes look at how China is reshaping the global AI landscape. It’s Tuesday, June 10 at 2pm in Hong Kong. China has been quietly and methodically executing on its top-down strategy to establish its domestic AI capabilities ever since 2017. And while U.S. semiconductor restrictions have presented a near-term challenge, they have also forced China to achieve significant advancements in AI with less hardware. So rather than building the most powerful AI capabilities, China’s primary focus has been on bringing AI to market with maximum efficiency. And you can see this with the recent launch of DeepSeek R1, and there are literally hundreds of AI start-ups using open-source Large Language Models to carve out niches and moats in this AI landscape. The key question is: What is the path forward? Can China sustain this momentum and translate its research prowess into global AI leadership? The answer hinges on four things: its energy, its data, talent, and computing. China’s centralized government – with more than a billion mobile internet users – possess enormous amounts of data. China also has access to abundant energy: it built 10 nuclear power plants just last year, and there are ten more coming this year. U.S. chips are far better for the moment, but China is also advancing quickly; and getting a lot done without the best chips. Finally, China has plenty of talent – according to the World Economic Forum, 47 percent of the world’s top AI researchers are now in China. Plus, there is already a comprehensive AI governance framework in place, with more than 250 regulatory standards ensuring that AI development remains secure, ethical, and strategically controlled. So, all in all, China is well on its way to realizing its ambitious goal of becoming a world leader in AI by 2030. And by that point, AI will be deeply embedded across all sectors of China’s economy, supported by a regulatory environment. We believe the AI revolution will boost China’s long-term potential GDP growth by addressing key structural headwinds to the economy, such as aging demographics and slowing productivity growth. We estimate that GenAI can create almost 7 trillion RMB in labor and productivity value. This equals almost 5 percent of China’s GDP growth last year. And the investment implications of China’s approach to AI cannot be overstated. It’s clear that China has already established a solid AI foundation. And now meaningful opportunities are emerging not just for the big players, but also for smaller, mass-market businesses as well. And with value shifting from AI hardware to the AI application layer, we see China continuing its success in bringing out AI applications to market and transforming industries in very practical terms. As history shows, whoever adopts and diffuses a new technology the fastest wins – and is difficult to displace. 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.","duration_ms":218984,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-10","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/0PeXtLw90U3ZeIJfDNXcho"},"html_description":"

Our Head of Asia Technology Research Shawn Kim discusses China's distinctly different approach to AI development and its investment implications.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Asia Technology Team. Today: a behind-the-scenes look at how China is reshaping the global AI landscape.

It’s Tuesday, June 10 at 2pm in Hong Kong.

China has been quietly and methodically executing on its top-down strategy to establish its domestic AI capabilities ever since 2017. And while U.S. semiconductor restrictions have presented a near-term challenge, they have also forced China to achieve significant advancements in AI with less hardware. So rather than building the most powerful AI capabilities, China’s primary focus has been on bringing AI to market with maximum efficiency. And you can see this with the recent launch of DeepSeek R1, and there are literally hundreds of AI start-ups using open-source Large Language Models to carve out niches and moats in this AI landscape.

The key question is: What is the path forward? Can China sustain this momentum and translate its research prowess into global AI leadership? The answer hinges on four things: its energy, its data, talent, and computing. China’s centralized government – with more than a billion mobile internet users – possess enormous amounts of data. China also has access to abundant energy: it built 10 nuclear power plants just last year, and there are ten more coming this year. U.S. chips are far better for the moment, but China is also advancing quickly; and getting a lot done without the best chips. Finally, China has plenty of talent – according to the World Economic Forum, 47 percent of the world’s top AI researchers are now in China.

Plus, there is already a comprehensive AI governance framework in place, with more than 250 regulatory standards ensuring that AI development remains secure, ethical, and strategically controlled.

So, all in all, China is well on its way to realizing its ambitious goal of becoming a world leader in AI by 2030. And by that point, AI will be deeply embedded across all sectors of China’s economy, supported by a regulatory environment. We believe the AI revolution will boost China’s long-term potential GDP growth by addressing key structural headwinds to the economy, such as aging demographics and slowing productivity growth. We estimate that GenAI can create almost 7 trillion RMB in labor and productivity value. This equals almost 5 percent of China’s GDP growth last year.

And the investment implications of China’s approach to AI cannot be overstated. It’s clear that China has already established a solid AI foundation. And now meaningful opportunities are emerging not just for the big players, but also for smaller, mass-market businesses as well. And with value shifting from AI hardware to the AI application layer, we see China continuing its success in bringing out AI applications to market and transforming industries in very practical terms. As history shows, whoever adopts and diffuses a new technology the fastest wins – and is difficult to displace.

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.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/76cMk3MrlJHWJrO8mh6fUq/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"1j8s36jhoKg10R3EEo8oXX","uri":"spotify:episode:1j8s36jhoKg10R3EEo8oXX","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/1j8s36jhoKg10R3EEo8oXX","name":"U.S. Financials Conference: Three Key Themes to Watch","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our analysts Betsy Graseck, Manan Gosalia and Ryan Kenny discuss the major discussions they expect to highlight Morgan Stanley’s upcoming U.S. Financials conference.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Large Cap Bank Analyst and Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research. Today we take a look at the key debates in the U.S. financials industry. It’s Monday, June 9th at 10:30am in New York.Tomorrow Morgan Stanley kicks off its annual U.S. Financials Conference right here in New York City. We wanted to give you a glimpse into some of the most significant themes that we expect will be addressed at the conference. And so, I'm here with two of my colleagues, Manan Gosalia, U.S. Midcap Banks Analyst, and Ryan Kenny, U.S. Midcaps Advisor Analyst.Investors are grappling with navigating economic uncertainty from new tariff policies, inflation concerns, and immigration challenges – all of which impacts financial growth and credit quality. On the positive side, they are also looking closely at regulatory shifts under the Trump administration, which could ease banking rules for the first time since the Great Financial Crisis.Let's hear what our experts are expecting. Manan, ahead of the conference, what key themes do you expect mid-cap banks will highlight?Manan Gosalia: So, there are three key themes that we've been focused on for the mid-cap banks: loan growth, net interest margins, and capital. So, first on loan growth. Loan growth for the regional banks has been fairly tepid at about 2 to 3 percent year-on-year, and the tone from bank management teams has been fairly mixed in the April earning season that followed the tariff announcements on April 2nd. Some banks were starting to see the uncertainty weigh on corporate decision making and borrowing activity, while others were only seeing a slow down in some parts of their portfolio, with a pickup in other parts. Now that we've had two months to digest the announcements and several more positive developments on tariff negotiations, we expect that the tone from bank management teams will be more positive. Now, we don't expect them to say growth is accelerating, but we do expect that they will say loan growth is holding up with strong pipelines. On the second topic, net interest margins, we expect to hear that there is still room for margin expansion as we go through this year. And that's coming in two places, particularly as bank term deposits continue to reprice lower. And then the back book of fixed rate loans and securities, essentially assets that were put on the books four to five years ago when rates were a lot lower, are now rolling over at today's higher rates. Betsy Graseck: So, is the long end of the curve going up a good thing?Manan Gosalia: Yes, for net interest margins. But on the flip side, the tenure going up is slightly negative for bank capital. So that brings me to my third theme. The regional banks are overall in a much better place on capital than they were two years ago. Balance sheets have improved. Capital levels remain solid across the sector. But the recent increase in the long end of the curve is marginally negative for capital, given that there will be a higher negative mark on securities that banks hold. But we believe that higher capital levels that regional banks have accumulated over the past couple of years will help cushion some of these negative marks, and we don't expect the recent shift in the tenure will have a meaningful impact on bank capital plans.Betsy Graseck: So, the increase in the 10-year pulls down capital a little bit, but not enough to trip any regulatory minimums?Manan Gosalia: Correct.Betsy Graseck: So, all in the 10-year yield going up is a good thing?Manan Gosalia: It's slightly negative, but I would expect it does not impact bank growth plans. Betsy Graseck: Okay. All in, what's the message from mid-cap banks?Manan Gosalia: All in, I would expect the tone to be a little more positive than the banks had at April earnings.Betsy Graseck: Excellent. Thanks so much, Manan. Ryan, what about you? What are you expecting mid-cap advisors will say?Ryan Kenny: So, I think we'll hear a lot about the trends in M&A. And when we last heard from investment bank management teams during April earnings, the messaging was more cautious. We heard about M&A deals being paused as companies processed the Liberation Day tariffs, and a small number of deals being pulled. Tomorrow at our conference, expect to hear a measured but slightly improved tone. Look, there's still a lot of uncertainty out there, but what's changed since April is the fact that the U.S. administration is flexing in response to markets. So that should help shore up more confidence needed to do deals, and there's tremendous pent-up demand for corporate activity. Over the last three years – so 2022 to 2024 – M&A volumes relative to nominal GDP have been running 30 to 40 percent below three-decade averages. Equity capital markets volumes 50 to 60 percent below average. There is tremendous need for private equity firms to exit their portfolio investments and deploy $4 trillion of dry powder that has accumulated and also structural themes for corporates – like the need for AI capabilities, energy and biotech consolidation and reshoring – that should fuel mergers as a cycle gets going.So, I think for this group, the message will likely be: April and May – more challenged from a deal flow perspective; but back up of the year, you should start to expect some improvement.Betsy Graseck: So slightly improved tone…Ryan Kenny: Slightly improved. And one of the other really interesting themes that the investment banks will talk about is the substantial growth of private capital advisory.So, this is advising private equity funds and owners on capital raising, liquidation, including secondary transactions and continuation funds. And what will be interesting is how the clients set here is growing. We've seen this quarter, major universities, some local governments that increasingly need liquidity and they're hiring investment banks to advise on selling private equity fund interests.It's really going to be a great discussion because private capital advisory is a major growth area for the boutique investment banks that I cover.Betsy Graseck: How big of a sleeve do you think this could become – as big as M&A outright?Ryan Kenny: Probably not as big as M&A outright, but significant. And it helps give the investment banks’ relationships with financial sponsors who are active on the M&A front. So, it can be a share gain story.So, Betsy, what about you? You cover the large cap banks. What do you expect to hear?Betsy Graseck: Well, before I answer that, I do want to just put a pin on it.So, you're saying that for your coverage Ryan, we have some green shoots coming through...Ryan Kenny: Yeah, green shoots and more positive than in April.Betsy Graseck: And Manan on your side? Same?Manan Gosalia: A little bit more of a positive than April earnings, but more of the same as we heard at the start of the year.Betsy Graseck: Okay. Going back to the future then, I suppose we could say. Excellent. Well on large cap banks, I do expect large cap banks will be reflecting some of the same themes that you both just discussed. In particular, you know, we'll talk about IPOs. IPOs are holding up. We look at IPOs where we had 26 IPOs in the past week alone.That's up from 22 on average year-to-date in 2025. And I do think that the large cap banks will highlight that capital market activity is building and can accelerate from here, as long as equity volatility remains contained. By which we mean VIX is at 20 or below. And with capital market activity should come increased lending activity. It's very exciting. What's going on here is that when you do an M&A, you have to finance it, and that financing comes from either the bond market or banks or private credit. M&A financing is a key driver of CNI loan growth. A lot of people don't know that. And CNI loan growth, we do think will be moving from current levels of about 2 percent year-on-year, as per the most recent Fed H.8 data to 5 percent as M&A comes through over the next year plus. And then the other major driver of CNI loans is loans to non-depository financial institutions, which is also known as NDFI Loans. NDFI loans have been getting a lot of press recently. We see this as much ado about reclassification. That said, investors are asking what is the risk of this book of business? Our view is that it's similar to overall CNI loan risk, and we will dig into that outlook with managements at the conference. It'll be exciting. Additionally, we will touch on regulation and how easing of regulation could change strategies for capital utilization and capital deployment. So, you want to have an ear out for that. Well, Manan, Ryan, it's been great speaking with you today.Manan Gosalia: Should be an exciting conference.Ryan Kenny: Thanks for having us on.Betsy Graseck: And thanks for listening everyone. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.","duration_ms":609410,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-09","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/1j8s36jhoKg10R3EEo8oXX"},"html_description":"

Our analysts Betsy Graseck, Manan Gosalia and Ryan Kenny discuss the major discussions they expect to highlight Morgan Stanley’s upcoming U.S. Financials conference.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Large Cap Bank Analyst and Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research.

Today we take a look at the key debates in the U.S. financials industry.

It’s Monday, June 9th at 10:30am in New York.

Tomorrow Morgan Stanley kicks off its annual U.S. Financials Conference right here in New York City. We wanted to give you a glimpse into some of the most significant themes that we expect will be addressed at the conference. And so, I'm here with two of my colleagues, Manan Gosalia, U.S. Midcap Banks Analyst, and Ryan Kenny, U.S. Midcaps Advisor Analyst.

Investors are grappling with navigating economic uncertainty from new tariff policies, inflation concerns, and immigration challenges – all of which impacts financial growth and credit quality. On the positive side, they are also looking closely at regulatory shifts under the Trump administration, which could ease banking rules for the first time since the Great Financial Crisis.

Let's hear what our experts are expecting. Manan, ahead of the conference, what key themes do you expect mid-cap banks will highlight?

Manan Gosalia: So, there are three key themes that we've been focused on for the mid-cap banks: loan growth, net interest margins, and capital. So, first on loan growth. Loan growth for the regional banks has been fairly tepid at about 2 to 3 percent year-on-year, and the tone from bank management teams has been fairly mixed in the April earning season that followed the tariff announcements on April 2nd.

Some banks were starting to see the uncertainty weigh on corporate decision making and borrowing activity, while others were only seeing a slow down in some parts of their portfolio, with a pickup in other parts. Now that we've had two months to digest the announcements and several more positive developments on tariff negotiations, we expect that the tone from bank management teams will be more positive. Now, we don't expect them to say growth is accelerating, but we do expect that they will say loan growth is holding up with strong pipelines.

On the second topic, net interest margins, we expect to hear that there is still room for margin expansion as we go through this year. And that's coming in two places, particularly as bank term deposits continue to reprice lower. And then the back book of fixed rate loans and securities, essentially assets that were put on the books four to five years ago when rates were a lot lower, are now rolling over at today's higher rates.

Betsy Graseck: So, is the long end of the curve going up a good thing?

Manan Gosalia: Yes, for net interest margins. But on the flip side, the tenure going up is slightly negative for bank capital. So that brings me to my third theme. The regional banks are overall in a much better place on capital than they were two years ago. Balance sheets have improved. Capital levels remain solid across the sector. But the recent increase in the long end of the curve is marginally negative for capital, given that there will be a higher negative mark on securities that banks hold.

But we believe that higher capital levels that regional banks have accumulated over the past couple of years will help cushion some of these negative marks, and we don't expect the recent shift in the tenure will have a meaningful impact on bank capital plans.

Betsy Graseck: So, the increase in the 10-year pulls down capital a little bit, but not enough to trip any regulatory minimums?

Manan Gosalia: Correct.

Betsy Graseck: So, all in the 10-year yield going up is a good thing?

Manan Gosalia: It's slightly negative, but I would expect it does not impact bank growth plans.

Betsy Graseck: Okay. All in, what's the message from mid-cap banks?

Manan Gosalia: All in, I would expect the tone to be a little more positive than the banks had at April earnings.

Betsy Graseck: Excellent. Thanks so much, Manan. Ryan, what about you? What are you expecting mid-cap advisors will say?

Ryan Kenny: So, I think we'll hear a lot about the trends in M&A. And when we last heard from investment bank management teams during April earnings, the messaging was more cautious. We heard about M&A deals being paused as companies processed the Liberation Day tariffs, and a small number of deals being pulled.

Tomorrow at our conference, expect to hear a measured but slightly improved tone. Look, there's still a lot of uncertainty out there, but what's changed since April is the fact that the U.S. administration is flexing in response to markets. So that should help shore up more confidence needed to do deals, and there's tremendous pent-up demand for corporate activity.

Over the last three years – so 2022 to 2024 – M&A volumes relative to nominal GDP have been running 30 to 40 percent below three-decade averages. Equity capital markets volumes 50 to 60 percent below average. There is tremendous need for private equity firms to exit their portfolio investments and deploy $4 trillion of dry powder that has accumulated and also structural themes for corporates – like the need for AI capabilities, energy and biotech consolidation and reshoring – that should fuel mergers as a cycle gets going.

So, I think for this group, the message will likely be: April and May – more challenged from a deal flow perspective; but back up of the year, you should start to expect some improvement.

Betsy Graseck: So slightly improved tone…

Ryan Kenny: Slightly improved. And one of the other really interesting themes that the investment banks will talk about is the substantial growth of private capital advisory.

So, this is advising private equity funds and owners on capital raising, liquidation, including secondary transactions and continuation funds. And what will be interesting is how the clients set here is growing. We've seen this quarter, major universities, some local governments that increasingly need liquidity and they're hiring investment banks to advise on selling private equity fund interests.

It's really going to be a great discussion because private capital advisory is a major growth area for the boutique investment banks that I cover.

Betsy Graseck: How big of a sleeve do you think this could become – as big as M&A outright?

Ryan Kenny: Probably not as big as M&A outright, but significant. And it helps give the investment banks’ relationships with financial sponsors who are active on the M&A front. So, it can be a share gain story.

So, Betsy, what about you? You cover the large cap banks. What do you expect to hear?

Betsy Graseck: Well, before I answer that, I do want to just put a pin on it.

So, you're saying that for your coverage Ryan, we have some green shoots coming through...

Ryan Kenny: Yeah, green shoots and more positive than in April.

Betsy Graseck: And Manan on your side? Same?

Manan Gosalia: A little bit more of a positive than April earnings, but more of the same as we heard at the start of the year.

Betsy Graseck: Okay. Going back to the future then, I suppose we could say. Excellent. Well on large cap banks, I do expect large cap banks will be reflecting some of the same themes that you both just discussed. In particular, you know, we'll talk about IPOs. IPOs are holding up. We look at IPOs where we had 26 IPOs in the past week alone.

That's up from 22 on average year-to-date in 2025. And I do think that the large cap banks will highlight that capital market activity is building and can accelerate from here, as long as equity volatility remains contained. By which we mean VIX is at 20 or below.

And with capital market activity should come increased lending activity. It's very exciting. What's going on here is that when you do an M&A, you have to finance it, and that financing comes from either the bond market or banks or private credit. M&A financing is a key driver of CNI loan growth. A lot of people don't know that. And CNI loan growth, we do think will be moving from current levels of about 2 percent year-on-year, as per the most recent Fed H.8 data to 5 percent as M&A comes through over the next year plus.

And then the other major driver of CNI loans is loans to non-depository financial institutions, which is also known as NDFI Loans. NDFI loans have been getting a lot of press recently. We see this as much ado about reclassification. That said, investors are asking what is the risk of this book of business? Our view is that it's similar to overall CNI loan risk, and we will dig into that outlook with managements at the conference. It'll be exciting.

Additionally, we will touch on regulation and how easing of regulation could change strategies for capital utilization and capital deployment. So, you want to have an ear out for that. Well, Manan, Ryan, it's been great speaking with you today.

Manan Gosalia: Should be an exciting conference.

Ryan Kenny: Thanks for having us on.

Betsy Graseck: And thanks for listening everyone. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/2HvBr7NgpWndheTjuS2FGQ/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"4PnweAhIPqGGyh5O7nwsCf","uri":"spotify:episode:4PnweAhIPqGGyh5O7nwsCf","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/4PnweAhIPqGGyh5O7nwsCf","name":"Standing by Our Outlook","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Morgan Stanley’s midyear outlook defied the conventional view in a number of ways. Our analysts Serena Tang and Vishy Tirupattur push back on the pushback to their conclusions, explaining the thought process behind their research. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset StrategistVishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Serena Tang: Today's topic, pushback to our outlook.It's Friday, June 6th at 10am in New York.Morgan Stanley Research published our mid-year outlook about two weeks ago, a collaborative effort across the department, bringing together our economist views with our strategist high conviction ideas. Right now, we're recommending investors to be overweight in U.S. equities, overweight in core fixed income like U.S. treasuries, like U.S. IG corporate credit. But some of our views are out of consensus.So, I want to talk to you, Vishy, about pushback that you've been getting and how we pushback on the pushback.Vishy Tirupattur: Right. So, the biggest pushback I've gotten is a bit of a dissonance between our economics narrative and our markets narrative. Our economics narrative, as you know, calls for a significant weakening of economic growth. From about – for the U.S. – 2.5 percent growth in 2024 goes into 1 percent in 2025 and in 2026. And Fed doesn't cut rates in 2025, and cuts seven times in 2026.And if you look at a somewhat uninspiring outlook for the U.S. economy from our economists – reconciling an uninspiring economic outlook on the U.S. economy with the constructive view we have on U.S. assets, equities, credit, treasuries – that's been a source of contention. So how do we reconcile this? So, my pushback to the pushback is the following; that they are different plot lines across different asset classes. So, our economists have slowing of the economy – but not an outright recession. Our economists don't have rate cuts in 2025 but have seven rate cuts in 2026.So, if you look at the total number of rate cuts that are being priced in by the markets today, roughly about two rate cuts in [20]25, and about between two and three rate cuts in 2026, we expect greater policy easing than what's currently priced in the markets. So that makes sense for our constructive view on interest rates, and in government bonds and in duration that makes sense.From a credit point of view, we enter this point with a much better credit fundamentals in leverage and coverage terms. We have the emergence of a total yield-based buyer base, which we think will be largely intact at our expectations, and you layer on top of that – the idea that growth slows but doesn't fall into recession is also constructive for higher quality credit. So that explains our credit view.From an equities view, the drawdowns that we experienced in April, our equity strategists think marks the worst outcomes from a policy point of view that we could have had. That has already happened. So looking forward, they look for EPS growth over the course of the next 12 months. They look for benefits of deregulation to kick in. So, along with that seven rate cuts, get them to be comfortable in being constructive about their views on equities. So all of that ties together.Serena Tang: And I think what you mentioned around macro not being the markets is important here. Because when we did some analysis on historical periods where you had low growth and low inflation, actually in that kind of a scenario equities did fine. And corporate credit did fine. But also, in an environment where you have rather unencouraging growth, that tends to map onto a slightly risk-off scenario. And historically that's also a kind of backdrop where you see the dollar strengthen.This time out, we have a very out of consensus view; not that the dollar will weaken, that seems quite consensus. But the degree of magnitude of dollar weakening. Where have you been getting the most pushback on our expectations for the dollar to depreciate by around 9 percent from here?Vishy Tirupattur: So, the dollar weakness in itself is not out of consensus, largely driven by narrowing of free differentials; growth differentials. I think some of the difference between the extent of weakness that we are projecting comes from the assessment on the policy and certainty. So, the policy uncertainty adds a greater degree of risk premia for taking on U.S. assets.So, in our forecast, we take into account not only the differentials in rates and growth, but also in the policy uncertainty and the risk premia that the investors would demand in the face of that kind of policy uncertainty. And that really explains why we are probably more negative on the outcome for U.S. dollar than perhaps our competition.Serena Tang: The risk premium part, I think bring us to one of the biggest debates we've been having with investors over, not just the last few weeks, but over the last few months. And that is on U.S. exceptionalism. Now clearly, we have a view that U.S. assets can outperform over the next six to 12 months, but why aren't we factoring in higher risk premium for holding any kind of U.S. assets? Why should U.S. assets still do well?Vishy Tirupattur: So, as I said earlier, we are calling for the economy to slow without tipping into recession. We are also calling for greater amount of policy easing than what is currently priced in the markets. Both those factors are constructive.So, I think we also should keep in mind the sheer size of the U.S. markets. The U.S. government bond markets, for example, are 10 times the size of comparably rated European bond markets, government bond markets put together. The U.S. equity markets is four-five times the size of the European equity markets. Same thing for investment grade corporate credit bonds. The market is many, many times larger.So, the sheer size of the U.S. assets makes it very difficult for a globally diversified portfolio to substantially under-allocate to U.S. assets. So, what we are suggesting, therefore, is that allocate to U.S. assets, where there are all these opportunities we described. But if you are not a U.S. investor, hedge the currency risk. Not hedging currency risk had worked in the past, but we are now saying hedge your currency risk.Serena Tang: And the market size and liquidity point is interesting. I think after the outlook was published, we had a lot of questions on this. And I think it's underappreciated, how about, sort of, 60 percent of liquid, high quality fixed income paper is actually denominated in U.S. dollars. So, at the end of the day, or at least over the next six to 12 months, it does seem like there is no alternative.Now Vishy, we've talked a lot about where we are getting pushback. I think that one part of the outlook where – very little discussed because very highly consensus – is credit. And the consensus is credit is boring. So how do you see corporate credit, and maybe securitized credit, fit into the wider allocation views on fixed income?Vishy Tirupattur: Boring is good for a fixed income investor perspective, Serena. Our expectation of rate cuts, slowing growth but not going tipping into recession, and our idea that these spreads are really not going very far from where they are now, gets us to a total return of about over 10 percent for investment related corporate credit.And that actually is a pretty good outcome for credit investors. For fixed income investors in general that calls for continued allocations to high quality credit, in corporate credit as well as in securitized credit.Serena Tang: So just to sum up, Morgan Stanley Research has very differentiated view this time around on how many times the Fed can cut, which is a lot more than what markets are pricing in at the moment, how much yields can fall, and also how much weakening in the U.S. dollar that we can get. We are recommending investors to be overweight U.S. equities and overweight U.S. core fixed income like U.S. treasuries and like U.S. IG corporate credits. And as much as we're not arguing [that] U.S. exceptionalism can continue on forever, over the next six to 12 months, we are constructive on U.S. assets.That is not to say policy uncertainty won't still create bouts of volatility over the next 12 months. But it does mean that during those scenarios, you want to sell U.S. dollars rather than U.S. assets.Vishy, thank you so much for taking the time to talk.Vishy Tirupattur: Great speaking with you, Serena.Serena Tang: And for those tuned in, 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.","duration_ms":584411,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-06","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/4PnweAhIPqGGyh5O7nwsCf"},"html_description":"

Morgan Stanley’s midyear outlook defied the conventional view in a number of ways. Our analysts Serena Tang and Vishy Tirupattur push back on the pushback to their conclusions, explaining the thought process behind their research.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist

Vishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.

Serena Tang: Today's topic, pushback to our outlook.

It's Friday, June 6th at 10am in New York.

Morgan Stanley Research published our mid-year outlook about two weeks ago, a collaborative effort across the department, bringing together our economist views with our strategist high conviction ideas. Right now, we're recommending investors to be overweight in U.S. equities, overweight in core fixed income like U.S. treasuries, like U.S. IG corporate credit. But some of our views are out of consensus.

So, I want to talk to you, Vishy, about pushback that you've been getting and how we pushback on the pushback.

Vishy Tirupattur: Right. So, the biggest pushback I've gotten is a bit of a dissonance between our economics narrative and our markets narrative. Our economics narrative, as you know, calls for a significant weakening of economic growth. From about – for the U.S. – 2.5 percent growth in 2024 goes into 1 percent in 2025 and in 2026. And Fed doesn't cut rates in 2025, and cuts seven times in 2026.

And if you look at a somewhat uninspiring outlook for the U.S. economy from our economists – reconciling an uninspiring economic outlook on the U.S. economy with the constructive view we have on U.S. assets, equities, credit, treasuries – that's been a source of contention.

So how do we reconcile this? So, my pushback to the pushback is the following; that they are different plot lines across different asset classes. So, our economists have slowing of the economy – but not an outright recession. Our economists don't have rate cuts in 2025 but have seven rate cuts in 2026.

So, if you look at the total number of rate cuts that are being priced in by the markets today, roughly about two rate cuts in [20]25, and about between two and three rate cuts in 2026, we expect greater policy easing than what's currently priced in the markets. So that makes sense for our constructive view on interest rates, and in government bonds and in duration that makes sense.

From a credit point of view, we enter this point with a much better credit fundamentals in leverage and coverage terms. We have the emergence of a total yield-based buyer base, which we think will be largely intact at our expectations, and you layer on top of that – the idea that growth slows but doesn't fall into recession is also constructive for higher quality credit. So that explains our credit view.

From an equities view, the drawdowns that we experienced in April, our equity strategists think marks the worst outcomes from a policy point of view that we could have had. That has already happened. So looking forward, they look for EPS growth over the course of the next 12 months. They look for benefits of deregulation to kick in. So, along with that seven rate cuts, get them to be comfortable in being constructive about their views on equities. So all of that ties together.

Serena Tang: And I think what you mentioned around macro not being the markets is important here. Because when we did some analysis on historical periods where you had low growth and low inflation, actually in that kind of a scenario equities did fine. And corporate credit did fine. But also, in an environment where you have rather unencouraging growth, that tends to map onto a slightly risk-off scenario. And historically that's also a kind of backdrop where you see the dollar strengthen.

This time out, we have a very out of consensus view; not that the dollar will weaken, that seems quite consensus. But the degree of magnitude of dollar weakening. Where have you been getting the most pushback on our expectations for the dollar to depreciate by around 9 percent from here?

Vishy Tirupattur: So, the dollar weakness in itself is not out of consensus, largely driven by narrowing of free differentials; growth differentials. I think some of the difference between the extent of weakness that we are projecting comes from the assessment on the policy and certainty. So, the policy uncertainty adds a greater degree of risk premia for taking on U.S. assets.

So, in our forecast, we take into account not only the differentials in rates and growth, but also in the policy uncertainty and the risk premia that the investors would demand in the face of that kind of policy uncertainty. And that really explains why we are probably more negative on the outcome for U.S. dollar than perhaps our competition.

Serena Tang: The risk premium part, I think bring us to one of the biggest debates we've been having with investors over, not just the last few weeks, but over the last few months. And that is on U.S. exceptionalism. Now clearly, we have a view that U.S. assets can outperform over the next six to 12 months, but why aren't we factoring in higher risk premium for holding any kind of U.S. assets? Why should U.S. assets still do well?

Vishy Tirupattur: So, as I said earlier, we are calling for the economy to slow without tipping into recession. We are also calling for greater amount of policy easing than what is currently priced in the markets. Both those factors are constructive.

So, I think we also should keep in mind the sheer size of the U.S. markets. The U.S. government bond markets, for example, are 10 times the size of comparably rated European bond markets, government bond markets put together. The U.S. equity markets is four-five times the size of the European equity markets. Same thing for investment grade corporate credit bonds. The market is many, many times larger.

So, the sheer size of the U.S. assets makes it very difficult for a globally diversified portfolio to substantially under-allocate to U.S. assets. So, what we are suggesting, therefore, is that allocate to U.S. assets, where there are all these opportunities we described. But if you are not a U.S. investor, hedge the currency risk. Not hedging currency risk had worked in the past, but we are now saying hedge your currency risk.

Serena Tang: And the market size and liquidity point is interesting. I think after the outlook was published, we had a lot of questions on this. And I think it's underappreciated, how about, sort of, 60 percent of liquid, high quality fixed income paper is actually denominated in U.S. dollars. So, at the end of the day, or at least over the next six to 12 months, it does seem like there is no alternative.

Now Vishy, we've talked a lot about where we are getting pushback. I think that one part of the outlook where – very little discussed because very highly consensus – is credit. And the consensus is credit is boring. So how do you see corporate credit, and maybe securitized credit, fit into the wider allocation views on fixed income?

Vishy Tirupattur: Boring is good for a fixed income investor perspective, Serena. Our expectation of rate cuts, slowing growth but not going tipping into recession, and our idea that these spreads are really not going very far from where they are now, gets us to a total return of about over 10 percent for investment related corporate credit.

And that actually is a pretty good outcome for credit investors. For fixed income investors in general that calls for continued allocations to high quality credit, in corporate credit as well as in securitized credit.

Serena Tang: So just to sum up, Morgan Stanley Research has very differentiated view this time around on how many times the Fed can cut, which is a lot more than what markets are pricing in at the moment, how much yields can fall, and also how much weakening in the U.S. dollar that we can get. We are recommending investors to be overweight U.S. equities and overweight U.S. core fixed income like U.S. treasuries and like U.S. IG corporate credits. And as much as we're not arguing [that] U.S. exceptionalism can continue on forever, over the next six to 12 months, we are constructive on U.S. assets.

That is not to say policy uncertainty won't still create bouts of volatility over the next 12 months. But it does mean that during those scenarios, you want to sell U.S. dollars rather than U.S. assets.

Vishy, thank you so much for taking the time to talk.

Vishy Tirupattur: Great speaking with you, Serena.

Serena Tang: And for those tuned in, 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.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/4yfz2mMazK6kMeo4jf1T9n/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"6hv1ODR3foY7Mw4Y4s734V","uri":"spotify:episode:6hv1ODR3foY7Mw4Y4s734V","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/6hv1ODR3foY7Mw4Y4s734V","name":"5 Reasons the Obesity Drug Market Remains Strong","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"The global market for obesity drugs is expanding. Our U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst Terrence Flynn discusses what’s driving the next stage of global growth for GLP-1 medicines.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Terrence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terrence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst. The market for obesity medicines is at an inflection point, and today I'll focus on what's driving the next stage of global growth.It's Thursday, June 5th at 2pm in New York.GLP-1 medicines have been viewed by many stakeholders as one of the most transformative medications in the market today. They've exploded in popularity over the last few years and become game changers for many people who take them. These drugs have large cap biopharma companies racing to innovate. They've had ripple effects on food, fitness, and fashion. They truly are a major market force. And now we're on the cusp of a significant broadening of use of these medicines.Currently the U.S. is the largest consumer in the world of GLP-1s. But new versions of these medicines suggest that this market will extend beyond the U.S. to significantly larger numbers of patients globally. On our estimate, the Total Addressable Market or TAM for obesity medications should reach $150 billion globally by 2035, with approximately [$]80 billion from the U.S. and [$]70 billion from international markets.Now this marks a meaningful increase from our 2024 forecast of [$]105 billion and reflects a greater appreciation of opportunities outside of the U.S. We think obesity drug adoption will likely accelerate as patients and providers become more familiar with the new products and as manufacturers address hurdles in production, distribution, and access.Current adoption rates of GLP-1 treatments within the eligible obesity population are about 2 to 3 percent. This is in the U.S., and roughly 1 percent in the rest of the world. Now, when we look out further, we anticipate these figures to surge to 20 percent and 10 percent respectively, really driven by five things.First, after a period of shortages, supply constraints have improved, and the drug makers are investing aggressively to increase production. Second new data show that obesity drugs have broader clinical applications. They can be used to treat coronary heart disease, stroke, hypertension, kidney disease, or even sleep apnea. They could also potentially fight Alzheimer's disease, neuropsychiatric conditions, and even cancer.Third, we think coverage will expand as obesity drugs are approved to treat diseases beyond obesity. Public healthcare coverage through Medicare should also broaden based on these expected approvals. Fourth, some drug makers are successfully developing obesity drugs, in pill form instead of injectables. Pills are of course easier to administer and can reach global scale quickly. And finally, drug makers are also developing next gen medications with even higher efficacy, new mechanisms of action, and more convenient, less frequent dosing.All in all, we think that over the next decade, broader GLP-1 adoption will extend well beyond biopharma. We expect significant impacts on medical technology, healthcare services, and consumer sectors like food, beverages, and fashion, where changes in patient diets could reshape market dynamics.Thanks so much 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.","duration_ms":218932,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-05","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/6hv1ODR3foY7Mw4Y4s734V"},"html_description":"

The global market for obesity drugs is expanding. Our U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst Terrence Flynn discusses what’s driving the next stage of global growth for GLP-1 medicines.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Terrence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terrence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst. The market for obesity medicines is at an inflection point, and today I'll focus on what's driving the next stage of global growth.

It's Thursday, June 5th at 2pm in New York.

GLP-1 medicines have been viewed by many stakeholders as one of the most transformative medications in the market today. They've exploded in popularity over the last few years and become game changers for many people who take them. These drugs have large cap biopharma companies racing to innovate. They've had ripple effects on food, fitness, and fashion. They truly are a major market force. And now we're on the cusp of a significant broadening of use of these medicines.

Currently the U.S. is the largest consumer in the world of GLP-1s. But new versions of these medicines suggest that this market will extend beyond the U.S. to significantly larger numbers of patients globally. On our estimate, the Total Addressable Market or TAM for obesity medications should reach $150 billion globally by 2035, with approximately [$]80 billion from the U.S. and [$]70 billion from international markets.

Now this marks a meaningful increase from our 2024 forecast of [$]105 billion and reflects a greater appreciation of opportunities outside of the U.S. We think obesity drug adoption will likely accelerate as patients and providers become more familiar with the new products and as manufacturers address hurdles in production, distribution, and access.

Current adoption rates of GLP-1 treatments within the eligible obesity population are about 2 to 3 percent. This is in the U.S., and roughly 1 percent in the rest of the world. Now, when we look out further, we anticipate these figures to surge to 20 percent and 10 percent respectively, really driven by five things.

First, after a period of shortages, supply constraints have improved, and the drug makers are investing aggressively to increase production. Second new data show that obesity drugs have broader clinical applications. They can be used to treat coronary heart disease, stroke, hypertension, kidney disease, or even sleep apnea. They could also potentially fight Alzheimer's disease, neuropsychiatric conditions, and even cancer.

Third, we think coverage will expand as obesity drugs are approved to treat diseases beyond obesity. Public healthcare coverage through Medicare should also broaden based on these expected approvals. Fourth, some drug makers are successfully developing obesity drugs, in pill form instead of injectables. Pills are of course easier to administer and can reach global scale quickly. And finally, drug makers are also developing next gen medications with even higher efficacy, new mechanisms of action, and more convenient, less frequent dosing.

All in all, we think that over the next decade, broader GLP-1 adoption will extend well beyond biopharma. We expect significant impacts on medical technology, healthcare services, and consumer sectors like food, beverages, and fashion, where changes in patient diets could reshape market dynamics.

Thanks so much 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.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/7o6f1l7XZqRCrudO4HIVNr/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"5jaFNMjnFhbd6gT2fHXlSv","uri":"spotify:episode:5jaFNMjnFhbd6gT2fHXlSv","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/5jaFNMjnFhbd6gT2fHXlSv","name":"Midyear U.S. Credit Outlook: Why Investors Should Be Selective","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Vishwas Patkar take stock of the U.S. credit market, noting which segments are on firm footing going into a period of slower growth.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts On the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today on the program, we're going to have the first in a series of conversations covering our outlook for credit around the world.It's Wednesday, June 4th at 2pm in London.Vishwas Patkar: And 9am in New York.Andrew Sheets: Vishwas, along with many of our colleagues at Morgan Stanley, we recently updated our 12-month outlook for credit markets around the world. Focusing on your specialty, the U.S., how do you read the economic backdrop and what do you think it means for credit at a high level?Vishwas Patkar: So, our central scenario of slowing growth, somewhat firm inflation and no rate cuts from the Fed until the first quarter of 2026 – when I put all of that together, I view that as somewhat mixed for credit. It's good for certain segments of the market, not as good for others.I think the positive on the one side is that with the recent de-escalation in trade tensions, recession risks have gone lower. And that's reflected in our economists' view as well. I think for an asset class like credit, avoiding that drill downside tail I think is important. The other positive in the market today is that the level of all in yields you can get across the credit spectrum is very compelling on many different measures.The negative is that we are still looking at a fair bit of slowing in economic activity, and that's a big downshift from what we've been used to in the past few years. So, I would say we're certainly not in the Goldilocks environment that we saw for credit through the second half of last year. And it's important here for investors to be selective around what they invest in within the credit market.Andrew Sheets: So, Vishwas, you kind of alluded to this, but you know, 2025 has been a year that so far has been dominated by a lot of these large kind of macro questions around, you know, what's going to happen with tariffs. Big moves in interest rates, big moves in the U.S. dollar. But credit is an asset class that's, you know, ultimately about lending to companies. And so how do you see the credit worthiness of U.S. corporates? And how much of a risk is there that with interest rates staying higher for longer than we expected at the start of the year – that becomes a bigger problem?Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, sure. I think it's a very important question Andrew because I think taking a call on markets based on the gyrations in headlines is very hard. But in some ways, I think this question of the credit worthiness of U.S. companies is more important and I think it really helps us filter the signal from the noise that we've seen in markets so far this year.I would say broadly, the health of corporate balance sheets is pretty good and, in some ways, I think it's maybe a more distinguishing feature of this cycle where corporate credit overall is on a firmer footing going into a period of slower growth – than what we may have seen in prior instances. And you can sort of look at this balance sheet health along a few different lines.In aggregate, we haven't really seen credit markets grow a lot in the last few years. M&A activity, which is usually a harbinger of corporate aggression, has also been fairly muted in absolute terms. Corporate balance sheet leverage has not grown. And I think we've been in this high-interest rate environment, which has kept some of these animal spirits at bay. Now what this means is, that the level of sensitivity of credit markets to a slow down in the economy is somewhat lower.It does not mean that credit markets can remain immune no matter what happens to the economy. I think it's clear if we get a recession, spread should be a fair bit wider. But I think in our central scenario, it makes us more confident than otherwise that credit overall can hold up okay.Now your question around the risk of rates staying higher. This I think goes back to my point about where in the credit market you're looking. I think up the quality spectrum, I think there are actually – there's a lot of demand tailwinds for credit given the pickup in sponsorship we've seen from insurance companies and pension funds in this cycle.At the other end of the quality spectrum, if you're looking at highly levered capital structures, that's where I think the risk of interest rates being high can lead to defaults being sort of around average levels and higher than they would otherwise be.Andrew Sheets: So, Vishwas, kind of sticking with that central scenario, kind of briefly, what would be a segment of U.S. credit that you think offers some of the best risk adjusted return at the moment? And what do you think offers some of the worst?Vishwas Patkar: Yep. So, we framed our credit outlook as being good for quality, badfor beta. So, as that suggests, I think this is a fairly good environment for investment grade credit. In our base case, we are calling for double digit total returns. In IG we also expect investment grade credit to modestly outperform government bonds.And I would sort of extend that to the upper tiers within the high yield market as well, specifically BBs. And where I would say risk reward looks the weakest is the lowest tier. So, for CCCs and for many segments within Bs where leverage is fairly elevated, debt costs are still high. We think this is still a challenging environment where growth is set to slow and rate cuts are still a fair bit out the outer forecast rise.Andrew Sheets: So far we focused on that central scenario, but let's close out with how things could be different. In our view, what do you think are the realistically better and worse scenarios for U.S. credit this year, and how does that shape your overall view on the market?Vishwas Patkar: So, I think the better scenario for credit versus our base case potentially revolve around tariffs being rolled back even further. And it's essentially a repeat of the second half of 2024, where you had a combination of good growth and declining inflation and rate cuts moving up versus our expectations.I think in that scenario, it's likely that you see investment grade credit spreads go back to the tights that we saw in December. On the flip side, I think the worst scenario really is you know – what if we are being too optimistic about growth? And what if the economy is set to slow much further? And then what if we get a recession?So, I think in that environment, we see spreads retesting the wides that we saw through the volatility in April. Although even here, I would draw an important nuance that because of some of the fundamental and technical tailwinds I discussed earlier, we think spreads even in this downside scenario may not test the types of levels that we've seen through prior bear markets.Andrew Sheets: Vishwas, thanks for taking the time to talk.Vishwas Patkar: Thanks, Andrew.Andrew Sheets: And thanks for sharing a few minutes of your day with us. If you enjoy Thoughts of the Market, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and tell a friend or colleague about us today.","duration_ms":431856,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-04","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/5jaFNMjnFhbd6gT2fHXlSv"},"html_description":"

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Vishwas Patkar take stock of the U.S. credit market, noting which segments are on firm footing going into a period of slower growth.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts On the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley.

Andrew Sheets: Today on the program, we're going to have the first in a series of conversations covering our outlook for credit around the world.

It's Wednesday, June 4th at 2pm in London.

Vishwas Patkar: And 9am in New York.

Andrew Sheets: Vishwas, along with many of our colleagues at Morgan Stanley, we recently updated our 12-month outlook for credit markets around the world. Focusing on your specialty, the U.S., how do you read the economic backdrop and what do you think it means for credit at a high level?

Vishwas Patkar: So, our central scenario of slowing growth, somewhat firm inflation and no rate cuts from the Fed until the first quarter of 2026 – when I put all of that together, I view that as somewhat mixed for credit. It's good for certain segments of the market, not as good for others.

I think the positive on the one side is that with the recent de-escalation in trade tensions, recession risks have gone lower. And that's reflected in our economists' view as well. I think for an asset class like credit, avoiding that drill downside tail I think is important. The other positive in the market today is that the level of all in yields you can get across the credit spectrum is very compelling on many different measures.

The negative is that we are still looking at a fair bit of slowing in economic activity, and that's a big downshift from what we've been used to in the past few years. So, I would say we're certainly not in the Goldilocks environment that we saw for credit through the second half of last year. And it's important here for investors to be selective around what they invest in within the credit market.

Andrew Sheets: So, Vishwas, you kind of alluded to this, but you know, 2025 has been a year that so far has been dominated by a lot of these large kind of macro questions around, you know, what's going to happen with tariffs. Big moves in interest rates, big moves in the U.S. dollar. But credit is an asset class that's, you know, ultimately about lending to companies. And so how do you see the credit worthiness of U.S. corporates? And how much of a risk is there that with interest rates staying higher for longer than we expected at the start of the year – that becomes a bigger problem?

Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, sure. I think it's a very important question Andrew because I think taking a call on markets based on the gyrations in headlines is very hard. But in some ways, I think this question of the credit worthiness of U.S. companies is more important and I think it really helps us filter the signal from the noise that we've seen in markets so far this year.

I would say broadly, the health of corporate balance sheets is pretty good and, in some ways, I think it's maybe a more distinguishing feature of this cycle where corporate credit overall is on a firmer footing going into a period of slower growth – than what we may have seen in prior instances. And you can sort of look at this balance sheet health along a few different lines.

In aggregate, we haven't really seen credit markets grow a lot in the last few years. M&A activity, which is usually a harbinger of corporate aggression, has also been fairly muted in absolute terms. Corporate balance sheet leverage has not grown. And I think we've been in this high-interest rate environment, which has kept some of these animal spirits at bay. Now what this means is, that the level of sensitivity of credit markets to a slow down in the economy is somewhat lower.

It does not mean that credit markets can remain immune no matter what happens to the economy. I think it's clear if we get a recession, spread should be a fair bit wider. But I think in our central scenario, it makes us more confident than otherwise that credit overall can hold up okay.

Now your question around the risk of rates staying higher. This I think goes back to my point about where in the credit market you're looking. I think up the quality spectrum, I think there are actually – there's a lot of demand tailwinds for credit given the pickup in sponsorship we've seen from insurance companies and pension funds in this cycle.

At the other end of the quality spectrum, if you're looking at highly levered capital structures, that's where I think the risk of interest rates being high can lead to defaults being sort of around average levels and higher than they would otherwise be.

Andrew Sheets: So, Vishwas, kind of sticking with that central scenario, kind of briefly, what would be a segment of U.S. credit that you think offers some of the best risk adjusted return at the moment? And what do you think offers some of the worst?

Vishwas Patkar: Yep. So, we framed our credit outlook as being good for quality, bad

for beta. So, as that suggests, I think this is a fairly good environment for investment grade credit. In our base case, we are calling for double digit total returns. In IG we also expect investment grade credit to modestly outperform government bonds.

And I would sort of extend that to the upper tiers within the high yield market as well, specifically BBs. And where I would say risk reward looks the weakest is the lowest tier. So, for CCCs and for many segments within Bs where leverage is fairly elevated, debt costs are still high. We think this is still a challenging environment where growth is set to slow and rate cuts are still a fair bit out the outer forecast rise.

Andrew Sheets: So far we focused on that central scenario, but let's close out with how things could be different. In our view, what do you think are the realistically better and worse scenarios for U.S. credit this year, and how does that shape your overall view on the market?

Vishwas Patkar: So, I think the better scenario for credit versus our base case potentially revolve around tariffs being rolled back even further. And it's essentially a repeat of the second half of 2024, where you had a combination of good growth and declining inflation and rate cuts moving up versus our expectations.

I think in that scenario, it's likely that you see investment grade credit spreads go back to the tights that we saw in December. On the flip side, I think the worst scenario really is you know – what if we are being too optimistic about growth? And what if the economy is set to slow much further? And then what if we get a recession?

So, I think in that environment, we see spreads retesting the wides that we saw through the volatility in April. Although even here, I would draw an important nuance that because of some of the fundamental and technical tailwinds I discussed earlier, we think spreads even in this downside scenario may not test the types of levels that we've seen through prior bear markets.

Andrew Sheets: Vishwas, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Vishwas Patkar: Thanks, Andrew.

Andrew Sheets: And thanks for sharing a few minutes of your day with us. If you enjoy Thoughts of the Market, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and tell a friend or colleague about us today.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/6k64u6nMCtMBW3DVOYnv64/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"261t8FSyvgmbqEk9K2OdaX","uri":"spotify:episode:261t8FSyvgmbqEk9K2OdaX","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/261t8FSyvgmbqEk9K2OdaX","name":"U.S. Shoppers Take Stock","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our Thematics and U.S. Economics analysts Michelle Weaver and Arunima Sinha discuss how American consumers are planning to spend as they consider tariffs, inflation and potential new tax policies. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity strategist.Arunima Sinha: And I'm Arunima Sinha from the Global and U.S. Economics Teams.Michelle Weaver: Today – an encouraging update on the U.S. consumer.It's Tuesday, June 3rd at 10am in New York.Arunima, the last couple of months have been challenging not only for global markets, but also for everyday people and for individual households; and we heard pretty mixed information on the consumer throughout earning season. Quite a few different companies highlighted consumers being more choiceful, being more value oriented. All this to say is we're getting a little bit of a mixed message.In your opinion, how healthy is the U.S. consumer right now?Arunima Sinha: So, Michelle, I'm glad we're starting with the sort of up upbeat part of the consumer. The macro data on the consumer has been holding up pretty well so far. In the first quarter of [20]25, consumer spending has actually been running at a similar pace as the first quarter of [20]24. Nominal consumption spending grew 5.5 percent on a year-on-year basis. Goods were up almost 4 percent. Services were up more than 6 percent.So, all of that was good. What our takeaway was that we had a lot of strength in good spending, and that did probably reflect some of the pull forward on the back of tariff news. But that pace of growth suggests that there is an aggregate consumer. They have healthy balance sheets, and they're willing to spend.And then what's driving that consumption growth from our point of view. We think that labor market compensation has been running at a pretty steady pace so far. So more than 5.5 percent quarterly analyzed. PCE inflation has been running at just over 3 percent. And so even though equity markets did see some greater volatility, they didn't seem to impact the consumer at least in the first quarter of data. And so, we've had that consumer in a pretty good shape.But with all of this in the background, we know, tariffs have been in the news, and tariff fears have weighed heavily on consumer sentiment. But then tariff headlines have also become more positive lately, and consumers might be feeling more optimistic. What's your data showing?Michelle Weaver: So that really depends on what data you're looking at. We saw a pretty big rebound in consumer sentiment if you look at the Conference Board survey. But then we saw flat sentiment, when you look at the University of Michigan survey. These two surveys have some different questions in them, different subcomponents.But my favorite way to track consumer sentiment is our own proprietary consumer survey, which did show a pretty big pickup in sentiment towards the economy last month. And we saw sentiment rebound significantly for both conservatives and liberals.So, this wasn't just a matter of one political party, you know, having a change of opinion. Both sides did see an improvement in sentiment. Although consumer sentiment for conservatives improved off a much higher base. The percent of people reporting being very concerned about tariffs also fell this month. We saw that move from 43 percent to 38 percent after the reduction in tariffs on China. So, people are, you know, concerned a little bit less there. And that's been a really big thing people are watching.Arunima Sinha: Feeling better about the news is great. Are they actually planning to spend more?Michelle Weaver: So encouragingly we did also see a big rebound in consumers short term spending outlooks in the survey. 33 percent of consumers expect to spend more next month and 17 percent expect to spend less.So that gives us a net of positive 16 percent. This is in line with the five-year average level we saw there, and up really substantially from last month's reading of 5 percent. So, 5 percent to 16 percent. That's a pretty big improvement.We also saw spending plans rise across all income groups. though we did see the biggest pickup for higher income consumers and that figure moved from 12 percent to 31 percent. Additionally, we saw longer term spending plans – so what people are planning to spend over the next six months – also improve across all the categories we look at.Arunima Sinha: And were there any specific changes about how the consumers were responding to the tariff headlines?Michelle Weaver: Yeah, so people reported pulling forward some purchases, due to fear of tariff driven price increases. So, people were planning for this, similarly to what we saw with companies. They were doing a little bit of stockpiling. Consumers were doing this as well. So, our survey showed that over half of people said they accelerated some purchases over the past month to try and get ahead of potential tariff related price increases.And this did skew higher among upper income consumers. The categories that people cited at the top of the list for pull forward are non-perishable groceries, household items. So, both of those things you need in your day-to-day life. And then clothing and apparel as well, which I thought was interesting. But that's been one thing that's been in the news a lot that's heavily manufactured overseas.So, people were thinking about that. And this does align overall with our March survey data, where we asked what categories people were most concerned about seeing price increases. So, their behavior did line up with what they were concerned about in March.Arunima, your turn on tariffs now. The reason tariffs have been on consumer's minds is because of what they might mean for price levels and inflation. Throughout earning season, we heard a lot of companies talking about raising prices to offset the cost of tariffs. What has this looked like from an economist’s perspective? Has this actually started to show up in the inflation data yet?Arunima Sinha: So not quite yet, and that's something that, as you might expect, we're tracking very, very closely. So, one of the things that our team did was to think about which types of goods or services were going to be impacted by inflation. And so, we think that that first order effects are going to be on goods. And we think that the effects could start to show up in the May data, but we really see that sequential pace of inflation starting to step up starting June. And then in our third quarter inflation estimate, we see that number peaking for the year. So, in the third quarter, we think that core PCE inflation number is going to be about 4.5 percent Q1-Q analyzed.Michelle Weaver: And then aside from tariffs and inflation, how are people going to be affected by a fiscal policy, specifically the tax bill that just passed the house?Arunima Sinha: So, the house version of the bill has government spending reductions that can be quite regressive for different cohorts of the consumer. So, we have, reductions around the Medicaid program, cuts to the SNAP program as well as possible elimination of the income driven loans repayment plans. So, all of these would have a pretty adverse impact on the lower income and the middle-income consumers.This could be – but will likely not be fully offset by the removal of taxes, on tips and overtime. And then on the other side, the higher income consumers could benefit from some of that increase in SALT caps. But overall, the jury is still out on how the aggregate consumer will be affected.Michelle Weaver: So, taking this all into account, the effects of fiscal policy, of tariff policy, of labor market income – what's your overall outlook on U.S. consumption for the rest of the year?Arunima Sinha: So, we recently published our mid-year outlook for U.S. economics and our forecast for consumption spending over 2025 and [20]26 does see the consumer slowing. And this is really due to three factors. The first is on the back of those greater tariffs and the uncertainty around them and the fact that we have slowing net immigration, we're going to be expecting a slowdown in the labor market. As the pace of hiring slows, you have a slower growth in labor market income. And that really is the main driver of aggregate consumption spending. And then as we talked about, we are expecting that pass through of higher tariffs into inflation, and that's going to impact real spending. And then finally the uncertainty around tariffs, the volatilities and equity markets could weigh on consumer spending; and may actually push the upper income cohorts, the big drivers of consumption spending in the economy, to have higher precautionary savings.And so, with all of that, we see our nominal consumption spending growth slowing down to about 3.9 percent by the end of this year.Michelle Weaver: Well a little unfortunate to wrap up on a more negative note, but we are seeing, you know, mixed messages – and some more positive data in the near term, at least. Arunima, thank you for taking the time to talk.Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me, Michelle.Michelle Weaver: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.","duration_ms":560979,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-03","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/261t8FSyvgmbqEk9K2OdaX"},"html_description":"

Our Thematics and U.S. Economics analysts Michelle Weaver and Arunima Sinha discuss how American consumers are planning to spend as they consider tariffs, inflation and potential new tax policies.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity strategist.

Arunima Sinha: And I'm Arunima Sinha from the Global and U.S. Economics Teams.

Michelle Weaver: Today – an encouraging update on the U.S. consumer.

It's Tuesday, June 3rd at 10am in New York.

Arunima, the last couple of months have been challenging not only for global markets, but also for everyday people and for individual households; and we heard pretty mixed information on the consumer throughout earning season. Quite a few different companies highlighted consumers being more choiceful, being more value oriented. All this to say is we're getting a little bit of a mixed message.

In your opinion, how healthy is the U.S. consumer right now?

Arunima Sinha: So, Michelle, I'm glad we're starting with the sort of up upbeat part of the consumer. The macro data on the consumer has been holding up pretty well so far. In the first quarter of [20]25, consumer spending has actually been running at a similar pace as the first quarter of [20]24. Nominal consumption spending grew 5.5 percent on a year-on-year basis. Goods were up almost 4 percent. Services were up more than 6 percent.

So, all of that was good. What our takeaway was that we had a lot of strength in good spending, and that did probably reflect some of the pull forward on the back of tariff news. But that pace of growth suggests that there is an aggregate consumer. They have healthy balance sheets, and they're willing to spend.

And then what's driving that consumption growth from our point of view. We think that labor market compensation has been running at a pretty steady pace so far. So more than 5.5 percent quarterly analyzed. PCE inflation has been running at just over 3 percent. And so even though equity markets did see some greater volatility, they didn't seem to impact the consumer at least in the first quarter of data. And so, we've had that consumer in a pretty good shape.

But with all of this in the background, we know, tariffs have been in the news, and tariff fears have weighed heavily on consumer sentiment. But then tariff headlines have also become more positive lately, and consumers might be feeling more optimistic. What's your data showing?

Michelle Weaver: So that really depends on what data you're looking at. We saw a pretty big rebound in consumer sentiment if you look at the Conference Board survey. But then we saw flat sentiment, when you look at the University of Michigan survey. These two surveys have some different questions in them, different subcomponents.

But my favorite way to track consumer sentiment is our own proprietary consumer survey, which did show a pretty big pickup in sentiment towards the economy last month. And we saw sentiment rebound significantly for both conservatives and liberals.

So, this wasn't just a matter of one political party, you know, having a change of opinion. Both sides did see an improvement in sentiment. Although consumer sentiment for conservatives improved off a much higher base. The percent of people reporting being very concerned about tariffs also fell this month. We saw that move from 43 percent to 38 percent after the reduction in tariffs on China. So, people are, you know, concerned a little bit less there. And that's been a really big thing people are watching.

Arunima Sinha: Feeling better about the news is great. Are they actually planning to spend more?

Michelle Weaver: So encouragingly we did also see a big rebound in consumers short term spending outlooks in the survey. 33 percent of consumers expect to spend more next month and 17 percent expect to spend less.

So that gives us a net of positive 16 percent. This is in line with the five-year average level we saw there, and up really substantially from last month's reading of 5 percent. So, 5 percent to 16 percent. That's a pretty big improvement.

We also saw spending plans rise across all income groups. though we did see the biggest pickup for higher income consumers and that figure moved from 12 percent to 31 percent. Additionally, we saw longer term spending plans – so what people are planning to spend over the next six months – also improve across all the categories we look at.

Arunima Sinha: And were there any specific changes about how the consumers were responding to the tariff headlines?

Michelle Weaver: Yeah, so people reported pulling forward some purchases, due to fear of tariff driven price increases. So, people were planning for this, similarly to what we saw with companies. They were doing a little bit of stockpiling. Consumers were doing this as well. So, our survey showed that over half of people said they accelerated some purchases over the past month to try and get ahead of potential tariff related price increases.

And this did skew higher among upper income consumers. The categories that people cited at the top of the list for pull forward are non-perishable groceries, household items. So, both of those things you need in your day-to-day life. And then clothing and apparel as well, which I thought was interesting. But that's been one thing that's been in the news a lot that's heavily manufactured overseas.

So, people were thinking about that. And this does align overall with our March survey data, where we asked what categories people were most concerned about seeing price increases. So, their behavior did line up with what they were concerned about in March.

Arunima, your turn on tariffs now. The reason tariffs have been on consumer's minds is because of what they might mean for price levels and inflation. Throughout earning season, we heard a lot of companies talking about raising prices to offset the cost of tariffs. What has this looked like from an economist’s perspective? Has this actually started to show up in the inflation data yet?

Arunima Sinha: So not quite yet, and that's something that, as you might expect, we're tracking very, very closely. So, one of the things that our team did was to think about which types of goods or services were going to be impacted by inflation. And so, we think that that first order effects are going to be on goods. And we think that the effects could start to show up in the May data, but we really see that sequential pace of inflation starting to step up starting June. And then in our third quarter inflation estimate, we see that number peaking for the year. So, in the third quarter, we think that core PCE inflation number is going to be about 4.5 percent Q1-Q analyzed.

Michelle Weaver: And then aside from tariffs and inflation, how are people going to be affected by a fiscal policy, specifically the tax bill that just passed the house?

Arunima Sinha: So, the house version of the bill has government spending reductions that can be quite regressive for different cohorts of the consumer. So, we have, reductions around the Medicaid program, cuts to the SNAP program as well as possible elimination of the income driven loans repayment plans. So, all of these would have a pretty adverse impact on the lower income and the middle-income consumers.

This could be – but will likely not be fully offset by the removal of taxes, on tips and overtime. And then on the other side, the higher income consumers could benefit from some of that increase in SALT caps. But overall, the jury is still out on how the aggregate consumer will be affected.

Michelle Weaver: So, taking this all into account, the effects of fiscal policy, of tariff policy, of labor market income – what's your overall outlook on U.S. consumption for the rest of the year?

Arunima Sinha: So, we recently published our mid-year outlook for U.S. economics and our forecast for consumption spending over 2025 and [20]26 does see the consumer slowing. And this is really due to three factors. The first is on the back of those greater tariffs and the uncertainty around them and the fact that we have slowing net immigration, we're going to be expecting a slowdown in the labor market. As the pace of hiring slows, you have a slower growth in labor market income. And that really is the main driver of aggregate consumption spending. And then as we talked about, we are expecting that pass through of higher tariffs into inflation, and that's going to impact real spending. And then finally the uncertainty around tariffs, the volatilities and equity markets could weigh on consumer spending; and may actually push the upper income cohorts, the big drivers of consumption spending in the economy, to have higher precautionary savings.

And so, with all of that, we see our nominal consumption spending growth slowing down to about 3.9 percent by the end of this year.

Michelle Weaver: Well a little unfortunate to wrap up on a more negative note, but we are seeing, you know, mixed messages – and some more positive data in the near term, at least. Arunima, thank you for taking the time to talk.

Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me, Michelle.

Michelle Weaver: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/5T6fGyaqFtmBrKAemjJCQi/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"49YWy2orSnO4TxZkSTxfnj","uri":"spotify:episode:49YWy2orSnO4TxZkSTxfnj","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/49YWy2orSnO4TxZkSTxfnj","name":"Why Equity Markets May Be Stronger Than You Think","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains how his outlook on earnings and valuations give him a constructive view on U.S. equities for the next 12 months.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll discuss where there is the most push back to our Mid-year outlook and why I remain convicted in our generally constructive view on U.S. equities for the next 12 months.It's Monday, June 2nd at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.To briefly summarize our outlook, we have maintained our 6500 12-month price target for the S&P 500 this year despite what has been a very volatile first five months – both in terms of news flow and price action. Part of the reason we didn’t change this view stems from the fact that we expected the first half to be challenging for U.S. stocks but to be followed by a more favorable second half. Much of this was related to our view that the new administration would pursue the growth negative part of their policy agenda first. This played out -- with their focus on immigration enforcement, spending cutbacks and tariffs. In addition to these policy adjustments, we also expected AI capex to decelerate in the first half after such fast growth last year. All of these factors conspired to weigh on both economic growth and earnings revisions.Second, the way in which tariffs were rolled out on Liberation Day was a shock to most market participants, including us, and served as the perfect catalyst for what can only be described as capitulation selling by many institutional investors. That capitulation has set the stage for the very reflexive snap back in equity prices that is also supported by a positive rate of change on policy, earnings revisions breadth, financial conditions and a weaker U.S. dollar.The main push back to our views centers on our constructive earnings outlook for high single digit growth both this year and next and our view that valuations can remain elevated at 21.5x forward Earnings. On the earnings front, our calendar year earnings estimates already incorporate a mid-single-digit percent hit to bottoms-up consensus forecasts. Second, our Leading Earnings Indicator which projects Earnings Per Share growth 12 months out is suggesting a sideways consolidation in growth in the high single-digit range over the next year.Third, a weaker dollar, elements of the tax bill and AI-driven productivity should be incremental tailwinds for earnings that are not in our model. Fourth, we have experienced rolling recessions for many sectors of the private economy for the last 3 years, which makes growth comparisons easier. Finally, and most importantly, the rate of change on earnings revisions breadth has inflected higher from a very low level after a year-long downturn. On valuation, our work shows that if earnings growth is above the long-term median of 7 percent and if the fed funds rate is down on a year-over-year basis, it's very rare to see multiple compression. In fact, Price Earnings multiples have expanded 90 percent of the time under these conditions to the tune of 9 percent over a 12- month period. Therefore, in some ways we’re being conservative with our forecast for the S&P 500's price earnings ratio to remain flat at current levels over the next year.With respect to our favorite valuation metric, the equity risk premium, it’s interesting to note that in the week following Liberation Day, the Equity Risk Premium reached the same level we witnessed in the aftermath of the 9-11 shock in 2001 and even exceeded the risk premium reached during the Long-Term Capital Management crisis in 1998. Both episodes resulted in 20 percent corrections to the S&P 500 much like we experienced this year only to be followed by very strong equity markets over the next year.The bottom line is that I remain convicted in both our earnings forecast for high single digit earnings growth for this year and next; and my view that valuations can remain elevated in this classic late cycle expansion of slower economic growth that typically elicits interest rate cuts from the Fed.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!","duration_ms":279353,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-06-02","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/49YWy2orSnO4TxZkSTxfnj"},"html_description":"

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains how his outlook on earnings and valuations give him a constructive view on U.S. equities for the next 12 months.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.

Today on the podcast I’ll discuss where there is the most push back to our Mid-year outlook and why I remain convicted in our generally constructive view on U.S. equities for the next 12 months.

It's Monday, June 2nd at 11:30am in New York.

So, let’s get after it.

To briefly summarize our outlook, we have maintained our 6500 12-month price target for the S&P 500 this year despite what has been a very volatile first five months – both in terms of news flow and price action. Part of the reason we didn’t change this view stems from the fact that we expected the first half to be challenging for U.S. stocks but to be followed by a more favorable second half. Much of this was related to our view that the new administration would pursue the growth negative part of their policy agenda first. This played out -- with their focus on immigration enforcement, spending cutbacks and tariffs. In addition to these policy adjustments, we also expected AI capex to decelerate in the first half after such fast growth last year. All of these factors conspired to weigh on both economic growth and earnings revisions.

Second, the way in which tariffs were rolled out on Liberation Day was a shock to most market participants, including us, and served as the perfect catalyst for what can only be described as capitulation selling by many institutional investors. That capitulation has set the stage for the very reflexive snap back in equity prices that is also supported by a positive rate of change on policy, earnings revisions breadth, financial conditions and a weaker U.S. dollar.

The main push back to our views centers on our constructive earnings outlook for high single digit growth both this year and next and our view that valuations can remain elevated at 21.5x forward Earnings. On the earnings front, our calendar year earnings estimates already incorporate a mid-single-digit percent hit to bottoms-up consensus forecasts. Second, our Leading Earnings Indicator which projects Earnings Per Share growth 12 months out is suggesting a sideways consolidation in growth in the high single-digit range over the next year.

Third, a weaker dollar, elements of the tax bill and AI-driven productivity should be incremental tailwinds for earnings that are not in our model. Fourth, we have experienced rolling recessions for many sectors of the private economy for the last 3 years, which makes growth comparisons easier. Finally, and most importantly, the rate of change on earnings revisions breadth has inflected higher from a very low level after a year-long downturn.

On valuation, our work shows that if earnings growth is above the long-term median of 7 percent and if the fed funds rate is down on a year-over-year basis, it's very rare to see multiple compression. In fact, Price Earnings multiples have expanded 90 percent of the time under these conditions to the tune of 9 percent over a 12- month period. Therefore, in some ways we’re being conservative with our forecast for the S&P 500's price earnings ratio to remain flat at current levels over the next year.

With respect to our favorite valuation metric, the equity risk premium, it’s interesting to note that in the week following Liberation Day, the Equity Risk Premium reached the same level we witnessed in the aftermath of the 9-11 shock in 2001 and even exceeded the risk premium reached during the Long-Term Capital Management crisis in 1998. Both episodes resulted in 20 percent corrections to the S&P 500 much like we experienced this year only to be followed by very strong equity markets over the next year.

The bottom line is that I remain convicted in both our earnings forecast for high single digit earnings growth for this year and next; and my view that valuations can remain elevated in this classic late cycle expansion of slower economic growth that typically elicits interest rate cuts from the Fed.

Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/5g2WsMkRz7ZJsDyAbOR482/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"6V0hj4c6a8o8cN4I3eBvME","uri":"spotify:episode:6V0hj4c6a8o8cN4I3eBvME","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/6V0hj4c6a8o8cN4I3eBvME","name":"Why Interest Rates Matter Again","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why the legal confusion over U.S. tariffs plus the pending U.S. budget bill equals a revived focus on interest rates for investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to revisit a theme that was topical in January and has become so again. How much of a problem are higher interest rates?It's Friday, May 30th at 2pm in London.If it wasn't so serious, it might be a little funny. This year, markets fell quickly as the U.S. imposed tariffs. And then markets rose quickly as many of those same tariffs were paused or reversed. So, what's next?Many tariffs are technically just paused and so are scheduled to resume; and overall tariff rates, even after recent reductions towards China, are still historically high. The economic data that would really reflect the impact of recent events, well, it simply hasn't been reported yet. In short, there is still significant uncertainty around the near-term path for U.S. growth. But for all of our tariff weary listeners, let's pretend for a moment that tariffs are now on the back burner. And if that's the case, interest rates are coming back into focus.First, lower tariffs could mean stronger growth and thus higher interest rates, all else equal. But also importantly, current budget proposals in the U.S. Congress significantly increase government borrowing, which could also raise interest rates. If current proposals were to become permanent. for example, they could add an additional [$]15 trillion to the national debt over the next 30 years, over and above what was expected to happen per analysis from Yale University.Recall that prior to tariffs dominating the market conversation, it was this issue of interest rates and government borrowing that had the market's attention in January. And then, as today, it's this 30-year perspective that is under the most scrutiny. U.S. 30-year government bond yields briefly touched 5 percent on January 14th and returned there quite recently.This represents some of the highest yields for long-term U.S. borrowing seen in the last two decades. Those higher yields represent higher costs that must ultimately be borne by the U.S. government, but they also represent a yardstick against which all other investments are measured. If you can earn 5 percent per year long term in a safe U.S. government bond, how does that impact the return you require to invest in something riskier over that long run – from equities to an office building.I think some numbers here are also quite useful. Investing $10,000 today at 5 percent would leave you with about $43,000 in 30 years. And so that is the hurdle rate against which all long-term investments or now being measured.Of course, many other factors can impact the performance of those other assets. U.S. stocks, in fairness, have returned well over 5 percent over a long period of time. But one winner in our view will be intermediate and longer-term investment grade bonds. With high yields on these instruments, we think there will be healthy demand. At the same time, those same high yields representing higher costs for companies to borrow over the long term may mean we see less supply.Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And tell a friend or colleague about us today.","duration_ms":231314,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-05-30","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/6V0hj4c6a8o8cN4I3eBvME"},"html_description":"

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why the legal confusion over U.S. tariffs plus the pending U.S. budget bill equals a revived focus on interest rates for investors.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Today I'm going to revisit a theme that was topical in January and has become so again. How much of a problem are higher interest rates?

It's Friday, May 30th at 2pm in London.

If it wasn't so serious, it might be a little funny. This year, markets fell quickly as the U.S. imposed tariffs. And then markets rose quickly as many of those same tariffs were paused or reversed. So, what's next?

Many tariffs are technically just paused and so are scheduled to resume; and overall tariff rates, even after recent reductions towards China, are still historically high. The economic data that would really reflect the impact of recent events, well, it simply hasn't been reported yet. In short, there is still significant uncertainty around the near-term path for U.S. growth. But for all of our tariff weary listeners, let's pretend for a moment that tariffs are now on the back burner. And if that's the case, interest rates are coming back into focus.

First, lower tariffs could mean stronger growth and thus higher interest rates, all else equal. But also importantly, current budget proposals in the U.S. Congress significantly increase government borrowing, which could also raise interest rates. If current proposals were to become permanent. for example, they could add an additional [$]15 trillion to the national debt over the next 30 years, over and above what was expected to happen per analysis from Yale University.

Recall that prior to tariffs dominating the market conversation, it was this issue of interest rates and government borrowing that had the market's attention in January. And then, as today, it's this 30-year perspective that is under the most scrutiny. U.S. 30-year government bond yields briefly touched 5 percent on January 14th and returned there quite recently.

This represents some of the highest yields for long-term U.S. borrowing seen in the last two decades. Those higher yields represent higher costs that must ultimately be borne by the U.S. government, but they also represent a yardstick against which all other investments are measured. If you can earn 5 percent per year long term in a safe U.S. government bond, how does that impact the return you require to invest in something riskier over that long run – from equities to an office building.

I think some numbers here are also quite useful. Investing $10,000 today at 5 percent would leave you with about $43,000 in 30 years. And so that is the hurdle rate against which all long-term investments or now being measured.

Of course, many other factors can impact the performance of those other assets. U.S. stocks, in fairness, have returned well over 5 percent over a long period of time. But one winner in our view will be intermediate and longer-term investment grade bonds. With high yields on these instruments, we think there will be healthy demand. At the same time, those same high yields representing higher costs for companies to borrow over the long term may mean we see less supply.

Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And tell a friend or colleague about us today.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/0IdbVYZFXuLKWLfQ4VOkIl/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"},{"id":"1NoEX3MP0gu1SmztktSdp0","uri":"spotify:episode:1NoEX3MP0gu1SmztktSdp0","href":"https://api.spotify.com/v1/episodes/1NoEX3MP0gu1SmztktSdp0","name":"What Now with Tariffs?","type":"episode","images":[{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":640,"height":640},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab67656300005f1f26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":300,"height":300},{"url":"https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000f68d26bcd4222cf34a30571d0625","width":64,"height":64}],"explicit":false,"language":"en","languages":["en"],"description":"After the federal court’s ruling against Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, and an appeals court’s temporary stay of that ruling, our analysts Michael Zezas and Michael Gapen discuss how the administration could retain the tariffs and what this means for the U.S. economy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist.Today, the latest on President Trump's tariffs.It's Thursday, May 29th at 5pm in New York.So, Mike, on Wednesday night, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down President Trump's reciprocal tariffs. This ruling certainly seems like a fresh roadblock for the administration.Michael Zezas: Yeah, that's right. But a quick word of caution. That doesn't mean we're supposed to conclude that the recent tariff hikes are a thing of the past. I think investors need to be aware that there's many plausible paths to keeping these tariffs exactly where they are right now.Michael Zezas: First, while the administration is appealing this decision, the tariffs can stay in place. But even if courts ultimately rule against the Trump administration, there are other types of legal authorities that they can bring to bear to make sure that the tariff levels that are currently applied endure. So, what the court said the administration had done improperly was levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).And there's been active debate all along amongst legal scholars about if this was the right law to justify those tariff levies. And so, there's always the possibility of court challenges. But what the administration could do, if the courts continue to uphold the lower court's ruling, is basically leverage other legal authorities to continue these tariffs.They could use Section 122 as a temporary authority to levy the 10 percent tariffs that were part of this kind of global tariff, following the reciprocal trade announcement. They also could use the existing Section 301 authority that was used to create tariffs on China in 2018 and 2019, and extend that across of all China imports; and therefore, fill in the gap that would be lost by not being able to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to tariff some of China's imports.So bottom line, there's lots of different legal paths to keep tariffs where they are across the set of goods that they're already applied to.Michael Gapen: So, I think that makes a lot of sense. And with all that said, where do you think we stand right now with tariffs?Michael Zezas: So, if the court ruling were to stand then the 10 percent tariffs on all imports that the U.S. is currently levying, that would have to go away. The 30 percent tariffs on roughly half of China imports, that would've to go away. And the 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico around fentanyl, that would have to go away as well.What you'd be left with effectively is anything levied under section 232 or 301. So that's basically steel, aluminum, automobile tariffs. And tariffs on the roughly half of China imports that were started in 2018 and 2019. But as we said earlier, there's lots of different ways that the authority can be brought to bear to make sure that that 10 percent import tariff globally is continued as well as the incremental tariffs on China.But Michael, turning to you on the U.S. economy, what’s your reaction to the court's ruling? It seems like we're just going to have a continuation of existing tariff policy, but is there something else that investors need to consider here?Michael Gapen: Well, I'm not a trade lawyer. I'm not entirely surprised by the ruling. It did seem to exceed what I'll call the general parameters of the law, and it wasn't what we – as a research group and a research team – were thinking was the most likely path for tariffs coming into the year, as you mentioned. And as we, as a group wrote, we thought that they would rely mainly on section 301 and 232 authority, which would mean tariffs would ramp up much more slowly. And that's what we had put into our original outlook coming into the year.We didn't have the effective tariff rate reaching 8 to 9 percent until around the middle of 2026. So, it reflected the fact that it would take effort and time for the administration to put its plans on tariffs in into place. So, I think this decision kind of shifts our views back in that direction. And by that I mean, we originally thought most of 2025 would be about getting the tariff structure in place. And therefore, the effects of tariffs would be hitting the economy mainly in 2026.We obviously revise things where tariffs would weigh on activity in 2025 and postpone Fed cuts into 2026. So, I think what it does for the moment is maybe tilts risks back in the other direction. But as you say, it's just a matter of time that there appears to be enough legal authority here for the administration to implement their desires on trade policy and tariff policy. So, I'm not sure this changes a lot in terms of where we think the economy's going. So, I'm not entirely surprised by the decision, but I'm not sure that the decision means a lot for how we think about the U.S. economy.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, the upshot there is – really no change from your perspective on the outlook for growth, for inflation or for Fed policy. Is that fair?Michael Gapen: That's right. So, it's still a slow growth, sticky inflation, patient Fed. It's just we're kind of moving around when that materializes. We pulled it into 2025 given the abrupt increase in in tariffs and the use of the IEEPA authority. And now it probably would come later if the lower court ruling stands.Michael Zezas: Right. So, sticking with the Fed. Several Fed speakers took to the airwaves last week, and it sounds like the Fed is still waiting for some of these public policy changes to have an effect on the real economy before they react. Is that a fair way to characterize it? And what are you watching at this point in terms of what determines your expectations for the Fed's policy path from here?Michael Gapen: Yeah, that's right. And I think, given that the appeals court has allowed the tariffs to stay in place as they review the lower court, the trade court's ruling, I think the Fed right now would say: Okay, status quo, nothing has changed.So, what does that mean? And what the Fed speakers said last week, and it also appeared in the minutes, is that the Fed expects that tariffs will do two things with respect to the Fed's mandate. It'll push inflation higher and puts risks around unemployment higher, right? So, the Fed is offsides, or likely to be offsides on both sides of its mandate.So, what Fed speakers have been saying is, well, when this happens, we will react to whichever side of the mandate we're furthest from our target. And their forecasts seem to say and are pretty consistent with ours, that the Fed expects inflation to rise first, but the labor market to soften later. So, what that means for our expectations for the Fed's policy path is they're likely to be on hold as they evaluate that inflation shock.And we'll keep the policy rate where it is to ensure that inflation expectations are stable. And then as the economy moderates and the labor market softens, then they can turn to cuts. But we don't think that happens until 2026. So, I don't think the ruling yesterday and the appeal process initiated today changes that.For now, the tariffs are still in place. The Fed's message is it's going to take us at least until probably September, if not later, to figure out which way we should move. Moving later and right is preferable for them than moving earlier and wrong.Michael Zezas: Got it. So bottom line, from our perspective, this court case was a big deal. However, because the administration has a lot of options to keep tariffs going in the direction that they want, not too much has really changed with our expectations for the outlook for either the tariff path and it's not going to fix to the economy.Michael Gapen: That’s right. That's, I think what we know today. And we'll have to see how things evolve.Michael Zezas: Yep. They seem to be evolving every day. Mike, thanks for speaking with me.Michael Gapen: Thank you, Mike. It's been a pleasure. And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.","duration_ms":561580,"is_playable":true,"release_date":"2025-05-30","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/episode/1NoEX3MP0gu1SmztktSdp0"},"html_description":"

After the federal court’s ruling against Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, and an appeals court’s temporary stay of that ruling, our analysts Michael Zezas and Michael Gapen discuss how the administration could retain the tariffs and what this means for the U.S. economy.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.

Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist.

Today, the latest on President Trump's tariffs.

It's Thursday, May 29th at 5pm in New York.

So, Mike, on Wednesday night, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down President Trump's reciprocal tariffs. This ruling certainly seems like a fresh roadblock for the administration.

Michael Zezas: Yeah, that's right. But a quick word of caution. That doesn't mean we're supposed to conclude that the recent tariff hikes are a thing of the past. I think investors need to be aware that there's many plausible paths to keeping these tariffs exactly where they are right now.

Michael Zezas: First, while the administration is appealing this decision, the tariffs can stay in place. But even if courts ultimately rule against the Trump administration, there are other types of legal authorities that they can bring to bear to make sure that the tariff levels that are currently applied endure. So, what the court said the administration had done improperly was levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

And there's been active debate all along amongst legal scholars about if this was the right law to justify those tariff levies. And so, there's always the possibility of court challenges. But what the administration could do, if the courts continue to uphold the lower court's ruling, is basically leverage other legal authorities to continue these tariffs.

They could use Section 122 as a temporary authority to levy the 10 percent tariffs that were part of this kind of global tariff, following the reciprocal trade announcement. They also could use the existing Section 301 authority that was used to create tariffs on China in 2018 and 2019, and extend that across of all China imports; and therefore, fill in the gap that would be lost by not being able to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to tariff some of China's imports.

So bottom line, there's lots of different legal paths to keep tariffs where they are across the set of goods that they're already applied to.

Michael Gapen: So, I think that makes a lot of sense. And with all that said, where do you think we stand right now with tariffs?

Michael Zezas: So, if the court ruling were to stand then the 10 percent tariffs on all imports that the U.S. is currently levying, that would have to go away. The 30 percent tariffs on roughly half of China imports, that would've to go away. And the 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico around fentanyl, that would have to go away as well.

What you'd be left with effectively is anything levied under section 232 or 301. So that's basically steel, aluminum, automobile tariffs. And tariffs on the roughly half of China imports that were started in 2018 and 2019. But as we said earlier, there's lots of different ways that the authority can be brought to bear to make sure that that 10 percent import tariff globally is continued as well as the incremental tariffs on China.

But Michael, turning to you on the U.S. economy, what’s your reaction to the court's ruling? It seems like we're just going to have a continuation of existing tariff policy, but is there something else that investors need to consider here?

Michael Gapen: Well, I'm not a trade lawyer. I'm not entirely surprised by the ruling. It did seem to exceed what I'll call the general parameters of the law, and it wasn't what we – as a research group and a research team – were thinking was the most likely path for tariffs coming into the year, as you mentioned. And as we, as a group wrote, we thought that they would rely mainly on section 301 and 232 authority, which would mean tariffs would ramp up much more slowly. And that's what we had put into our original outlook coming into the year.

We didn't have the effective tariff rate reaching 8 to 9 percent until around the middle of 2026. So, it reflected the fact that it would take effort and time for the administration to put its plans on tariffs in into place. So, I think this decision kind of shifts our views back in that direction. And by that I mean, we originally thought most of 2025 would be about getting the tariff structure in place. And therefore, the effects of tariffs would be hitting the economy mainly in 2026.

We obviously revise things where tariffs would weigh on activity in 2025 and postpone Fed cuts into 2026. So, I think what it does for the moment is maybe tilts risks back in the other direction. But as you say, it's just a matter of time that there appears to be enough legal authority here for the administration to implement their desires on trade policy and tariff policy. So, I'm not sure this changes a lot in terms of where we think the economy's going. So, I'm not entirely surprised by the decision, but I'm not sure that the decision means a lot for how we think about the U.S. economy.

Michael Zezas: Got it. So, the upshot there is – really no change from your perspective on the outlook for growth, for inflation or for Fed policy. Is that fair?

Michael Gapen: That's right. So, it's still a slow growth, sticky inflation, patient Fed. It's just we're kind of moving around when that materializes. We pulled it into 2025 given the abrupt increase in in tariffs and the use of the IEEPA authority. And now it probably would come later if the lower court ruling stands.

Michael Zezas: Right. So, sticking with the Fed. Several Fed speakers took to the airwaves last week, and it sounds like the Fed is still waiting for some of these public policy changes to have an effect on the real economy before they react. Is that a fair way to characterize it? And what are you watching at this point in terms of what determines your expectations for the Fed's policy path from here?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, that's right. And I think, given that the appeals court has allowed the tariffs to stay in place as they review the lower court, the trade court's ruling, I think the Fed right now would say: Okay, status quo, nothing has changed.

So, what does that mean? And what the Fed speakers said last week, and it also appeared in the minutes, is that the Fed expects that tariffs will do two things with respect to the Fed's mandate. It'll push inflation higher and puts risks around unemployment higher, right? So, the Fed is offsides, or likely to be offsides on both sides of its mandate.

So, what Fed speakers have been saying is, well, when this happens, we will react to whichever side of the mandate we're furthest from our target. And their forecasts seem to say and are pretty consistent with ours, that the Fed expects inflation to rise first, but the labor market to soften later. So, what that means for our expectations for the Fed's policy path is they're likely to be on hold as they evaluate that inflation shock.

And we'll keep the policy rate where it is to ensure that inflation expectations are stable. And then as the economy moderates and the labor market softens, then they can turn to cuts. But we don't think that happens until 2026. So, I don't think the ruling yesterday and the appeal process initiated today changes that.

For now, the tariffs are still in place. The Fed's message is it's going to take us at least until probably September, if not later, to figure out which way we should move. Moving later and right is preferable for them than moving earlier and wrong.

Michael Zezas: Got it. So bottom line, from our perspective, this court case was a big deal. However, because the administration has a lot of options to keep tariffs going in the direction that they want, not too much has really changed with our expectations for the outlook for either the tariff path and it's not going to fix to the economy.

Michael Gapen: That’s right. That's, I think what we know today. And we'll have to see how things evolve.

Michael Zezas: Yep. They seem to be evolving every day. Mike, thanks for speaking with me.

Michael Gapen: Thank you, Mike. It's been a pleasure. And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

","audio_preview_url":"https://podz-content.spotifycdn.com/audio/clips/5clLXFRYP3wR8iLmRPTIBg/clip_0_60000.mp3","is_externally_hosted":true,"release_date_precision":"day"}],"limit":50,"total":1406,"offset":0,"previous":null},"explicit":false,"languages":["en"],"publisher":"Morgan Stanley","copyrights":[],"media_type":"audio","description":"Short, thoughtful and regular takes on recent events in the markets from a variety of perspectives and voices within Morgan Stanley.","external_urls":{"spotify":"https://open.spotify.com/show/5cOfqdkomvzyhPTR7n6KFa"},"total_episodes":1406,"html_description":"

Short, thoughtful and regular takes on recent events in the markets from a variety of perspectives and voices within Morgan Stanley.

","is_externally_hosted":false}}