Thoughts on the Market

Original Release Date November 26, 2024: Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson joins Andrew Pauker of the U.S. Equity Strategy team to break down the key issues for equity markets ahead of 2025, including the impact of potential deregulation and tariffs.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.

Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. 

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

Andrew Pauker: And I'm Andrew Pauker from our US Equity Strategy Team.

Mike Wilson: Today we'll discuss our 2025 outlook for US equities.

It's Tuesday, November 26th at 5pm.

So let's get after it.

Andrew Pauker: Mike, we're forecasting a year-end 2025 price target of 6,500 for the S&P 500. That's about 9 percent upside from current levels. Walk us through the drivers of that price target from an earnings and valuation standpoint.

Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, this is really just rolling forward what we did this summer, which is we started to incorporate our economists’ soft-landing views. And, of course, our rate strategist view for 10-year yields, which, you know, factors into valuation.

We really didn't change any of our earnings forecast. That's where we've been very accurate. What we've been not accurate is on the multiple. And I think a lot of clients have also -- investors -- have been probably a little bit too conservative on their multiple assumption. And so, we went back and looked at, you know, periods when earnings growth is above average, which is what we're expecting. And that's just about 8 percent; anything north of that. Plus, when the Fed is actually cutting rates, which was not the case this past summer, it's just very difficult to see multiples go down. So, we actually do have about 5 percent depreciation in our multiple assumption on a year-over-year basis, but still it's very high relative to history.

But if the base case plays out, but from an economic standpoint and from a rate standpoint, it's unlikely earnings rates are going to come down. So, then we basically can get all of the appreciation from our earnings forecast for about, you know, 10-12 percent; a little bit of a discount from multiples, that gets you your 9 percent upside.

I just want to, you know, make sure listeners understand that the macro-outcomes are still very uncertain. And so just like this year, you know, we maybe pivot back and forth throughout the year … as [it] becomes [clear], you know, what the outcome is actually going to be.

For example, growth could be better; growth could be worse; rates could be higher; the Fed may not cut rates; they may have to raise rates again if inflation comes back. So, I would just, you know, make sure people understand it's not going to be a straight line no matter what happens. And we're going to try to navigate that with, you know, our style sector picks.

Andrew Pauker: There are a number of new policy dynamics to think through post the election that may have a significant impact on markets as we head into 2025, Mike. What are the potential policy changes that you think could be most impactful for equities next year?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, and I think a lot of this started to get discounted into the markets this fall, you know, the prediction polls were kinda leaning towards a Republican win, starting really in June – and it kind of went back and forth and then it really picked up steam in September and October. And the thing that the markets, equity market, are most excited about I would say, is this idea of deregulation. You know, that's something President-elect Trump has talked about. The Republicans seem to be on board with that. That sort of business friendly, if you will, kind of a repeat of his first term.

I would say on the negative side what markets are maybe wary about, of course, is tariffs. But here there’s a lot of uncertainty too. We obviously got a tweet last night from President-elect Trump, and it was, you know, 10 percent additional tariffs on certain things. And there’s just a lot of confusion. Some stocks sold off on that. But remember a lot of stocks rallied yesterday on the news of Scott Bessent being announced as Treasury Secretary because he's maybe not going to be as tough on tariffs.

So, what I view the next two months as is sort of a trial period where we're going to see a lot of announcements going out. And then the people in the cabinet positions who are appointed along with the President-elect are going to look at how the market reacts. And they're going to want to try to, you know, think about that in the context of how they're going to propose policy when they actually take office.

So, a lot of volatility over the next two months as these announcements are kind of floated out there as trial balloons. And then, of course, you also have the enforcement of immigration and the impact there on growth and also labor supply and labor costs. And that could be a net negative in the first half of next year. And so, look, it's going to be about the sequencing. Those are the two easy ones that you can see – tariffs of some form, and of course, immigration enforcement. And those are probably the two biggest potential negatives in the first half of next year.

Andrew Pauker: Mike, the title of our Outlook is “Stay Nimble Amid Changing Market Leadership,” and I think that reflects our mentality when it comes to remaining focused on capturing the leadership changes under the surface of the market. We rotated from a defensive posture over the summer to a more pro-cyclical stance in the fall. Talk about our latest views when it comes to positioning across styles, themes, and sectors here.

Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, you know, you have to understand that that pivot was not about the election as much as it was about kind of the economy, moving from the risk of a hard landing, which people were worried about this summer to, soft landing again. And then of course we got the Fed to, you know, aggressively begin a new rate cutting cycle with 50 basis points, which was a bit of a surprise given, you know, the context of a still decent labor markets.

That was the main reason for kind of the cyclical pivot, and then, of course, the election outcome sort of turbocharges some of that. So that's why we're sticking with it for now.

So, to be more specific, what we basically did was we went to quality cyclical rotation. What does that mean? It means, you know, we prefer things like financials, maybe industrials, kind of a close second from a sector standpoint. But this quality feature we think is important for people to consider because interest rates are still pretty high. You know, balance sheets are still a little stretched and, you know, price levels are still high.

So that means that lower quality businesses -- and the stocks of those lower quality businesses -- are probably a higher risk than we want to assume right now. But going into year end first and in 2025, we're going to stick with what we've sort of been recommending. On the defensive side. We didn't abandon all of them – because of , you know, we don't know how it's going to play out. So, we kept Utilities as an overweight because it has some offensive properties as well – most notably lever to kind of this, power deficiency within the United States. And that, of course with deregulation, a new twist on that could be things like natural gas, deployment of, you know, natural gas resources, which would help pipelines, LNG facilities potentially, and also, new ways to drive electricity production.

So, with that, Andrew, why don't you maybe dig in a little bit deeper on our financials column, and why it's not just, you know, about the election and kind of a rotation, but there's actually fundamental drivers here.

Andrew Pauker: Yeah, so Financials remains our top sector pick, following our upgrade in early October. And the drivers of that view are – a rebounding capital markets backdrop, strong earnings revisions, and the potential for an acceleration in buybacks into next year. And then post the election, expectation for deregulation can also continue to drive performance for the sector in addition to those fundamental catalysts. And then finally, even with the outperformance that we've seen for the group, over the last month and a half or so, relative valuation remains on demand – and kind of the 50th percentile of historical levels.

So, Mike, I want to wrap up by spending a minute on investor feedback to our outlook. Which aspects of our view have you gotten the most questions on? Where do investors agree and where do they disagree?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, it's sort of been ongoing because, as we noted, we really pivoted, more constructively on kind of a pro-cyclical basis a while ago. And the pushback then is the same as it is now, which is that equities are expensive. And I mean, quite frankly, the reason we pivoted to some of these more cyclical areas is because they're not as expensive. But that doesn't take away from the fact that stocks are pricey. And so, people just want to understand this analysis that, you know, we did this time around, which kind of just shows why multiples can stay higher.

They do appreciate that, you know, things can change. So, you know, we need to be, you know, cognizant of that. I would say, there's also debate around small caps. You know, we're neutral on small caps; we upgraded that about the same time after having been underweight for several years.

I think, you know, people really want to get behind that. It's been a; it's been a trade that people have gotten wrong, repeatedly over the last couple years trying to buy small caps. This time it seems like there may be some more behind it. We agree. That's why we went to neutral. And I think, you know, there are people who want to figure out, well, why? Why don't we go overweight now? And what we're really waiting for is for rates to come down a bit more. It's still sort of a late cycle environment. So, you know, typically you want to wait until you kind of see the beginnings of a new acceleration in the economy. And that's not what our economists are forecasting.

And then the other area is just this debate around government efficiency. And this is where I'm actually most excited because this is not priced at all in my view. There's so much skepticism around the ability or, you know, the likelihood of success in shrinking the government. That's not really what we're, you know, hoping for. We're just hoping for kind of a freezing of government spending. And it's so important to just, to think about it that way because that's what the fiscal sustainability question is all about, where then rates can stay contained. But then if you take it a step further, you know, our view for the last several years has been that the government has been essentially crowding out the private economy, and that really has punished small, medium businesses as well as many consumers.

And so, by shrinking or at least freezing the size of the government and redeploying those efforts into the private economy, we could see a very significant increase in productivity, but also see a broadening out in this rally. I mean, one of the reasons the market's been; equity market's been so narrow is because is because scale really matters in this crowded out, sort of environment.

If that changes, that creates opportunity at the stock level and that broadening out, which is a much healthier bull market potential.

So, what are you hearing from investors, Andrew?

Andrew Pauker: Yeah, I mean, I think the debate now, in addition to the factors that you mentioned, is really around the consumer space. A lot of pessimism is in the price already for consumer discretionary goods on the back of – kind of wallet share shift from goods to services, high price levels and sticky interest rates in addition to the tariff risk.

So, what we did in our note this week is we laid out a couple of drivers that could potentially get us more positive on that cohort. And those include a reversion in terms of the wallet share shift actually back towards goods. I think that would be a function of lower price levels. Lower interest rates – our rate strategists expect the 10-year yield to fall to 355 by year end 2025. So that would be a constructive backdrop for some of the more interest rate sensitive and housing areas within consumer discretionary.

Those are all factors that watching closely in order to get more constructive on that space. But that is another area of the market that I have received a good amount of questions on.

Mike Wilson: That's great, Andrew. Thanks a lot. Thanks for taking the time to talk today.

Andrew Pauker: Thanks, Mike. Anytime.

Mike Wilson: 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.

Original Release Date October 25, 2024: After decades of offshoring, the pendulum for US manufacturing is swinging back toward domestic production. Our US Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder looks at what’s behind this trend.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.

Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. 

Chris Snyder: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley’s US Multi-Industry Analyst. Today I’ll discuss the far-reaching implications of shifting industrial production back to the United States. 

It’s Friday, October 25th, at 10am in New York.

Global manufacturing is undergoing a seismic shift, and the United States is at the epicenter of this transformation. After decades of offshoring and relying on international supply chains, the pendulum is swinging back toward domestic production. This movement – known as reshoring – is not just a fleeting trend but a strategic realignment of manufacturing capabilities that is indicative of the “multipolar” theme playing out globally.

In fact, we believe the US is entering the early innings of re-Industrialization – a multi-decade opportunity that we size at $10 trillion and think has the potential to restore growth to the US industrial economy following more than 20 years of stagnation. 

The reshoring of manufacturing to the US is fueled by a combination of factors that are making domestic production both viable and lucrative. While the initial sparks were ignited by policy changes, including tariffs and trade agreements, the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the risks of elongated supply chains and over-dependence on foreign manufacturing.

Meanwhile, the diffusion of cutting-edge technologies, such as automation, artificial intelligence, and advanced robotics, has diminished the cost advantages of low-wage countries. The US -- with its robust tech sector and innovation ecosystem -- is uniquely positioned to leverage technology to revitalize its manufacturing base. 

Who are the direct beneficiaries? High-tech sectors, such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and advanced manufacturing systems, are likely to be the biggest winners. Traditional industrial sectors, such as automotive and aerospace, are also seeing a resurgence. Finally, companies that invest in more sustainable manufacturing processes stand to gain from both policy-driven incentives and a growing market demand. All told, these businesses should see shorter supply chains, reduced legal and tariff costs, and a more resilient operational structure. 

As for the broader US economy? We think the implications are pretty profound. In altering the US industrial landscape, reshoring promises not only to boost GDP growth, but it could also stabilize and potentially reverse the trade deficits that have plagued the US economy for years.

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

Original Release Date November 19, 2024: On the second part of a two-part roundtable, our panel gives its 2025 preview for the housing and mortgage landscape, the US Treasury yield curve and currency markets.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.

Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. 

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.

Today we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, currencies, and housing. I'm joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist; James Lord, Global Head of Currency and Emerging Market Strategy; Jay Bacow, our co-head of Securitized Product Strategy; and Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Product Strategy.

It's Tuesday, November 19th, at 10am in New York.

Matt, I'd like to go to you first. 2024 was a fascinating year for government bond yields globally. We started with a deeply inverted US yield curve at the beginning of the year, and we are ending the year with a much steeper curve – with much of that inversion gone. We have seen both meaningful sell offs and rallies over the course of the year as markets negotiated hard landing, soft landing, and no landing scenarios.

With the election behind us and a significant change of policy ahead of us, how do you see the outlook for global government bond yields in 2025?

Matt Hornbach: With the US election outcome known, global rate markets can march to the beat of its consequences. Central banks around the world continue to lower policy rates in our economist baseline projection, with much lower policy rates taking hold in their hard landing scenario versus higher rates in their scenarios for re-acceleration.

This skew towards more dovish outcomes alongside the baseline for lower policy rates than captured in current market prices ultimately leads to lower government bond yields and steeper yield curves across most of the G10 through next year. Summarizing the regions, we expect treasury yields to move lower over the forecast horizon, helped by 75 [basis points] worth of Fed rate cuts, more than markets currently price.

We forecast 10-year Treasury yields reaching 3 and 3.75 per cent by the middle of next year and ending the year just above 3.5 per cent.

Our economists are forecasting a pause in the easing cycle in the second half of the year from the Fed. That would leave the Fed funds rate still above the median longer run dot.

The rationale for the pause involves Fed uncertainty over the ultimate effects of tariffs and immigration reform on growth and inflation.

We also see the treasury curve bull steepening throughout the forecast horizon with most of the steepening in the first half of the year, when most of the fall in yields occur.

Finally, on break even inflation rates, we see five- and 10-year break evens tightening slightly by the middle of 2025 as inflation risks cool. However, as the Trump administration starts implementing tariffs, break evens widen in our forecast with the five- and 10-year maturities reaching 2.55 per cent and 2.4 per cent respectively by the end of next year.

As such, we think real yields will lead the bulk of the decline in nominal yields in our forecasting with the 10-year real yield around 1.45 per cent by the middle of next year; and ending the year at 1.15 per cent.

Vishy Tirupattur: That's very helpful, Matt. James, clearly the incoming administration has policy choices, and their sequencing and severity will have major implications for the strength of the dollar that has rallied substantially in the last few months. Against this backdrop, how do you assess 2025 to be? What differences do you expect to see between DM and EM currency markets?

James Lord: The incoming administration's proposed policies could have far-reaching impacts on currency markets, some of which are already being reflected in the price of the dollar today. We had argued ahead of the election that a Republican sweep was probably the most bullish dollar outcome, and we are now seeing that being reflected.

We do think the dollar rally continues for a little bit longer as markets price in a higher likelihood of tariffs being implemented against trading partners and there being a risk of additional deficit expansion in 2025. However, we don't really see that dollar strength persisting for long throughout 2025.

So, I think that is – compared to the current debate, compared to the current market pricing – a negative dollar catalyst that should get priced into markets.

And to your question, Vishy, that there will be differences with EM and also within EM as well. Probably the most notable one is the renminbi. We have the renminbi as the weakest currency within all of our forecasts for 2025, really reflecting the impact of tariffs.

We expect tariffs against China to be more consequential than against other countries, thus requiring a bigger adjustment on the FX side. We see dollar China, or dollar renminbi ending next year at 7.6. So that represents a very sharp divergence versus dollar yen and the broader DXY moves – and is a consequence of tariffs.

And that does imply that the Fed's broad dollar index only has a pretty modest decline next year, despite the bigger move in the DXY. The rest of Asia will likely follow dollar China more closely than dollar yen, in our view, causing AXJ currencies to generally underperform; versus CMEA and Latin America, which on the whole do a bit better.

Vishy Tirupattur: Jay, in contrast to corporate credit, mortgage spreads are at or about their long-term average levels. How do you expect 2025 to pan out for mortgages? What are the key drivers of your expectations, and which potential policy changes you are most focused on?

Jay Bacow: As you point out, mortgage spreads do look wide to corporate spreads, but there are good reasons for that. We all know that the Fed is reducing their holdings of mortgages, and they're the largest holder of mortgages in the world.

We don't expect Fed balance sheet reduction of mortgages to change, even if they do NQT, as is our forecast in the first quarter of 2025. When they NQT, we expect mortgage runoff to continue to go into treasuries. What we do expect to change next year is that bank demand function will shift. We are working under the assumption that the Basel III endgame either stalls under the next administration or gets released in a way that is capital neutral. And that's going to free up excess capital for banks and reduce regulatory uncertainty for them in how they deploy the cash in their portfolios.

The one thing that we've been waiting for is this clarity around regulations. When that changes, we think that's going to be a positive, but it's not just banks returning to the market.

We think that there's going to be tailwinds from overseas investors that are going to be hedging out their FX risks as the Fed cuts rates, and the Bank of Japan hikes, so we expect more demand from Japanese life insurance companies.

A steeper yield curve is going to be good for REIT demand. And these buyers, banks, overseas REITs, they typically buy CUSIPs, and that's going to help not just from a demand side, but it's going to help funding on mortgages improve as well. And all of those things are going to take mortgage spreads tighter, and that's why we are bullish.

I also want to mention agency CMBS for a moment. The technical pressure there is even better than in single family mortgages. The supply story is still constrained, but there is no Fed QT in multifamily. And then also the capital that's going to be available for banks from the deregulation will allow them – in combination with the portfolio layer hedging – to add agency CMBS in a way that they haven't really been adding in the last few years. So that could take spreads tighter as well.

Now, Vishy, you also mentioned policy changes. We think discussions around GSE reform are likely to become more prevalent under the new administration.

And we think that given that improved capitalization, depending on the path of their earnings and any plans to raise capital, we could see an attempt to exit conservatorship during this administration.

But we will simply state our view that any plan that results in a meaningful change to the capital treatment – or credit risk – to the investors of conventional mortgages is going to be too destabilizing for the housing finance markets to implement. And so, we don't think that path could go forward.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Jay. Jim, it was a challenging year for the housing market with historically high levels of unaffordability and continued headwinds of limited supply. How do you see 2025 to be for the US housing market? And going beyond housing, what is your outlook for the opportunity set in securitized credit for 2025?

James Egan: For the housing market, the 2025 narrative is going to be one about absolute level versus the direction and rate of change. For instance, Vishy, you mentioned affordability. Mortgage rates have increased significantly since the beginning of September, but it's also true that they're down roughly a hundred basis points from the fourth quarter of 2023 and we're forecasting pretty healthy decreases in the 10-year Treasury throughout 2025. So, we expect affordability to improve over the coming year. Supply? It remains near historic lows, but it's been increasing year to date.

So similar to the affordability narrative, it's more challenged than it's been in decades; but it's also less challenged than it was a year ago.

So, what does all this mean for the housing market as we look through 2025? Despite the improvements in affordability, sales volumes have been pretty stagnant this year. Total volumes – so existing plus new volumes – are actually down about 3 per cent year to date. And look, that isn't unusual. It typically takes about a year for sales volumes to pick up when you see this kind of significant affordability improvement that we've witnessed over the past year, even with the recent backup in mortgage rates.

And that means we think we're kind of entering that sweet spot for increased sales now. We've seen purchase applications turn positive year over year. We've seen pending home sales turn positive year over year. That's the first time both of those things have happened since 2021. But when we think about how much sales 2025, we think it's going to be a little bit more curtailed. There are a whole host of reasons for that – but one of them the lock in effect has been a very popular talking point in the housing market this year. If we look at just the difference between the effective mortgage rate on the outstanding universe and where you can take out a mortgage rate today, the universe is still over 200 basis points out of the money.

To the upside, you're not going to get 10 per cent growth there, but you're going to get more than 5 per cent growth in new home sales. And what I really want to emphasize here is – yes, mortgage rates have increased recently. We expect them to come down in 2025; but even if they don't, we don't think there's a lot of room for downside to existing home sales from here.

There's some level of housing activity that has to happen, regardless of where mortgage rates or affordability are. We think we're there. Turnover measured as the number of transactions – existing transactions – as a share of the outstanding housing market is lower now than it was during the great financial crisis. It's as low as it's been in a little bit over 40 years. We just don't think it can fall that much further from here.

But as we go through 2025, we do think it dips negative. We have a negative 2 per cent HPA call next year, not significantly down. We don't think there's a lot of room to the downside given the healthy foundation, the low supply, the strong credit standards in the housing market. But there is a little bit of negativity next year before home prices reaccelerate.

This leaves us generically constructive on securitized products across the board. Given how much of the capital structure has flattened this year, we think CLO AAAs actually offer the best value amongst the debt tranches there. We think non-QM triple AAAs and agency MBS is going to tighten. They look cheap to IG corporates. Consumer ABS, we also think still looks pretty cheap to IG corporates. Even in the CMBS pace, we think there's opportunities. CMBS has really outperformed this year as rates have come down. Now our bull bear spread differentials are much wider in CMBS than they are elsewhere, but in our base case, conduit BBB minuses still offer attractive value.

That being said, if we're going to go down the capital structure, our favorite expression in the securitized credit space is US CLO equity.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Jay and Jim, and also Matt and James.

We'll close it out here. As a reminder, 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.

Original Release Date November 18, 2024: On the first part of a two-part roundtable, our panel discusses why the US is likely to see a slowdown and where investors can look for growth.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.

Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. 

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today in the podcast, we are hosting a special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.

I'm joined by my colleagues: Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist; Mike Wilson, Chief US Equity Strategist and the firm's Chief Investment Officer; and Andrew Sheets, Global Head of [Corporate] Credit Research.

It's Monday, November 18th, at 10am in New York.

Gentlemen. Thank you all for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, and so I'm going to go right into it.

Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2025, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy?

Seth Carpenter: I have to say – it's always difficult to do forecasts. But I think right now the uncertainty is even greater than usual. It's pretty tricky. I think if you do it at a global level, we're not actually looking for all that much of a change, you know, around 3-ish percent growth; but the composition is surely going to change some.

So, let's hit the big economies around the world. For the US, we are looking for a bit of a slowdown. Now, some of that was unsustainable growth this year and last year. There's a bit of waning residual impetus from fiscal policy that's going to come off in growth rate terms. Monetary policy is still restrictive, and there's some lag effects there; so even though the Fed is cutting rates, there's still going to be a little bit of a slowdown coming next year from that.

But I think the really big question, and you alluded to this in your question, is what about other policy changes here? For fiscal policy, we think that's really an issue for 2026. That's when the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) tax cuts expire, and so we think there's going to be a fix for that; but that's going to take most of 2025 to address legislatively. And so, the fiscal impetus really is a question for 2026.

But immigration, tariffs; those matter a lot. And here the question really is, do things get front loaded? Is it everything all at once right at the beginning? Is it phased in over time a bit like it was over 2018? I think our baseline assumption is that there will be tariffs; there will be an increase in tariffs, especially on China. But they will get phased in over the course of 2025. And so, as a result, the first thing you see is some increase in inflation and it will build over time as the tariffs build. The slowdown from growth, though, gets backloaded to the end of 2025 and then really spills over into to 2026.

Now, Europe is still in a situation where they've got some sluggish growth. We think things stabilize. We get, you know, 1 percent growth or so. So not a further deterioration there; but not a huge increase that would make you super excited. The ECB should probably keep cutting interest rates. And we actually think there's a really good chance that inflation in the euro area goes below their target. And so, as a result, what do we see? Well, the ECB cutting down below their best guess of neutral. They think 2 percent nominal is neutral and they go below that.

China is another big curveball here for the forecast because they've been in this debt deflation spiral for a while. We don't think the pivot in fiscal policy is anywhere near sufficient to ward things off. And so, we could actually see a further slowing down of growth in China in 2025 as the policy makers do this reactive kind of policy response. And so, it's going to take a while there, and we think there's a downside risk there.

On the upside. I mean, we're still bullish on Japan. We're still very bullish on India and its growth; and across other parts of EM, there's some bright spots. So, it's a real mixed bag. I don't think there's a single trend across the globe that's going to drive the overall growth narrative.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Seth. Mike, I'd like to go to you next. 2024 has turned out to be a strong year for equity markets globally, particularly for US and Japanese equities. While we did see modest earnings growth, equity returns were mostly about multiple expansion. How do you expect 2025 to turn out for the global equity markets? What are the key challenges and opportunities ahead for the equity markets that you see?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, this year was interesting because we had what I would say was very modest earnings growth in the US in particular; relative to the performance. It was really all multiple expansion, and that's probably not going to repeat this year. We're looking for better earnings growth given our soft landing outcome from an economic standpoint and rates coming down. But we don't think multiples will expand any further. In fact, we think they'll come down by about 5 percent. But that still gets us a decent return in the base case of sort of high single digits.

You know, Japan is the second market we like relative to the rest of the world because of the corporate governance story. So there, too, we're looking for high single digit earnings growth and high single digits or 10 percent return in total. And Europe is when we're sort of down taking a bit because of tariff risk and also pressure from China, where they have a lot of export business.

You know, the challenges I think going forward is that growth continues to be below trend in many regions. The second challenge is that, you know, high quality assets are expensive everywhere. It's not just the US. It's sort of everywhere in the world. So, you get what you pay for. You know, the S&P is extremely expensive, but that's because the ROE is higher, and growth is higher.

So, you know, in other words, these are not well-kept secrets. And so just valuation is a real challenge. And then, of course, the consensus views are generally fairly narrow around the soft landing and that's very priced as well. So, the risks are that the consensus view doesn't play out. And that's why we have two bull and two bear cases in the US – just like we did in the mid-year outlook; and in fact, what happened is one of our bull cases is what played out in the second half of this year.

So, the real opportunity from our standpoint, I think this is a global call as well – which is that we continue to be pretty big rotations around the macro-outlook, which remains uncertain, given the policy changes we're seeing in the US potentially, and also the geopolitical risks that still is out there.

And then the other big opportunity has been stock picking. Dispersion is extremely high. Clients are really being rewarded for taking single stock exposures. And I think that continues into next year. So, we're going to do what we did this year is we're going to try to rotate around from a style and size perspective, depending on the macro-outlook.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Mike. Andrew, we are ending 2024 in a reasonably good setup for credit markets, with spreads at or near multi-decade tights for many markets. How do you expect the global credit markets to play out in 2025? What are the best places to be within the credit spectrum and across different regions?

Andrew Sheets: I think that's the best way to frame it – to start a little bit about where we are and then talk about where we might be going. I think it's safe to say that this has been an absolutely phenomenal backdrop for corporate credit. Corporate credit likes moderation. And I think you've seen an unusual amount of moderation at both the macro and the micro level.

You've seen kind of moderate growth, moderating inflation, moderating policy rates across DM. And then at the micro level, even though markets have been very strong, corporate aggressiveness has not been. M&A has been well below trend. Corporate balance sheets have been pretty stable.

So, what I think is notable is you've had an economic backdrop that credit has really liked, as you correctly note. We've pushed spreads near 20-year tights based on that backdrop. But it's a backdrop that credit markets liked, but US voters did not like, and they voted for different policy.

And so, when we look ahead – the range of outcomes, I think across both the macro and the micro, is expanding. And I think the policy uncertainty that markets now face is increasing both scenarios to the upside where things are hotter and you see more animal spirits; and risk to the downside, where potentially more aggressive tariffs or action on immigration creates more kind of stagflationary types of risk.

So one element that we're facing is we feel like we're leaving behind a really good environment for corporate credit and we're entering something that's more uncertain. But then balancing that is that you're not going to transition immediately.

You still have a lot of momentum in the US and European economy. I look at the forecasts from Seth's team, the global economic numbers, or at least kind of the DM economic numbers into the first half of next year – still look fine. We still have the Fed cutting. We still have the ECB cutting. We still have inflation moderating.

So, part of our thinking for this year is it could be a little bit of a story of two halves that we titled our section, “On Borrowed Time.” That the credit is still likely to hold in well and perform better in the first half of the year. Yields are still good; the Fed is still cutting; the backdrop hasn't changed that much. And then it's the second half of the year where some of our economic numbers start to show more divergence, where the Fed is no longer cutting rates, where all in yield levels are lower on our interest rate forecasts, which could temper demand. That looks somewhat trickier.

In terms of how we think about what we like within credit, we do think the levered loan market continues to be attractive. That's part of credit where spreads are not particularly tight versus history. That's one area where we still see risk premium. I think this is also an environment where regionally we see Asia underperforming. It's a market that's both very expensive from a spread perspective but also faces potentially kind of outsized economic and tariff uncertainty. And we think that the US might outperform in context to at least initially investors feeling like the US is at less relative risk from tariffs and policy uncertainty than some other markets.

So, Vishy, I'll pause there and pass it back to you.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Mike, Seth, and Andrew.

Thank you all for listening. We are going to take a pause here and we'll be back tomorrow with our year ahead round table continued, where we'll share our forecast for government bonds, currencies and housing.

As a reminder, if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research joins our U.S. Public Policy Strategist to give investors their policy expectations for President-elect Trump’s second term, including the potential market and economic consequences of those policies if enacted.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's global head of fixed income and thematic research.

Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. public policy strategist.

Michael: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll talk about potential policy paths the second Trump administration might pursue.

It's Monday, December 23rd at 10am in New York.

The U.S. presidential election is behind us and we're well into the holiday season, but we're still focusing closely on what U.S. policy might look like in 2025. Ariana, what have we learned in the past couple of weeks regarding Trump's policy plans for next year?

Ariana: So the variables or policy items that we're watching are still the same ones that we were tracking over the past year or so. That's tariffs, taxes, immigration and deregulation. But to your point, the election is now obviously behind us, and we do have some incremental information that's helped us construct a base case across these variables. For example, President elect Trump has made some key personnel appointments that we think are going to play a big role in exactly how these policies are carried out. His pick for Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant, is a good example that gives us conviction in a more gradual, incrementalist approach to tariffs. Translating that principle across all the policy variables, as well as the extremely thin majority the Republicans have in the House of Representatives, has helped us form the foundation of our base case, which we call “fast decisions, slow implementation.”

In short, we think that means you should expect major policy changes will be announced quickly, think first quarter of next year, but achieved more slowly. That, in our view, enables more benign macro conditions to persist into 2025, but does create some more uncertainty, both positive and negative, into 2026. We think that lag is attributable to a variety of logistical, legal, and political constraints, and does vary depending on the policy area and executive authorities. For example, we think Trump might have an easier time unilaterally modifying tariff rates, but other constraints outside of timing might limit implementation nonetheless.

So, Michael, taking this a step beyond just the policy paths, how should investors be thinking about the potential market and economic consequences of our base case? Aside from the specific policy changes, how do you think about our base case in terms of broader market themes?

Michael: I think the key takeaway here is that the policy path we're describing puts pressure on economic growth, but on a lag. So most of these effects are for later in 2025 or into 2026 per economist expectations.  So I think the key takeaway here is that the policy path we're describing exerts pressure on economic growth, albeit on a lag. So in our economist expectations later in 2025 and into 2026. So what that means is as we go into 2025, there's still a pretty good growth backdrop to support risk assets and equities in particular. It's also a pretty good backdrop for bonds because as we get closer to 2026, our bond strategist expectation is that markets will start to reflect expectations of growth pressure. And they'll probably be less concerned about what's a debate right now, which is the size of U.S. deficits. There's been this expectation that policies extending tax cuts would really grow the deficit substantially in the way that might put downward pressure on bond prices.

However, we think when investors take a closer look, they'll see that extending current tax cuts, which is our expectations, basically, they'll be able to extend current tax cuts with a few sweeteners on top, that's mostly an extension of current policy, as opposed to some of the headlines in the news talking about major deficit expansion, that's an expansion relative to if Congress did nothing and just let tax cuts expire. So the year over year difference in deficits is perhaps not as big as some of the headlines would suggest. So that's a good backdrop for bonds and a pretty good backdrop for equities and risk assets, at least to start the year.

Ariana: But of course, there's a lot of uncertainty embedded in these policy paths. Can you talk through how we're thinking about potential risks to our base case, or maybe some key signposts that could indicate that other scenarios are becoming plausible?

Michael: So if there are policies that shift that growth downside sooner, so instead of it manifesting in 2026, it manifests sooner in 2025, that's the type of thing that might make us less constructive on risk assets and equities. So if we got indications, for example, that tariffs were going to be implemented more quickly and to a greater degree, for example, announcements happening quickly, but also showing implementation is happening very quickly, that's the type of thing that might skew risk assets in a more negative direction. Similarly, if Congress were to pledge to appropriate more powers to the executive branch on tariff authority, not necessarily something we think they could get done, but that could be an indication that there could be more powerful tariff potential relative to what the executive branch currently has.

On the more positive side, if Congress indicates that it wants to move much faster and bigger on tax cuts and the executive branch were to flag that tariffs are going to be implemented later or suggest that there's more negotiating room with trade partners to avoid tariffs, then that might be the type of sequencing of policy that enables the market to focus more on the good aspects of policy, the helpful aspects to corporate earnings, to individual consumption, and to GDP growth that might just make for an all around more conducive environment to risk assets.

So there's a lot to keep an eye on between now and inauguration day. In the meantime, enjoy your holiday. Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Ariana: Great speaking with you, Mike.

Michael: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share our thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research lists realistic scenarios for why credit could outperform expectations in 2025, despite some risks posed by policy changes from the incoming administration.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing realistic scenarios where things could be better than we expect.

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

Credit is an asset class that always faces more limited upside, and the low starting point for spreads as we enter 2025 further limits potential gains. Nevertheless, there are still a number of ways where this market could do better than expected, with spreads tighter than expected, into next year.

An obvious place to start is U.S. policy. Morgan Stanley’s public policy strategy team thinks the incoming administration will be a story of “fast announcement, slow implementation”, with the growth and inflation impact of tariffs and immigration falling more in 2026 (rather than say earlier). And so if one looks at Morgan Stanley’s forecasts, our growth numbers for 2025 are good, our 2026 numbers are weaker.

The bull case could be that we see more talk but less ultimate action. Scenarios where tariffs are more of a negotiating tool than a sustained policy would likely mean less change to the current (credit friendly) status quo, and also increase the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will be able to lower interest rates even as growth holds up. Rate cuts with good growth is a rare occurrence, but when you do get it, it can be extremely good. If one thinks of the mid-1990s, another time where we had this combination, credit spreads were even tighter than current levels. Another path to the bull case is better funding conditions in the market. Some loosening of bank capital requirements or stronger demand for collateralized loan obligations could both flow through to tighter spreads for the assets that these fund, especially things like leveraged loans. If we think back to periods where credit spreads were tighter than today, easier funding was often a part of the story.

Now, a more aggressive phase of corporate activity could be a risk to credit, but M&A can also be a positive event, especially on a name by name basis. If merger and acquisition activity becomes a story of, say, larger companies buying smaller ones, that could mean that weaker, high yield credits get absorbed by larger, stronger, investment grade balance sheets. And so for those high yield bonds or loans, this can be an outstanding outcome. Another way things could be better than expected for credit is that growth in Europe and China is better than expected. In speaking with investors over the last few weeks, I think it's safe to say that expectations for both regions are pretty low. And so if things are better than these low expectations, spreads, especially in Europe, which are not as tight as those in the U.S., could go tighter.

But the most powerful form of the credit bull case might be the simplest. Morgan Stanley expects the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and the European Central Bank to all lower interest rates much more than markets expect next year, even as, for the most part, growth in 2025 holds up. Due in a large part to those expected rate cuts, we also think the yields fall more than expected. If that's right, credit could quietly have an outstanding year for total return, which is boosted as yields fall. Indeed, on our forecast, U.S. investment grade credit, a relatively sleepy asset class, would see a total return of roughly 10%, higher than our expected total return for the mighty S&P 500. Not all credit investors care about total return. But for those that do, that outcome could feel very bullish. 

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

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy joins our Chief U.S. Economist to discuss the Fed’s recent rate cut and why persistent inflation is likely to slow the pace of future cuts.

----- Transcript -----

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

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

Matthew: Today, we're going to talk about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting and the path for rates from here.

It's Thursday, December 19th at 10a.m. in New York.

The FOMC meeting concluded yesterday with the Federal Reserve cutting rates by a quarter of a percentage point, marking the third rate cut for the year. This move by the Fed was just as the consensus had anticipated. However, in its meeting yesterday, the Fed indicated that 2025 rate cuts would happen at a slower pace than investors were expecting. So Mike, what are committee members projecting in terms of upcoming rate cuts in 2025 and 2026?

Michael: Yeah, Matt, the Fed dialed back its expectations for policy rate easing in both 2025 and 2026. They now only look for two rate cuts of 50 basis points worth of cuts in 2025, which would bring the funds rate to 3.9% and then only another 50 basis points in 2026, bringing the policy rate to 3.4%. So a major dialing back in their expectations of rate cuts over the next two years.

Matthew: What are the factors that are driving what now appears to be a slightly less dovish view of the policy rate?

Michael: Chair Powell mentioned, I think, two things that were really important. One, he said that many committee members saw recent firmness in inflation as a surprise. And so I think some FOMC members extrapolated that strength in inflation going forward and therefore thought fewer rate cuts were appropriate. But Chair Powell also said other FOMC members incorporated expectations about potential changes in policy, which we inferred to mean changes about tariffs, immigration policy, maybe additional fiscal spending. And so whether they bake that in as explicit assumptions or just saw it as risks to the outlook, I think that these were the two main factors. So either just momentum in inflation or views on policy rate changes, which could lead to greater inflation going forward.

Matthew: So Mike, what were your expectations going into this meeting and how did yesterday's outcome change Morgan Stanley's outlook for Federal Reserve policy next year and the year thereafter?

Michael: We are a little more comfortable with inflation than the Fed appears to be. So we previously thought the Fed would be cutting rates three times next year and doing all of that in the first half of the year. But we have to listen to what they're thinking and it appears that the bar for rate cuts is higher. In other words, they may need more evidence to reduce policy rates. One month of inflation isn't going to do it, for example. So what we did is we took one rate cut out of the forecast for 2025. We now only look for two rate cuts in 2025, one in March and one in June.

As we look into 2026, we do think the effect of higher tariffs and restrictions on immigration policy will slow the economy more, so we continue to look for more rate cuts in 2026 than the Fed is projecting but obviously 2026 is a long way away. So in short, Matt, we dialed back our assumptions for policy rate easing to take into account what the Fed appears to be saying about a higher bar for comfort on inflation before they ease again.

So Matt, if I can actually turn it back to you: how, if at all, did yesterday's meeting, and what Chair Powell said, change some of your key forecasts?

Matthew: So we came into this meeting advocating for a neutral stance in the bond market. We had seen a market pricing that ended up being more in line with the outcome of the meetings. We didn't expect yields to fall dramatically in the wake of this meeting, and we didn't expect yields to rise dramatically in the wake of this meeting. But what we ended up seeing in the marketplace was higher yields as a result of a policy projection that I think surprised investors somewhat and now the market is pricing an outlook that is somewhat similar to how the Fed is forecasting or projecting their policy rate into the future.

In terms of our treasury yield forecasts, we didn’t see anything in that meeting that changes the outlook for treasury markets all that much. As you said, Mike, that in 2026, we're expecting much lower policy rates. And that ultimately is going to weigh on treasury yields as we make our way through the course of 2025. When we forecast market rates or prices, we have to think about where we are going to be in the future and how we're going to be thinking about the future from then. And so when we think about where our treasury yield's going to be at the end of 2025, we need to try to invoke the views of investors at the end of 2025, which of course are going to be looking out into 2026.

So when we consider the rate policy path that you're projecting at the moment and the factors that are driving that rate policy projection - a slower growth, for example, a bit more moderate inflation - we do think that investors will be looking towards investing in the government bond market as we make our way through next year, because 2026 should be even more supportive of government bond markets than perhaps the economy and Fed policy might be in 2025.

So that's how we think about the interest rate marketplace. We continue to project a 10 year treasury yield of just about three and a half percent at the end of 2025 that does seem a ways away from where we are today, with the 10 year treasury yield closer to four and a half percent, but a year is a long time. And that's plenty of time, we think, for yields to move lower gradually as policy does as well. On the foreign exchange side. The dollar we are projecting to soften next year, and this would be in line with our view for lower treasury yields. For the time being, the dollar reacted in a very positive way to the FOMC meeting this week but we think in 2025, you will see some softening in the dollar. And that primarily occurs against the Australian dollar, the Euro, as well as the Yen. We are projecting the dollar/yen exchange rate to end next year just below 140, which is going to be quite a move from current levels, but we do think that a year is plenty of time to see the dollar depreciate and that again links up very nicely with our forecast for lower treasury yields.

Mike, with that said, one more question for you, if you would: where do things stand with inflation now? And how does this latest FOMC signal, how does it relate to inflation expectations for the year ahead?

Michael: So right now, inflation has been a little bit stronger than we and I think the Fed had anticipated, and that's coming from two sources. One, hurricane-related effects on car prices. So the need to replace a lot of cars has pushed new and used car prices higher. We think that's a temporary story that's likely to reverse in the coming months. The more longer term concern has been around housing related inflation, or what we would call shelter inflation. The good news in that is in November, it took a marked step lower. So I do think it tells us that that component, which has been holding up inflation, will continue to move down. But as we look ahead to your point about inflation expectations, the real concern here is about potential shifts in policy, maybe the implementation of tariffs, the restriction of immigration.

We as economists would normally say those should have level effects or one-off effects on inflation. And normally I'd have a high confidence in that statement. But we just came out of a very prolonged period of higher than normal inflation, so I think the concern is repetitive, one-off shocks to inflation, lead inflation expectations to move higher. Now, we don't think that will happen. Our outlook is for rate cuts, but this is the concern. So we think inflation moves lower. But we're certainly watching the behavior of inflation expectations to see if our forecast is misguided.

Matthew: Well, great Mike. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Mike: Great speaking with you, Matt.

Matthew: 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.

Of all of the potential policy changes from the incoming U.S. presidential administration, deregulation could have the most significant impact on markets. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist explains what’s coming.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today I'll be discussing the policy changes that we have the highest conviction in terms of their market impact.

It's Wednesday, December 18th at 10 a.m. in New York.

As our regular readers are aware, Morgan Stanley strategists and economists around the globe came together to formulate our outlook for 2025 across the wide range of markets and economies we cover. A key aspect of this year's outlook is the potential for policy changes ahead from the incoming administration. The substance, severity, and sequencing of policies will matter and will have an important bearing on how markets perform over the course of 2025. We would put the potential range of policy changes into four broad categories: Tariffs and Trade Policy; Immigration Controls; Tax Cuts and Fiscal Policy; and finally, Deregulation. In terms of sequencing, our central case is for tariffs to go first and tax cuts to be last. As our public policy team sees it, the incoming administration will see fast announcements but a slow implementation of policy, especially in terms of tariffs and immigration. Slower implementation will mean that the changes will also be slow and the impacts on the economy and markets likely to be a lot more gradual.

That said, it is in the area of deregulation that we expect to see the highest impact on markets, even though precise measurement of these impacts in terms of macroeconomic indicators such as growth and inflation is hard to come through. So with deregulation, we expect an environment in support of bank activity. As our bank equity analysts have noted, banks in their coverage area currently are sitting on record levels of excess capital: 177 billion of excess capital and a weighted average CET1 ratio of 12.8 percent, which is 140 basis points higher than pre-COVID levels of 11.4 percent.

If Basel III Endgame is re proposed in a more capital neutral manner, we expect U.S. banks will begin deploying their excess capital into lending, supporting clients in trading and underwriting, increasing their securities purchases, as well as increasing buybacks and dividends. Changes to the existing Basel III Endgame proposal will also make U.S. banks more competitive globally.

We also believe all global banks with significant capital markets businesses will benefit from the return of the M&A. Another by-product of Basel III Endgame being reproposed in a capital neutral way pertains to what banks do in their securities portfolios. In the last few years, in anticipation of higher capital requirements, U.S. banks have not been very active in deploying their capital in securities purchases, particularly Asian CMBS and CLO AAAs. With the deregulation focus, we expect that banks will revert to buying the assets that they have stayed away from, in particular, Asian CMBS and CLO AAAs.

The return of bank demand for CLO AAAs will have a bearing on the underlying broadly syndicated loan market and even more broadly on credit formation and sponsor activity, which will be supportive of a stronger return of M&A than our credit strategists have been expecting. So in fixed income, if you pardon the pun, we are really banking on the impact of deregulation, which supports our view on the range of relative value opportunities and spread products, especially in securitized products.

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

Our Global Chief Economist explains why a predictable end to 2024 for central banks may give way to a tempestuous 2025.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about how the year end is wrapping up with, surprisingly, a fair amount of certainty about central banks.

It's Tuesday, December 17th at 10 a. m. in New York.

Unlike the rest of this past year, year end seems to have a lot more certainty about the last few central bank meetings. Perhaps it is just the calm before the storm, but for now, let's enjoy a benign central bank week ahead of the holidays. Last Thursday, the ECB cut interest rates 25 basis points, right in line with what we were thinking and what the market was thinking. Similarly, but I have to say, with a pretty different narrative, we expect the Fed to cut 25 basis points this week and the market seems to be all in there as well.

The Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, well, we think they're closed accounts; that is to say, they're going to be on pause until the new year. Last week's 25 basis point cut by the ECB came amidst a debate as to whether or not the ECB should accelerate their pace of rate cuts. With most doubts about disinflation resolved, it’s downside growth risks that have gained prominence in the decision making process there. Restrictive monetary policy is starting to look less and less necessary and President Lagarde’s statement seems to reflect that the council's negotiated stance, that easing will continue until the ECB reaches neutral. The question is what happens next? In our view, the ECB will come to see there's a need to cut through neutral and get all the way down to 1%.

In stark contrast, there's the Fed, where there are very few residual growth concerns, but there have been more and more questions about the pace of disinflation. The recent employment data, for example, clearly suggests that the recession risk is low. Some members on the committee have started to express concerns, however, that inflation data really have proven stickier and that maybe the disinflation process is stalled.

From our perspective, last week's CPI data and all the other inflation data we just got really point to the next PCE print showing continued clear disinflation, leaving very little room for debate for the Fed to cut 25 basis points in December. And indeed, if it's as weak as we think it is, that provides extra fuel for a cut in January.

That said, our baseline view of cuts in March and May are going to get challenged if future data releases show a reversal in this disinflationary trend, if it's from residual seasonality or maybe pass through from newly imposed tariffs, and Chair Powell's remarks at next week's press conference are really going to be critical to see if they really are becoming more cautious about cuts.

Now, we don't expect the Bank of England or the Bank of Japan to move until next year. The recent currency weakness in Japan has raised the prospect of a rate hike as soon as this month, but we've kept the view that a January rate hike is much more likely. The timing would allow the Bank of Japan to get greater insight into the Shunto wage negotiations, and that gives them greater insight into future inflation. And recent communications from the Bank of Japan also aligns with our view and in particular, there is a scheduled speech by Deputy Governor Himino on January 14th, one week before the January 23rd and 24th meeting. All of that says the stars are lined up for a January rate hike. Market pricing over the past couple weeks have moved against a hike in December and towards our call for a hike in January.

Now, the market's also pricing the next Bank of England cut to be next year rather than this year. We expect those cuts to come at alternating meetings. December on pause, a cut in February, and gradual rate cuts thereafter. Now, services inflation, the key focus of the Bank of England so far, has remained elevated through the end of the year, but we expect to see mounting evidence of labor market weakness, and as a result, wage growth deceleration, and that, we think, is what pushes the MPC towards more cuts. All of that said, the recent announcement of fiscal stimulus in the UK starts to raise some inflationary risks at the margin.

All right, well, as the year comes to an end, it has been quite a year to say the least. Elections around the world, not least of which here in the United States, wildly swinging expectations for central banks, and a structural shift in Japan ending decades of nominal stagnation. And I have to say an early glimpse into 2025 suggests that the roller coaster is not over yet. But for now, let's take some respite because there should be limited drama from central banks this week. Happy holidays.

Well, thanks for listening, and if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist recaps how equity markets have fared in 2024, and why they might look more conservative early in the new year.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to position as we head into the new year.

It's Monday, Dec 16th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.

The big question for most investors trying to beat the S&P 500 is whether returns will continue to be dominated by the Magnificent 7 and a few other high quality large cap stocks or if we're going to will see a sustainable broadening out of performance to new areas. Truth be told, 2024 has been a year during which investors have oscillated between a view of broadening out or continued narrowing. This preference has coincided with the ever-changing macro view about growth and inflation and how the Fed would respond.

To recount this past year, our original framework suggested investors would have to contend with markets reacting to these different macro-outcomes. More specifically, whether the economy would end up in a soft landing, a hard landing or a “no landing” outcome of accelerating growth and inflation. Getting this view right helped us navigate what kinds of stocks, sectors and factors would outperform during the year. The perfect portfolio this year would have been overweight broad cyclicals like energy, industrials and financials in the first quarter, followed by a Magnificent 7 tilt in early 2Q that got more defensive over the summer before shifting back toward high quality cyclicals in late third quarter. Lately, that cyclical tilt has included some lower quality stocks while the Magnificent 7 has had a big resurgence in the past few weeks. We attributed these shifts to the changing perceptions on the macro which have been more uncertain than normal.

Going into next year, I think this pattern continues, and it currently makes sense to have a barbell of large cap high quality cyclicals and growth stocks even though small caps and the biggest losers of the prior year tend to outperform in January as portfolios rebalance. We remain up the quality curve because it appears the seasonal low quality cyclical small cap rally was pulled forward this year due to the decisive election outcome. In addition to the large hedges being removed, there was also a spike in many confidence surveys which further spilled into excitement about this small cap lower quality rotation.

Therefore, it makes sense that the short-term euphoria that's now taking a break with the rotation back toward large cap quality mentioned earlier. The fundamental driver of this rotation is earnings. Both earnings revisions and the expected growth rate of earnings next year remain much better for higher quality stocks and sectors. Given the uncertainty around policy sequencing and implementation on tariffs, immigration and how much the Fed can cut rates next year, we suspect equity markets will tread a bit more conservatively in the first quarter than what we observed this fall.

The biggest risks to the upside would be a more modest implementation of tariffs, a de-emphasis on deportations of working illegal immigrants and perhaps more aggressive de-regulation that is viewed as pro-growth. Other variables worth watching closely include how quickly and aggressively the new department of government efficiency acts with respect to shrinking the size of the Federal agencies. While I'm hopeful this new effort can prove the skeptics wrong, success may prove to be growth negative in the near term given how much the government has been driving overall GDP growth for the past few years. In my view, a true broadening out of the economy and the stock market is contingent on a smaller government both in terms of regulation and absolute size. In my view, this is the most exciting potential change for taxpayers, smaller businesses and markets overall. However, it is also likely to take several years to fully manifest.

In the meantime, I wish you a happy holiday season and a healthy and prosperous New Year.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

After an up-and-down 2024 for the U.S. airlines industry, our Freight Transportation & Airlines Analyst Ravi Shanker explains why he is bullish about the sector’s trajectory over the next year.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley’s Freight Transportation and Airlines analyst. Today I’ll discuss why we remain bullish on the US Airlines industry for 2025.

It’s Friday, December 13, at 10am in New York.

The Airline industry entered 2024 with good momentum, lost it during the middle of the year with some concerns around the economy and capacity, but then turned it around in the fall to finish the year with the strongest run that the Airlines have had since the pandemic. The coast looks clear for 2025, and we remain bullish on the US Airlines for next year.

While many airline stocks enter 2025 close to post-pandemic if not all-time highs, valuations are still attractive enough across the space to see upside across the industry. The big question right now is: will the focus on premium services continue to pay off, or will there be a resurgence in domestic travel that alters the market dynamics? We think the answer is both.

Premium beneficiaries will continue to shine in 2025. We believe the premiumization trend in the industry is structural and will continue next year. Legacy carriers have successfully capitalized on this trend, enhancing their revenue streams significantly through upgraded service offerings such as premium seating and lounge access. This move isn't just about luxury—it's a calculated play to boost ancillary revenues, which are becoming a more critical component of financial stability in the airline industry. The premium leaders are building annuity-like business models – think razorblades, printers or smartphones – where the sale of a popular gateway product is followed by the bulk of the profitability coming from ancillary revenues generated in the following years, as loyalty and adjacent revenues contribute a steady stream of earnings and free cash flow to the airlines.

On the flip side, the conversation around better margins on domestic travel is gaining momentum as well. 2024 saw a big shift where several domestic carriers made significant changes and even in some cases fundamentally overhauled their business models to fly less, fly differently, bundle fares, and move upmarket. This change brought significant disruption in 2024 but could be set to pay dividends in 2025 and reignite investor interest in these domestic names. This shift toward domestic travel could potentially redistribute market share and redefine competitive dynamics within the entire Airlines industry.

To sum up, the setup for 2025 looks very good. But volatility could remain high due to external factors. The biggest risk into 2025 -- especially the second half of [20]25 -- continues to be the macro backdrop. More specifically, our economists' view of a sharply slowing GDP growth and services spending environment in the second half of [20]25 and into [20]26. While we take comfort from the resilience of travel spending so far, we know that things could change quickly. We will continue to keep you updated throughout the next year.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our U.S. Retail Analyst Simeon Gutman discusses shoppers’ embrace of a private labels super cycle and how changing consumer behavior could fundamentally change grocery and discount retailers.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley’s US Hardlines, Broadlines and Food Retail Analyst. Today, we’ll talk about a fascinating shift in the retail landscape: the rise of private label products and what this could mean for the future of grocery and discount retailers.

It’s Thursday, December 12, at 10am in New York.

Think about your recent trip to your favorite grocery store. As you reached towards the shelves for your preferred brand of mayonnaise, frozen pizza, or bread, you may have noticed that more and more shelves are stocked with store-brand products. Products that not only match the quality of national brands but often exceed it. This isn't just a minor trend. We estimate private label sales growth will accelerate by 40 per cent to reach $462 billion by 2030. An expansion that will redefine market dynamics significantly.

In essence, we think the private label grocery market is on the cusp of a super cycle. This super cycle is a by-product of COVID-era shifts in the way that customers shop and how retailers invest into this trend. At the same time, private label groceries reflect the rise of mega platforms, which are taking ever greater consumer wallet share and are innovating more than ever before.

When you look at macro drivers, US consumers have been navigating a difficult post-COVID environment. While inflation is currently moderating, overall food prices remain 30-34 per cent above their 2018 levels. Most consumers are spending more on food at home vs. food away from home, which is a positive catalyst for private label acceleration. Further, consumers are willing to substitute lower priced goods, especially groceries, and these categories present a growth opportunity for private labels. This is the tipping point that we’re talking about. High costs, recent innovation, and innovation like we’ve never seen before – with the rise of these mega platforms, this industry looks like it’s ripe for disruption.

The market views private label penetration as a slow, gradual, and ongoing event. But our work challenges this premise. We believe the rate of change in private label growth will accelerate substantially over the next few years. We think private label products will grow at double the rate of the overall grocery market bringing private label market penetration from about 19 per cent in 2023 to about 23 per cent by 2030.

This growth is not just about stocking up the shelves. It's about changing consumer perceptions and behavior. Consumers increasingly see private labels as viable alternatives to national brands because they often offer better value and innovation. From healthier ingredients, like no more seed oils, to organic products that you had no idea they can produce, to premium products like frozen lobster ravioli to mushroom and truffle pizza. There are a couple of retailers in the US that are all private label and they are among the fastest growing ones, taking away the stigma of what private label products could mean.

So what does this mean for the broader retail and consumer packaged good industries? For grocers and discounters with already strong private label offerings, this shift presents a significant opportunity for growth. It’s also accretive to margins. On the flip side, traditional food companies might face increased competition. These companies have historically relied on brand superiority. But as private label gains market share – particularly in food categories – these national brands could see a hit to their gross profit growth, which could fall from 3 per cent historically to about 2 per cent. And while household and personal care categories have seen some resilience against private label encroachment, the ongoing economic pressures and shifts in consumer spending habits could challenge the status quo.

Looking ahead, the rise of private labels could lead to a reevaluation of what brands mean to consumers. As private label becomes synonymous with quality and value, we may see a new era in which traditional brand loyalty becomes less significant compared to product quality and cost-effectiveness.

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

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why corporate credit may struggle in 2025, including the risks of aggressive policy shifts in the U.S. along with political and structural challenges in Europe and Asia.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing realistic scenarios where things are worse than we expect. Next week, I’ll cover what could be better.

It's Wednesday, December 11th at 2pm in London.

Morgan Stanley strategists and economists recently completed our forecasting process for the year ahead, and regular listeners will have now heard our expectations across a wide range of economies and markets. But I’d stress that these forecasts are a central case. The world is uncertain, with a probability distribution around all forecasts. So in the case of credit, what could go wrong?

As a quick reminder, our baseline for credit is reasonably constructive. We think that low credit spreads can remain low, especially in the first half of next year – as policy change is slow to come through, economic data holds up, the Fed and European Central Bank ease rates more than expected, and still-high yields on corporate bonds attract buyers.

So how does all of that go wrong? Well, there are a few specific, realistic factors that could lead us to something worse, i.e., our bear case.

Let me start with US policy. Morgan Stanley’s Public Policy team’s view is that the incoming US administration will see fast announcement, but slow implementation on key issues like tariffs, fiscal policy, and immigration; and that that slower implementation of any of these policies will mean that change comes less quickly to the economy. But that change could happen faster, which would mean weaker growth and higher prices – if, for example, tariffs were to hit earlier and or in larger size. In the case of immigration, we are actually still forecasting positive net immigration over the next several years. But a larger change in policy would raise the odds of a more severe labor shortage.

Even outside any specific change from the new US administration, there’s also a risk that the US economy simply runs out of gas. The recovery since COVID has been extraordinary – one of the fastest on record, especially in the labor market. The risk is that companies have now done all the hiring they need to do, meaning a slower job market going forward. Even in their base-case, Morgan Stanley’s economists see job market growth slowing, adding just 28,000 jobs/month in 2026. And to give you a sense of how low that number is, the average over the last 12 months was 190,000. And so, the bear case is that the labor market slows even more, more quickly, raising the risk of recession and dramatically lowering bond yields, both of which would reduce investor demand for corporate bonds.

At the other extreme, credit could be challenged if conditions are too hot. Because current levels of corporate aggression are still quite low, we think they could rise in 2025 without creating a major problem. But if those corporate animal spirits arrive more rapidly, it could be a negative.

Outside the US, we think the growth in Europe holds up as the European Central Bank cuts rates and Europeans end up saving at a slightly less elevated rate, and that that can keep growth near this year’s levels, around 1 per cent. But you don’t need me to tell you that Europe is riddled with challenges: from the political in France, to major structural questions around Germany’s economy. Meanwhile, China, the world’s second largest economy, continues to struggle with too little inflation. We think that growth in China muddles through, but a larger trade escalation could drive downside risk; one reason we prefer ex-China credit within Asia.

Of course, maybe the most obvious risk to Credit is simply valuation. Credit spreads in the US are near 20-year lows, while the US Equity Price-to-Earnings Multiples for the equity market is near 20-year highs. In our view, valuation is a much better guide to returns over the next six years, rather than say the next six months. And that’s one reason we are currently looking through this. But those valuations do leave a lot less margin for error.

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

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist says that while equity market activity suggests a measured level of optimism about 2025, the questions around tariffs and inflation have tempered expectations.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I will be discussing how equity markets have traded post the election and how this fits with our thinking.

It's Tuesday, Dec 10 at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. 

Post the election, our focus has been on the potential for a rebound in animal spirits like we observed following the 2016 election. During that historical period, we saw a broad-based surge in corporate, consumer and investor confidence as the sentiment analysis we’ve done shows. So far over the last month, sentiment data has reflected a more measured level of optimism led by small business confidence while services related business outlooks were actually tempered somewhat. 

Our assessment of the details of these surveys and commentary from corporates suggests that consumers and companies are feeling more optimistic heading into 2025. But the uncertainty around tariffs and the still elevated price levels are likely holding back the type of exuberance we saw post the 2016 election.

In 2016, we were also coming out of an industrial/manufacturing downturn, which was then aided by aggressive China stimulus. Due to that downturn, interest rates were much lower globally and sovereign deficits and balance sheets were in much better shape to absorb reflationary type policies like tax cuts and deregulation. As a result, the equity market almost immediately embraced an expansionary fiscal agenda that was interpreted as being pro-growth. Today, that policy agenda appears to be less front-footed in this regard, perhaps due to some of these constraints.

Nevertheless, these dynamics are still supportive of our preference for more cyclical sectors. However, given the stickiness of interest rates, it also makes sense to remain up the quality curve within cyclicals and constructively focused on sectors with clearer de-regulation tailwinds. As a result, Financials remain our preferred over-weight, followed by Software, Utilities and Industrials. 

On the topic of interest rates, we find it interesting that the correlation of S&P 500 returns versus the change in bond yields remains in positive territory. In other words, good macro data is good for equity returns. Furthermore, there is a clear bifurcation in terms of this correlation between cyclical and defensive sectors. Cyclical sectors are showing a positive correlation to rates, with one exception of Materials, while defensive cohorts are showing a negative correlation except for Utilities.

In our view, this is a sign that cyclicals and the market overall still like stronger macro data even if it comes amid higher yields. Having said that, there is a point where this dynamic would likely reverse if interest rates rise due to less dovish monetary policy or an increase in the term premium. In April of this year, that level was 4.5 per cent on the 10-year Treasury yield when growth and inflation drove the term premium higher. For now, rates remain contained well below that threshold and the term premium is close to zero.

On the flipside, a material decline in yields due to weakness in the macro growth data would also hurt cyclical stocks disproportionately leaving 4.00-4.50 per cent on the 10-year treasury yield as the sweet spot for equity valuations. Yields below that range can certainly be tolerated by equities assuming the driver is Fed rate cuts in the absence of a material slowdown in growth. Yields above that range can also be tolerated if the pace of the rate rise is measured, and the driver is stronger nominal growth versus a more hawkish Fed or a rising inflation. 

Finally, as we approach year-end, December seasonality is likely to be a focal point for investors. Over the past 45 years, the S&P 500's median return over the month of December is 1.5 per cent and the index has a positive return 73 per cent of the time. Notably, almost all of that performance comes in the second half of the month. These trends are directionally consistent for the Russell 2000 small cap index except that it’s even stronger at about 2.5 per cent. This performance could be further enhanced by the larger post-election spike in small business confidence mentioned earlier. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Morgan Stanley Research and Investment Management analysts discuss how AI can keep costs down for the industry and give patients a more personalized experience.

----- Transcript -----

Craig Hettenbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Craig Hettenbach, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Healthcare Technology and Providers analyst.

Today I'm here with my colleague Steve Rodgers from Morgan Stanley Capital Partners to talk about a growing and underappreciated segment of healthcare – the behind-the-scenes technology that is transforming the sector to keep costs down and improve patient care.

It's Monday, December 9th at 9am in New York.

In 2022, the size of the U.S. healthcare sector was [$]4.5 trillion and is projected to grow to [$]6.8 trillion in 2030, accounting for 20 per cent of overall U.S. GDP. We know that the U.S. population is aging, and we expect to see 71 million U.S. citizens age 65 and over by 2030. That puts ever growing demand on health care systems. 

So, Steve, you and your colleagues in investment management have been looking lately at key macro trends driving change in the healthcare sector.

What are these drivers and how do they work together?

Steve Rodgers: When we look at the health care landscape, we really think about four major macro trends. The first is cost containment. And this is just this simple idea that costs are escalating at an unsustainable rate. The second is demographics; we also know that things like obesity is increasing the prevalence of chronic conditions and increasing the overall utilization of the healthcare system. And so, we're looking at ways to invest behind that macro trend.

We've also identified something called consumerism. And consumerism stems from the reality that today, patients are taking more of a financial responsibility in their healthcare. And with that comes more decision making. So, the old days – where the patient received healthcare services, but the payer paid, and there was really no link between the two – have moved on.

We call it the retailization of health care. Waiting in the office for your appointment for 30 minutes used to be a standard. Today, that's unacceptable because these patients will move to the next provider who's providing them a better retail experience.

The final macro driver we call enabling technology. Health care has lagged many other industry segments in the use of technology as a source of efficiency. I like to give the example of chemotherapy treatments, right? Technology would produce a new chemotherapy treatment, and while that's great for patient care and outcomes. It actually could lead to increased costs to the system because it was an added route that people would go down.

Now there's technology which allows a provider to say, “Start with this one because of your genetic makeup.” And not only will you have a better outcome more quickly, but it will be less cost to the system. We're also seeing that kind of efficiency happen on the administrative side of healthcare as well.

The way we think about these macro trends and how they work together is really thinking about demand versus supply. So, we see demand drivers coming from demographics and consumerism. We see supply drivers coming from cost containment and really enabling technology has impacts on both demand and supply.

Craig Hettenbach: Let's focus more specifically on just how digitization and cost containment dovetail. When people talk about the impact of AI and ML on healthcare, typically the focus is on things like big pharma, medical equipment, and hospitals. But there's actually a whole intricate infrastructure that helps healthcare run.

Can you talk about these behind-the-scenes businesses and why investment managers are so interested in the opportunities they offer?

Steve Rodgers: Yeah, it's really important. We focus on investments that are using technology to enable their businesses. And so that's automation. That's machine learning. It's AI. But all of these technologies are being used behind the scenes to make care more efficient and they're a better use of our dollars.

For example the personalization of communications from health plans. So historically a health plan would send the same communication, you know, to – the same form to every patient.

Well now, technology allows the health plan, at the point of generating that communication, to know that information about the person that's getting it. And having the ability to personalize it in ways that might help them be more likely to interact with it. Maybe they're trying to get them to do something about their health. Well, they can take an administrative communication, you know, called an explanation of benefit, which really just explains how much you owe versus how much the health plan owes. And you can also add important information to that that might help you utilize your benefits better.

Another example that we see is on the hospital side. As people I think have heard, hospitals have been very inefficient, right? They pay bills     the wrong bills, they're duplicative invoices, and there haven't been really good ways to figure that out. Well, we now have technology that can identify those duplicative invoices, that can actually identify that there are multiple contracts that they have with a vendor and direct them to use the cheapest one.

Last one that I would highlight is around the procurement of pharmaceuticals. So, again, if you imagine a hospital system that has 50 different hospitals and one person at each hospital might be buying the pharmaceuticals that fit to the needs they have in that facility. Well, now there's technology that's really helping consolidate those purchases, get the benefits of scale. Also tracking what is a very dynamic pricing market and figuring out today this channels is less costly than that one, so buy it from here; tomorrow it might be different.

We're seeing behind-the-scenes uses of technology in all of those types of areas, which are leading to efficiencies.

Craig Hettenbach: That's really interesting and I agree. Sometimes investors can overlook healthcare infrastructure as an area offering a lot of hidden growth. Let's take a subsector like Revenue Cycle Management or RCM. What is it exactly and what opportunities does it offer when it comes to technology and cost containment?

Steve Rodgers: What it is, it really is the whole process from start to finish of a healthcare episode. So, starting with something as simple as eligibility, or is this patient eligible for this procedure?

Then once that procedure happens, it has to be documented and coded and billed. And then once that bill goes out that needs to be collected and paid on. So, this whole process is really how healthcare works and it's one of the most important business processes for healthcare companies .

And what we've seen with revenue cycle is it's been a very, historically, a very manual process that involved a lot of human effort. So early on, some of the most basic functions of revenue cycle were automated. So, the example I can give there would be the front-end entry of a claim.

So that used to be sent over by fax and a person would have to look at that and type it into a computer and start the processing that way. Well that, for a long time, that's now been automated with either what's called OCR, which is a scanning technology. But even, you know, now, a lot of that's coming in digitally. But a lot of the rest of the process is still manual. And the reason is because the tasks are so complex. So, to resolve a claim, you often need to pull data from multiple sources. There'd be some subjective determinations about what's allowed or not allowed.

You would then need to apply [it] against a multiple complex rules and benefits. And sometimes the sheer dollars involved would make it too risky to just pay that claim without someone actually looking at it. Really we're entering an automation cycle where some of these new technologies are making it possible to reliably automate these more complex functions.

And so it's a combination of machine learning and AI but it's really driving efficiencies that are really exciting from an investment perspective to us right now.

Craig Hettenbach: Got it. In addition to revenue cycle management, are there any other subsectors that look interesting to you right now?

Steve Rodgers: We also, we call it cost cycle management. This is the idea of applying the same principles that we're seeing in revenue cycle to the purchasing of providers. So that can be supply costs, inventory management. Another area that we think is interesting is self insured employer outsourcing. One of the main frustrations that we hear time and time again from self insured employers is that their employees are not utilizing the benefits that they have. With technology, companies that are finding ways to get broader and better adoption; then in turn allowing these employers to see better utilization, which is going to lead to a healthier workforce and hopefully do so also, with some cost containment.

So Craig, it's clear that there's an overlap between what we look at from the investment management side and what you and your colleagues focus on in research. How do you think about analyzing how AI and machine learning are impacting healthcare?

Craig Hettenbach: Yeah, so for research across the department, we came up with a framework to look at and that's the NEXT framework. So number one, new business opportunities to evaluate. Number two, efficiencies. Number three, external productivity. And number four, content creation. So those are four things to help kind of frame what the opportunity set looks like, when leveraging AI and technology.

Steve Rodgers: And how does this framework apply to your space, healthcare services and technology specifically?

Craig Hettenbach: The second point of that next framework, the E for efficiencies, is something that we're already starting to see the tangible benefits. And so, just to give you some context here, the CEO of a leading hospital, at a conference recently said that 25 to 30 per cent of overall healthcare costs are tied to administrative.

So there is a lot of low hanging fruit there. There's other areas within whether you think about things like prior authorizations that are still done manually, either via fax, phone, email. Those are things that some health plans and technology partners are looking to automate. So, I think the efficiencies – we’re still early on, but you're starting to see at least the business case in terms of investments there.

And then there's the longer term look on the clinical side. And I think the understanding there is that's going to take longer. An executive at a recent industry conference I was at, I thought he said it best when he said, ‘You know, AI is going to save time before it saves lives.’

Steve Rodgers: How is this technology changing how physicians or providers do their jobs?

Craig Hettenbach: When we look at what's happened with physicians and nurses and still not too far removed from COVID and just burnout, it's palpable. And I think it's something that technology can certainly be used as an enhancer.

So ambient listening is a new technology. When we think about electronic health records; yes, it's great to get that information into that record, but it's also timely and consuming. And so, I think things like that – that can listen to and populate notes – is going to be a real time saver for both doctors and patients.

And on the patient side as well, when we think about just our experience, right? Healthcare just has a long ways to go in terms of response time. And that's something that I think more automation and technology, whether it's things like scheduling or check-ins and things like that, I think ultimately you'll see more technology deployed.

Okay, Steve, are there any other potentially overlooked near term or longer-term pockets of opportunity within health care that you think investors should focus on?

Steve Rodgers: Yeah, I think a general rule for investors or, you know, a heuristic that they should think about is, really trying to invest behind the things that are providing – really trying to stay on the right side of healthcare. And so, when we look at things like cost containment, you know, we see companies out there where they might be benefiting from inefficiency in the system. Those are things that I'd stay away from.

I'd focus on companies that are providing better quality care at a lower cost and staying on the right side of healthcare. Because I do believe that a lot of these investments – the AI, the technology – are going to drive efficiency and really eradicate some of these business models that are really taking advantage of the inefficiencies in the healthcare system.

Craig Hettenbach: Great, Steve, well that's very helpful and thanks for taking the time to talk today.

Steve Rodgers: Great speaking with you, Craig.

Craig Hettenbach: 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 colleagues today.

Morgan Stanley Research analysts see a strong start following Black Friday but question whether the short shopping season will hurt retailers.

----- Transcript -----

Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.

Simeon Gutman: I'm Simeon Gutman, U.S. Hardlines, Broadlines, and Food Retail analyst.

Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, North America Softlines, Retail, and Brands analyst.

Michelle Weaver: Thanksgiving and Black Friday are behind us; and now that the holiday shopping season is in full swing, we have some interesting new data we wanted to dig into. We also recently concluded Morgan Stanley's Global Consumer and Retail Conference in New York, and we'll share some key takeaways from that.

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

I was recently on the show to talk about our holiday shopping outlook and survey takeaways, and noted that overall, we're expecting stronger spending this holiday season relative to last year. Inflation's cooled, and U.S. consumers are more positive on spending this season versus the past two holiday seasons. Now that we've got Black Friday in the rearview mirror, Simeon, within your space, how's holiday season tracking so far?

Simeon Gutman: Better. And the three key metrics – traffic, physical store sales, digital sales – all seem to be tracking better. The question is the magnitude and the length of ahead that the entire industry is – and what does that give us through the rest of the season? As we all know, the holiday season, shopping season is shorter; with the later fall of Thanksgiving, we're losing a weekend. The tone at our conference affirmed all of this, all the data points we heard were pretty upbeat. And it seems like the weather couldn't have broken at a better time, which is different from the October lead up to holiday.

So, it seems like we're off to a pretty healthy start. I think there's some questions of what do we make up in the last three weeks in this final push. Some companies at our conference sounded good on that. Some were a little bit, call it cautiously optimistic about the rest of the season.

Michelle Weaver: And what are you expecting for the rest of the holiday season?

Simeon Gutman: In theory, and as we do our models what the good start typically portends a pretty good finish. There will be like a frenetic, frantic rush till the end. And because we lose that last weekend, you know, we might just lose some days. That's what history has told us. And those couple of days, it could end up being a couple of points or a couple hundred points of growth. That's understandable. I think the market knows that. And if that were to happen, as long as the underlying tone of business is healthy, I think it's pretty excusable because it's either made up in the subsequent months, and it'll especially be made up in the following year.

Michelle Weaver: Great. And then Alex, in your space with Black Friday now behind us, were there any surprises?

Alex Straton: The headline on Black Friday out of the apparel and footwear space was very positive. That's the message everyone should hear. I think I'll break down how we thought about – and what we observed – into two buckets. One being what we saw on demand, and the other being what we saw on promotional or discounting activity.

Now, starting with demand, I think context is really important here, and we had a pretty lackluster September and October trend line in the space. To us, this was a function of adverse weather; it was much hotter than usual, really deterring apparel spending. We also had high hurricane activity, which deterred overall discretionary spending. And then also we had the election overhang upon consumers, which can, you know, deter spending as well.

So as a result, we had fall apparel spending not necessarily as robust as many retailers would have liked. We've seen that in third quarter earnings reports. And we viewed Black Friday as, almost this very powerful potential catalyst for pent up demand. It was very weather dependent, though, and Simeon mentioned this briefly. We got a cold front across the country, and I think that created this important catalyst to kick off the holiday season. So, demand was strong.

Just to put some numbers around it. Our line counts were up 30 per cent year-over-year. That's a data set that typically grows mid-single digits. So, speaks to, you know, outstanding demand. It doesn't capture conversion, so it's not perfect, but it gives you a sense for our confidence and how strong it was.

The second piece that I wanted to cover is just promotions. And what we saw there was consistent activity year-over-year. That was a positive surprise for me. We were braced for discounting to be higher across the group because we exited both the second quarter and out of the early third quarter reporters with some excess inventory. So, we thought they might look to clear it.

We had seen a recent uptick in promotional activity in October across the group. And then also, we're facing down a pretty competitive fourth quarter set up because of a number of the dynamics that Simeon mentioned. So, the fact that we didn't see retailers, kind of, push the panic button on discounting and promotions to drive that strong sales result, I think further underscores how strong it was; and also tells you retailers are willing to wait later for the consumer, similar to how they behaved last year.

Michelle Weaver: In your outlook for holiday shopping this year, you cautioned about some potential headwinds. What were they and have they been playing out as you expected?

Alex Straton: Yeah. So, since the start of the year, there's been a number of dynamics that we're going to weigh on the fourth quarter, no matter what. The first is that it's companies in my coverage most difficult year-over-year comparison quarter from both the sales and a profitability perspective. The second is that we have a compressed holiday shopping period, five fewer days, one less weekend; that’s very impactful for these retailers. And the last thing is that most retailers are lapping an extra week last year. They have a 53rd week calendar dynamic that reverses out this week. So, think about it as one last less week of sales opportunity.

And so, I could have sat here in January and told you all of that. What we've learned since is that these retailers are now also facing incremental freight headwinds in the back half. Some of which are just repercussions from the Red Sea dynamic. And then second, this inventory build that I mentioned that started to show up in the second quarter and some of these earlier third quarter reporters. So, all of those headwinds, I'm putting them on the table.

I think the good news is that the market seems to now mostly appreciate those. There's not really high bars as we think about fourth quarter results expectations or even sentiment more broadly. So, while it is a very challenging set up, I feel like it's mostly appreciated.

Michelle Weaver: Great. And final question for both of you. What are some of your key takeaways from the fireside chats you hosted at the conference that just closed?

Simeon Gutman: A few thoughts. First on the tone of holiday, I'll reiterate again: companies that are most exposed to holiday, in my coverage – ones that have weather exposure, ones that have seasonal exposure, ones that have large Black Friday promotions and into Cyber Monday – sounded good. There was a sense of relief that we're making up sales, especially on cold weather categories, and there's momentum that's being carried into the rest of the year.

Second, in our chats with some of the largest companies, a discussion around how starting from a retail point of view and leveraging into Omnichannel has actually been beneficial, because now as these companies gain scale and leverage, the economies of scale in Omnichannel are actually more beneficial for profits than they thought; and in some cases that's just getting started. So, an interesting dichotomy, or almost an irony for the way that these businesses were positioned about 10 to 15 years ago.

Third inventories – building; companies acknowledge that, but generally feel good. That reflected underlying optimism on sales trends and buying good inventory they think the customer will respond to. And then lastly, on housing; acknowledgment that the backdrop and the rebuild will be slow and steady, but at the same time that the industry is bottoming.

Alex Straton: Yeah, on my end, I would underscore what Simeon said on demand in the holiday. Clearly a strong start in terms of the weather finally turning around this big initial event with Black Friday.

Secondly, on inventory we're asking our companies the same question is – how do they feel about this build that we're seeing? And they attributed to a little bit of a pull forward of receipts in advance of holiday. Some also pulling forward even further than normal to offset some of the freight expense, or they were worried about some degree of freight disruption that could have impacted the receipts. So they have explanations for why that's the case, but we're monitoring it nonetheless.

And then lastly, the one magic dynamic we didn't mention yet is tariff, of course, and what the outlooks are there. I would say most companies in my space feel that they have a number of levers that they can pull to offset any potential incremental tariff next year. But the reality there is that apparel is a deflationary category. There's no pricing power. So I'll be really interested to see how this plays out next year.

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

Our Europe MedTech Analyst digs into the transformational impact of AI-driven diagnostic imaging on healthcare systems.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, I’m Robert Davies, Morgan Stanley’s Head of the Europe MedTech research team. Today I want to take you behind the scenes to show you how AI is revolutionizing our approach to medical diagnostics via Smart Imaging.

It’s Thursday, December 5, at 10 AM in Boston.

When was the last time you needed to get an X-Ray, a CT scan, or an ultrasound? Depending on where you live, your wait time could be as long as a month. 

Medical diagnostics through imaging is facing enormous challenges right now. Population growth, rising longevity, and intensifying chronic disease burdens are driving ever increasing volumes of medical scans. In the U.S. alone, CT scan volumes have quadrupled since 1995. So, what is the impact of this? Imagine a radiologist interpreting a CT or MRI image every 3-4 seconds during an eight-hour workday. This is the current pace needed to meet the soaring demand.

At the same time, the U.S. population is getting older and a growing number of people are signing up for Medicare. Healthcare costs are continually rising, total U.S. healthcare spend is now hitting $4.5 trillion. That's nearly 20% of U.S. GDP. On top of that, patients need fast, accurate diagnosis. But long wait times often mean that patients don’t get the diagnostic done in time or sometimes not at all. All of this indicates that more and more stress is being placed on hospital systems each year in terms of diagnostic imaging.

Smart Imaging uses AI tools to improve imaging processing and workflows to enhance traditional image gathering, processing, and analysis. It sits at the intersection of Longevity and Tech Diffusion, two of Morgan Stanley Research’s big themes for 2024. And it can help solve these acute demand challenges. In fact, AI is already transforming the $45 billion Diagnostic Imaging market.

AI-driven Smart Imaging integrates into the diagnostic imaging workflow at multiple stages—from preparation and planning, all the way to image processing and interpretation. The primary benefits of using AI are twofold. Firstly, it enhances image quality, which ensures more accurate diagnoses. And secondly it improves the speed, efficiency, and overall comfort of the patient journey. At the same time, AI effectively acts as a second set of eyes for the radiologist, often surpassing human accuracy in pattern recognition. That's crucial in reducing diagnostic errors—a problem costing the U.S. healthcare system around $100 billion annually at the moment.

In addition to minimizing misdiagnosis, AI is not only capable of identifying the primary disease, but also registering any potential secondary diseases. Otherwise, this isn’t normally a priority for the radiologist who is only able to spend 3-4 seconds looking at any individual image. But it’s a potentially life-saving benefit for using Smart Imaging applications.

So how does AI fit into the clinical setting? There are multiple stages to the Diagnostic Imaging workflow and AI can play a role across the entire value chain from preparing a patient’s scan, to processing the images, and finally, aiding in the diagnosis, reporting, and treatment planning.

Radiology is currently dominating the FDA list of AI/Machine Learning-Enabled Medical Devices. And when we look at the broader economic implications, it's clear Smart Imaging represents a pivotal development in healthcare technology that has broad implications for healthcare costs, quality of care, and better healthcare outcomes.

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

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research explains why President-elect Trump’s proposed tariff plans may look different than the policies that are ultimately put in place.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast I'll be talking about what investors need to know about tariffs.

It’s Wednesday, Dec 4, at 2 pm in London.

There’s still over a month before Trump takes office again. But in the meantime he’s started sending messages about his policy plans. Most notably, for investors, he’s started talking about his ideas for tariffs. He’s floated the idea of tariffs on all imports from China, Mexico, and Canada. He’s talked about tariffs on all the BRICs countries unless they publicly dismiss the idea of pursuing an alternative reserve currency to the US dollar. In short, he’s talking about tariffs a lot.

While we certainly don’t dismiss Trump’s sincerity in suggesting these tariffs, nor the ability for a President to execute on tariffs like these – well, mostly anyway – it’s important for investors to know that the ultimate policies enacted to address the concerns driving the tariff threats could look quite different than what a literal interpretation of Trump’s words might suggest. After all, there are plenty of examples of policies enacted on Trump’s watch that address his concerns that were not implemented exactly as he initially suggested.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs act is a good example, where Trump advocated for a 15 percent corporate tax rate but signed a bill with a 21 percent tax rate. Another is the exceptions process for the first round of China tariffs, where some companies got exceptions based on modest onshoring concessions. These examples speak to the idea that procedural, political, and economic considerations can shape policy in a way that’s different from what’s initially proposed.

This is why our base case for the US policy path in 2025 includes higher tariffs announced shortly after Trump takes office; but with a focus on China and some exports from Europe; and implementation of those tariffs would ramp up over time, as has been suggested by key policy advisors. There's broad political consensus on a stronger tariff approach to China, and there’s already executive authority to take that approach. Something similar can be said about Europe, but with a focus more on certain products than across imports broadly. However, we see scope for Mexico to avoid incremental tariffs through negotiation. And a global tariff via executive order risks getting held up in court, and we’re skeptical even a Republican-controlled Congress would authorize this approach.

Of course we could be wrong. For example it's possible the incoming administration might be less concerned about the economic challenges posed by a rapid escalation of tariffs. So if they start quicker and are more severe than we anticipate, then our 2025 economic projections are probably too rosy, as are our expectations for equities and credit to outperform over the next 12 months. The US dollar and US Treasuries might be the outperformer in that scenario.

So stick with us, we’ll be paying attention and trying to tease out the policy path signal from the media noise from the new administration.

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

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and Leveraged Finance Strategist Joyce Jiang discuss how the dynamic between private and public credit markets will evolve in 2025, and how each can find their own niches for success.

----- Transcript -----

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today we'll be talking about how private credit has evolved over 2024 and the outlook for 2025. I'm joined by my colleague, Joyce Jiang, from our Leveraged Finance Strategy team.

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

A lot has happened over 2024 in private credit. We are credit people. Let's talk about defaults and returns. How has 2024 been thus far for private credit in terms of defaults and returns?

Joyce Jiang: It's always tricky to talk about defaults in private credit because the reported measures tend to vary a lot depending on how defaults are defined and calculated. Using S&P's credit estimate defaults as a proxy for the overall private credit defaults, we see that defaults appear to have peaked, and the peak level was significantly lower than during the COVID cycle.

Since then, defaults have declined and converged to levels seen in public loans. In this cycle, the elevated policy rates have clearly weighed on the credit fundamentals, but direct lenders and sponsors have worked proactively to help companies extending maturities and converting debt into PIK loans. Also, the high level of dry powder enabled both private credit and PE funds to provide liquidity support, keeping default rates relatively contained.

From a returns perspective for credit investors, the appeal of private credit comes from the potential for higher and more stable returns, and also its role as a portfolio diversifier. Data from Lincoln International shows that over the past seven years, direct lending loans have outperformed single B public loans in total return terms by approximately 2.3 percentage point annually, largely driven by the better carry profile. And this year, although the spread premium has narrowed, private credit continues to generate higher returns.

So, Vishy, credit spreads are close to historical tights. And the market conditions have clearly improved compared to last year. With that, the competition between the public and private credit has intensified. How do you see this dynamic playing out between these two markets?

Vishy Tirupattur: The competition between public and private credit has indeed intensified, especially as the broadly syndicated market reopened with some vigor this year.

While the public market has regained some share it lost to private credit, I think it is important to note that the activity has been, especially the financing activity, has been really more two-way. Improved market conditions have lured some of the borrowers back to the public markets from private credit markets due to cheaper funding costs.

At the same time, borrowers with lower rating or complex capital structure seem to continue to favor private credit markets. So, there is really a lot of give and take between the two markets. Also, traditionally, private credit markets have played a major role in financing LBOs or leveraged buyouts. Its importance has really grown during the last Fed's hiking cycle when elevated policy rates and bouts of market turmoil weaken banks’ risk appetite and tighten the public-funding access to many leveraged borrowers.

Then, as the Fed's policy tightening ended, and uncertainty about the future direction of policy rates began to fade, deal activity rebounded in both markets, and more materially in public markets. This really led to a decline in the share of LBOs financed by private credit. Of course, the two markets tend to cater for deals of different sizes. Private credit is playing a bigger role in smaller size deals and a broadly syndicated loan market is relatively much more active in larger sized LBOs. So, overall, public credit is both a complement and competitor to private credit markets.

Joyce Jiang: The decline in spread basis is evident in larger companies, but more recently, the spread basis have even compressed within smaller-sized deals, although they don't have the access to public credit. This is likely due to some private credit funds shifting their focuses to deals down in the site spectrum. So, the growing competition got spilled over to the lower middle-market segment as well. In addition to pricing conversions, we've also seen a gradual erosion in covenant quality in private credit deals. Some data sources noted that covenant packages have increasingly favored borrowers, a reflection of the heightened competition between these two markets.

So Vishy, looking ahead, how do you see this competition between public and private credit evolving in 2025, and what implications might this have for returns?

Vishy Tirupattur:, The competition, I think, will persist in [the ]next year. We have seen strong demand from hold to maturity investors, such as insurance companies and pension funds; and this demand, we think, will continue to sustain, so the appetite for private credit from these investors would be there.

On the supply side, the deal volume has been light over the last couple of years. Next year, acquisition LBO activity, likely to pick up more materially given the solid macro backdrop, lower rates that we expect, and sponsor pressure to return capital to investors. So, in 2025, we could see greater specialization in terms of deal financing. Instead of competing directly for deals, public and private credit markets can find their own niches. For example, public credit might dominate larger deals, while private credit could further strengthen its competitive advantage within smaller size deals or with companies that value its unique advantages, such as the flexible terms and speed of execution.

Regarding returns, while spread premium in private credit has indeed come down, a pickup in deal activity could to some extent be a release valve. But sustained competition may keep the spreads tight. Overall, private credit should continue to offer attractive returns, although with tighter margins compared to historical levels.

Joyce, it was great speaking with you on today's podcast.

Joyce Jiang: Thank you, Vishy, for having me.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you all for listening. If you enjoy today's podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets recaps an exceptional year for credit — but explains why 2025 could be a more challenging year for the asset class.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing the Outlook for global Credit Markets in 2025.

It’s Monday, Dec 2nd at 2 pm in London.

Morgan Stanley Strategists and Economists recently completed our forecasting process for the year ahead. For Credit, 2025 looks like a year of saying goodbye.

2024 has been an exceptionally good environment for credit. As you’ve probably grown tired of hearing, credit is an asset class that loves moderation and hates extremes. And 2024 has been full of moderation. Moderate growth, moderating inflation and gradual rate cuts have defined the economic backdrop. Corporates have also been moderate, with stable balance sheets and still-low levels of corporates buying each other despite the strong stock market.

The result has been an almost continuous narrowing of the extra premium that companies have to pay relative to governments, to some of the lowest, i.e. best spread levels in over 20 years.

We think that changes. The U.S. election and resulting Republican sweep have now ushered in a much wider range of policy outcomes – from tariffs, to taxes, to immigration. These policies are in turn driving a much wider range of economic outcomes than we had previously, to scenarios that include everything from much greater corporate optimism and animal spirits, to much weaker growth and higher inflation, under certain scenarios of tariffs and immigration.

Now, for some asset classes, this wider range of outcomes may simply be a wash, balancing out in the aggregate. But not for credit. This asset class doesn’t stand to return more if corporate activity booms; but it stands to still lose if growth slows more than expected. And given the challenges that tariffs could pose to both Europe and Asia, we think these dynamics are global. We see spreads modestly wider next year, across global regions.

But if 2025 is about saying goodbye to the credit-friendly moderation of 2024, we’d stress this is a long goodbye. A key element of our economic forecasts is that even if major changes are coming to tariffs or taxes or immigration policy, that won’t arrive immediately. Today’s strong, credit-friendly economy should persist – well into next year. Indeed, for most of the first half of 2025, Morgan Stanley’s forecasts look much like today: moderate growth, falling inflation, and falling central bank rates.

In short, when thinking about the year ahead, 2025 may be a turning point for credit – but one that doesn’t arrive immediately. Our best estimate is that we continue to see quite strong and supportive conditions well into the first half of the year, while the second half becomes much more challenging. We think leveraged loans offer the strongest risk-adjusted returns in Corporate Credit, while Agency Mortgages offer an attractive alternative to corporates for those looking for high quality spread.

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

Original Release Date November 15, 2024: Our head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why a stronger economy, moderate inflation and future rate cuts could prompt deal-making.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll discuss why we remain believers in a large, sustained uptick in corporate activity. 

It's Friday, November 15th at 2pm in London. 

We continue to think that 2024 will mark the start of a significant, multiyear uplift in global merger and acquisition activity – or M&A. In new work out this week, we are reiterating that view. While the 25 percent rise in volumes this year is actually somewhat short of our original expectations from March, the core drivers of a large and sustained increase in activity, in our view, remain intact. 

Those drivers remain multiple. Current levels of global M&A volumes are still unusually low relative to their own historical trend or the broader strength that we see in stock markets. The overall economy, which often matters for M&A activity, has been strong, especially in the US, while inflation continues to moderate and rate cuts have begun. We see motivations for sellers – from ageing private equity portfolios, maturing venture capital pipelines, and higher valuations for the median stock. And we see more factors driving buyers from $4 trillion of private market "dry powder," to around $7.5 trillion of cash that's sitting idly on non-financial balance sheets, to wide-open capital markets that provide the ability to finance deals. 

These high level drivers are also confirmed bottom up by boots on the ground. Our colleagues across Morgan Stanley Equity Research also see a stronger case for activity – and we polled over 60 global equity teams for their views. While the results vary by geography and sector, the Morgan Stanley Equity analysts who cover these sectors in the most depth also see a strong case for more activity. 

The policy backdrop also matters. While activity has risen this year, one reason it might not have risen as much as we initially expected was uncertainty about both when central banks would start cutting rates and the outcome of US elections. 

But both of those uncertainties have now, to some extent, waned. Rate cuts from the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of England have now started, while the Red Sweep in US elections could, in our view, drive more animal spirits. And Europe is an important part of this story too, as we think the European Union’s new approach to consolidation could be more supportive for activity. For investors, an expectation that corporate activity will continue to rise is, in our view, supportive for Financial equities. 

Where could we be wrong? M&A activity does fundamentally depend on economic and market confidence; and a weaker than expected economy or weaker than expected equity market would drive lower than expected volumes. Policy still matters. And while we view the incoming US administration as more M&A supportive, that could be misguided – if policy changes dent corporate confidence or increase inflation. 

Finally, we think that a more multipolar world could actually support more M&A, as there’s a push to create more regional champions to compete on the global stage. But this could be incorrect, if those same global frictions disrupt activity or confidence more generally. Time will tell. 

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

Original Release Date November 1, 2024: Our US Fintech and Payments analyst reviews a recent survey that reveals key trends on how Gen Z and Millennials handle their personal finances.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Faucette, Morgan Stanley’s Head of US Fintech and Payments. Today I’ll dig into the way young people in the US approach their finances and why it matters.

It’s Friday, November 1st, at 10am in New York. 

You’d think that Millennials – also commonly known as Gen Y – and Gen Z would come up with new ways to think about money. After all, they live most of their lives online, and don’t always rely on their parents for advice – financial or otherwise. But a survey we conducted suggests the opposite may be true. 

To understand how 16 to 43 year-olds – who make up nearly 40 per cent of the US population – view money, we ran an AlphaWise survey of more than 4,000 US consumers. 

In general, our work suggests that both Millennials and Gen Z’s financial goals, banking preferences, and medium-term aspirations are not much different from the priorities of previous generations. Young consumers still believe family is the most important aspect in life, similar to what we found in our 2018 survey. They have a positive outlook on home ownership, college education, employment, and their personal financial situation. 28-to-43-year-olds have the second highest average annual income among all age cohorts, earning more than $100,000. They spend an average of $86,000 per year, of which more than a third goes toward housing. 

Gen Y and Z largely expect to live in owned homes at a greater rate in five to 10 years, and younger Gen Y cohorts' highest priority is starting a family and raising children in the medium term. This should be a tailwind for many consumer-facing real estate property sectors including retail, residential, lodging and self-storage. However, Gen Y and Z are less mobile today than they were pre-pandemic. Compared to their peers in 2018, they intend to keep living in the same area they're currently living in for the next five to 10 years. 

Gen Y and Z consumers reported higher propensity for saving each month relative to older generations, which could be a potential tailwind for discretionary spending. And travel remains a top priority across age cohorts, which sets the stage for ongoing travel strength and favorable cross-border trends for the major credit card providers. 

In addition to all these findings, our analysis suggests several surprising facts. For example, our survey results contradict the widely accepted notion that younger generations are "credit averse." The vast majority of Gen Z consumers have one or more traditional credit cards – at a similar rate to Gen X and Millennials. Although traditional credit card usage is higher among Millennials and Gen Z than it was in 2018, data suggests this is driven by convenience, not financing needs. Younger people’s borrowing is primarily related to auto and home loans from traditional lenders rather than fintechs. 

Another unexpected finding is that while Gen Y and Z are more drawn to online banking than their predecessors, about 75 per cent acknowledge the importance of physical branch locations – and still prefer to bank with their traditional national, regional, and community banks over online-only providers. What’s more, they also believe physical bank branches will be important long-term. 

Overall, our analysis suggests that generations tend to maintain their key priorities as they age. Whether this pattern holds in the future is something we will continue to watch.

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.

Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson joins Andrew Pauker of the U.S. Equity Strategy team to break down the key issues for equity markets ahead of 2025, including the impact of potential deregulation and tariffs.

----- Transcript -----

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

Andrew Pauker: And I'm Andrew Pauker from our US Equity Strategy Team.

Mike Wilson: Today we'll discuss our 2025 outlook for US equities.

It's Tuesday, November 26th at 5pm.

So let's get after it.

Andrew Pauker: Mike, we're forecasting a year-end 2025 price target of 6,500 for the S&P 500. That's about 9 percent upside from current levels. Walk us through the drivers of that price target from an earnings and valuation standpoint.

Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, this is really just rolling forward what we did this summer, which is we started to incorporate our economists’ soft-landing views. And, of course, our rate strategist view for 10-year yields, which, you know, factors into valuation.

We really didn't change any of our earnings forecast. That's where we've been very accurate. What we've been not accurate is on the multiple. And I think a lot of clients have also -- investors -- have been probably a little bit too conservative on their multiple assumption. And so, we went back and looked at, you know, periods when earnings growth is above average, which is what we're expecting. And that's just about 8 percent; anything north of that. Plus, when the Fed is actually cutting rates, which was not the case this past summer, it's just very difficult to see multiples go down. So, we actually do have about 5 percent depreciation in our multiple assumption on a year-over-year basis, but still it's very high relative to history.

But if the base case plays out, but from an economic standpoint and from a rate standpoint, it's unlikely earnings rates are going to come down. So, then we basically can get all of the appreciation from our earnings forecast for about, you know, 10-12 percent; a little bit of a discount from multiples, that gets you your 9 percent upside.

I just want to, you know, make sure listeners understand that the macro-outcomes are still very uncertain. And so just like this year, you know, we maybe pivot back and forth throughout the year … as [it] becomes [clear], you know, what the outcome is actually going to be.

For example, growth could be better; growth could be worse; rates could be higher; the Fed may not cut rates; they may have to raise rates again if inflation comes back. So, I would just, you know, make sure people understand it's not going to be a straight line no matter what happens. And we're going to try to navigate that with, you know, our style sector picks.

Andrew Pauker: There are a number of new policy dynamics to think through post the election that may have a significant impact on markets as we head into 2025, Mike. What are the potential policy changes that you think could be most impactful for equities next year?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, and I think a lot of this started to get discounted into the markets this fall, you know, the prediction polls were kinda leaning towards a Republican win, starting really in June – and it kind of went back and forth and then it really picked up steam in September and October. And the thing that the markets, equity market, are most excited about I would say, is this idea of deregulation. You know, that's something President-elect Trump has talked about. The Republicans seem to be on board with that. That sort of business friendly, if you will, kind of a repeat of his first term.

I would say on the negative side what markets are maybe wary about, of course, is tariffs. But here there’s a lot of uncertainty too. We obviously got a tweet last night from President-elect Trump, and it was, you know, 10 percent additional tariffs on certain things. And there’s just a lot of confusion. Some stocks sold off on that. But remember a lot of stocks rallied yesterday on the news of Scott Bessent being announced as Treasury Secretary because he's maybe not going to be as tough on tariffs.

So, what I view the next two months as is sort of a trial period where we're going to see a lot of announcements going out. And then the people in the cabinet positions who are appointed along with the President-elect are going to look at how the market reacts. And they're going to want to try to, you know, think about that in the context of how they're going to propose policy when they actually take office.

So, a lot of volatility over the next two months as these announcements are kind of floated out there as trial balloons. And then, of course, you also have the enforcement of immigration and the impact there on growth and also labor supply and labor costs. And that could be a net negative in the first half of next year. And so, look, it's going to be about the sequencing. Those are the two easy ones that you can see – tariffs of some form, and of course, immigration enforcement. And those are probably the two biggest potential negatives in the first half of next year.

Andrew Pauker: Mike, the title of our Outlook is “Stay Nimble Amid Changing Market Leadership,” and I think that reflects our mentality when it comes to remaining focused on capturing the leadership changes under the surface of the market. We rotated from a defensive posture over the summer to a more pro-cyclical stance in the fall. Talk about our latest views when it comes to positioning across styles, themes, and sectors here.

Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, you know, you have to understand that that pivot was not about the election as much as it was about kind of the economy, moving from the risk of a hard landing, which people were worried about this summer to, soft landing again. And then of course we got the Fed to, you know, aggressively begin a new rate cutting cycle with 50 basis points, which was a bit of a surprise given, you know, the context of a still decent labor markets.

That was the main reason for kind of the cyclical pivot, and then, of course, the election outcome sort of turbocharges some of that. So that's why we're sticking with it for now.

So, to be more specific, what we basically did was we went to quality cyclical rotation. What does that mean? It means, you know, we prefer things like financials, maybe industrials, kind of a close second from a sector standpoint. But this quality feature we think is important for people to consider because interest rates are still pretty high. You know, balance sheets are still a little stretched and, you know, price levels are still high.

So that means that lower quality businesses -- and the stocks of those lower quality businesses -- are probably a higher risk than we want to assume right now. But going into year end first and in 2025, we're going to stick with what we've sort of been recommending. On the defensive side. We didn't abandon all of them – because of , you know, we don't know how it's going to play out. So, we kept Utilities as an overweight because it has some offensive properties as well – most notably lever to kind of this, power deficiency within the United States. And that, of course with deregulation, a new twist on that could be things like natural gas, deployment of, you know, natural gas resources, which would help pipelines, LNG facilities potentially, and also, new ways to drive electricity production.

So, with that, Andrew, why don't you maybe dig in a little bit deeper on our financials column, and why it's not just, you know, about the election and kind of a rotation, but there's actually fundamental drivers here.

Andrew Pauker: Yeah, so Financials remains our top sector pick, following our upgrade in early October. And the drivers of that view are – a rebounding capital markets backdrop, strong earnings revisions, and the potential for an acceleration in buybacks into next year. And then post the election, expectation for deregulation can also continue to drive performance for the sector in addition to those fundamental catalysts. And then finally, even with the outperformance that we've seen for the group, over the last month and a half or so, relative valuation remains on demand – and kind of the 50th percentile of historical levels.

So, Mike, I want to wrap up by spending a minute on investor feedback to our outlook. Which aspects of our view have you gotten the most questions on? Where do investors agree and where do they disagree?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, it's sort of been ongoing because, as we noted, we really pivoted, more constructively on kind of a pro-cyclical basis a while ago. And the pushback then is the same as it is now, which is that equities are expensive. And I mean, quite frankly, the reason we pivoted to some of these more cyclical areas is because they're not as expensive. But that doesn't take away from the fact that stocks are pricey. And so, people just want to understand this analysis that, you know, we did this time around, which kind of just shows why multiples can stay higher.

They do appreciate that, you know, things can change. So, you know, we need to be, you know, cognizant of that. I would say, there's also debate around small caps. You know, we're neutral on small caps; we upgraded that about the same time after having been underweight for several years.

I think, you know, people really want to get behind that. It's been a; it's been a trade that people have gotten wrong, repeatedly over the last couple years trying to buy small caps. This time it seems like there may be some more behind it. We agree. That's why we went to neutral. And I think, you know, there are people who want to figure out, well, why? Why don't we go overweight now? And what we're really waiting for is for rates to come down a bit more. It's still sort of a late cycle environment. So, you know, typically you want to wait until you kind of see the beginnings of a new acceleration in the economy. And that's not what our economists are forecasting.

And then the other area is just this debate around government efficiency. And this is where I'm actually most excited because this is not priced at all in my view. There's so much skepticism around the ability or, you know, the likelihood of success in shrinking the government. That's not really what we're, you know, hoping for. We're just hoping for kind of a freezing of government spending. And it's so important to just, to think about it that way because that's what the fiscal sustainability question is all about, where then rates can stay contained. But then if you take it a step further, you know, our view for the last several years has been that the government has been essentially crowding out the private economy, and that really has punished small, medium businesses as well as many consumers.

And so, by shrinking or at least freezing the size of the government and redeploying those efforts into the private economy, we could see a very significant increase in productivity, but also see a broadening out in this rally. I mean, one of the reasons the market's been; equity market's been so narrow is because is because scale really matters in this crowded out, sort of environment.

If that changes, that creates opportunity at the stock level and that broadening out, which is a much healthier bull market potential.

So, what are you hearing from investors, Andrew?

Andrew Pauker: Yeah, I mean, I think the debate now, in addition to the factors that you mentioned, is really around the consumer space. A lot of pessimism is in the price already for consumer discretionary goods on the back of – kind of wallet share shift from goods to services, high price levels and sticky interest rates in addition to the tariff risk.

So, what we did in our note this week is we laid out a couple of drivers that could potentially get us more positive on that cohort. And those include a reversion in terms of the wallet share shift actually back towards goods. I think that would be a function of lower price levels. Lower interest rates – our rate strategists expect the 10-year yield to fall to 355 by year end 2025. So that would be a constructive backdrop for some of the more interest rate sensitive and housing areas within consumer discretionary.

Those are all factors that watching closely in order to get more constructive on that space. But that is another area of the market that I have received a good amount of questions on.

Mike Wilson: That's great, Andrew. Thanks a lot. Thanks for taking the time to talk today.

Andrew Pauker: Thanks, Mike. Anytime.

Mike Wilson: 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.

As Black Friday approaches, our US Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver explains why some US consumers will increase their spending and which industries could benefit.

----- Transcript -----

Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, US Thematic and Equity Strategist. The holiday season is just around the corner, and today I'll be discussing what US consumers are planning for this year's holiday shopping.

It's Monday, November 25th at 10am in New York.

It's that time of year when New York City goes from skyscrapers to sky high trees. So, cue the holiday music, holiday shopping season is here. My colleagues Jim Egan, Arunima Sinha, and Heather Berger recently came on this show to discuss the current state of the US Consumer. Today, I want to expand a little bit on their analysis by looking specifically at how holiday shopping could fare this year.

Overall, consumer spending trends have been robust year to date, which does bode well for holiday spending. We recently ran a proprietary survey of around 2000 US Consumers that showed a more positive outlook for holiday shopping this year versus in 2023 and 2022. Not surprisingly, though, higher income households – who've really been the key drivers of aggregate consumer spending – are likely to drive the spending this holiday season as well.

Overall, we expect to see increased holiday budgets this year. Our survey found that 37 percent of US consumers are planning to keep their holiday budgets roughly the same as last year. Around 35 percent are expecting to spend more and 22 percent are expecting to spend less. So, this yields a net gain of around +13 percent. It's not off to the races, though, and consumers will continue to be selective on where they're planning to allocate their dollars.

Discounts and promotions are going to have an impact on shoppers. And in fact, if retailers don't offer discounts, 44 percent of shoppers say they may pull back or trade down somewhat, and another quarter of purchasers say they'll scale back substantially. Only about a quarter of people would go ahead with all the planned purchases if there were no discounts or promotions.

We also asked questions in our survey looking at the categories shoppers are planning to make purchases in. We looked at the net difference between the percent of consumers expecting to spend more and the percent expecting to spend less. And the lowest net spending intentions are reported for big ticket categories like sports equipment, home and kitchen, and electronics. And then the results were more positive for apparel and toys, which are cheaper items.

Let's dive in now to some of the specifics around consumer facing industries. Within airlines, we're expecting a strong holiday season for air travel based on encouraging TSA data. This lines up with continued strong demand for travel and live experiences.

Within durable goods, which are the kind of things you might find at a big box store or a furniture store, spending has slowed this year, but the backdrop is normalizing, which could create a more favorable setup this holiday season. E-commerce, though, on the other hand, has been pressured recently, and the weakness has impacted discretionary goods, while outsized growth has come from non-discretionary categories like groceries and everyday essentials.

The shorter holiday shopping season may also have an impact on e-commerce. This year, there are only 27 days between Black Friday and Christmas, which is the shortest that range could possibly be. So, this could affect e-commerce players with longer average delivery times. We're cautious on consumer electronic sales this holiday season. Consumer hardware spending intentions remain negative as we near the holiday season. And then finally for toys, leisure products, and services, we're cautiously optimistic that the holiday season could prove better than feared.

So, all in all, the holidays are looking reasonably bright for many businesses, especially those with more exposure to the high-end consumer; but like consumers, we think that the results will vary by industry and by company.

Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and Share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore and Chief Latin America Equity Strategist Nikolaj Lippmann discuss what Trump’s victory could mean for new trade relationships.

----- Transcript -----

Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Strategist.

Nikolaj Lippmann: And I'm Nik Lippmann, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin American Equity Strategist.

Ariana Salvatore: Today, we're talking about the impact of the US election on Mexico's economy, financial markets, and its trade relationships with both the US and China.

It's Friday, November 22nd at 10am in New York.

The US election has generated a lot of debate around global trade, and now that Trump has won, all eyes are on tariffs. Nik, how much is this weighing on Mexico investors?

Nikolaj Lippmann: It’s interesting because there's kind of no real consensus here. I'd say international and US investors are generally rather apprehensive about getting in front of the Trump risk in Mexico; while, interestingly enough, most Mexico-based investors and many Latin American investors think Trump is kind of good news for Mexico, and in many cases, even better news than Biden or Harris. Net, net, Mexican peso has sold off. Mexico's now down 25 per cent in dollar terms year to date, while it was flat to up three, four, 5 per cent around May. So, we've already seen a lot being priced then.

Ariana, what are your expectations for Trump's trade policy with regards to Mexico?

Ariana Salvatore: So, Mexico has been a big part of the trade debate, especially as we consider this question of whether or not Mexico represents a bridge or a buffer between the US and China. On the tariff front, we've been clear about our expectations that a wide range of outcomes is possible here, especially because the president can do so much without congressional approval.

Specifically on Mexico, Trump has in the past threatened an increase in exchange for certain policy concessions. For example, back in 2019, he threatened a 5 per cent tariff if the Mexican government didn't send emergency authorities to the southern border. We think given the salience of immigration as a topic this election cycle, we can easily envision a scenario again in which those tariff threats re-emerge.

However, there's really a balance to strike here because the US is Mexico's main trading partner. That means any changes to current policy will have a substantial impact.

So, Nik, how are you thinking about these changes? Are all tariff plans necessarily a negative? Or do you see any potential opportunities for Mexico here?

Nikolaj Lippmann: Look, I think there are clear risks, but here are my thoughts. It would be very hard for the United States to de-risk from China and de-risk from Mexico simultaneously. Here it becomes really important to double-click on the differences in the manufacturing ecosystems in North America versus Southeast Asia and China.

The North American model is really very integrated. US companies are by a mile the biggest investor. In Mexico – and Mexican exports to the US kind of match the Mexican import categories – the products go back and forth. Mexico has evolved from a place of assembly to a manufacturing ecosystem. 25 years ago, it was more about sending products down, paint them blue, put a lid on it. Now there's much more value add.

The link, however, is still alive. It's a play on enhancing US competitiveness. You can kind of, as you did, call it a China buffer; a fender that helps protect US competitiveness. But by the end of the day, I think integration and alignment is going to be the key here.

Ariana Salvatore: But of course, it's not just the direct trade relationship between the US and Mexico. We need to also consider the global geopolitical landscape, and specifically this question of the role of China. What's Mexico's current trade policy like with China?

Nikolaj Lippmann: Another great question, Ariana, and I think this is the key. There is growing evidence that China is trying to use Mexico as a China bridge.

And I think this is an area where we will see the biggest adjustments or need for realignment. This is a debate we've been following. We saw, with interest, that Mexico introduced first a 25 per cent tariff and then a 35 per cent tariff on Chinese imports. And saw this as the initial signs of growing alignment between the two countries.

However, Mexican import from China never really dropped. So, we started looking at like the complicated math saying 35 per cent times $115 billion of import. You know, best case scenario, Mexico should be collecting $40 billion from tariffs; that's huge and almost unrealistic number for Mexico. Even half of that would go a long way to solve fiscal challenges in that country.

However, when we started looking at the actual tax collection from Chinese imports, it was closer to $3 billion, as we highlighted in a note with our Mexico economist just recently. There's just multiple discounts and exemptions to effective tariffs at neither 25 per cent nor 35 per cent, but actually closer to 2.5 [or] 3 per cent. I think there's a problem with Chinese content in Mexican exports, and I think it's likely to be an area that policymakers will examine more closely. Why not drive-up US or North American content?

Ariana Salvatore: So, it sounds like what you're saying is that there is a political, or rhetorical at least, alignment between the US and Mexico when it comes to China. But the reality is that the policy implementation is not yet there.

We know that there's currently nothing in the USMCA treaty that prevents Mexico from importing goods from China. But a lot has changed over the past four years, even since the pandemic. So, looking forward, do you expect Mexico's policy vis-a-vis China to change after Trump takes office?

Nikolaj Lippmann: I think, I certainly think so, and I think this is again; this is going to be the key. As you mentioned, there's nothing in the USMCA treaty that prevents Mexico from buying the stuff from China. And it's not a customs union. Mexican consumers, much like American consumers, like to buy cheap stuff.

However, the geopolitics that you refer to is important. And when I reflect, frankly, on the bilateral relationship between the two countries, I think Mexican policymakers need to perhaps pause and think a little bit about things like the spirit of the treaty and not just the letter of the treaty; and also about how to maintain public opinion support in the United States.

By the end of the day, when we see what has happened with regards to China after the pandemic, it has been a significant change in political consensus and public opinion. When I think Americans are not necessarily interested in just using Mexico as a China bridge for Chinese products.

During the first Trump administration, the NAFTA agreement was renegotiated as the US Mexico Canada agreement, the USMCA, that took effect or took force in mid 2020. This agreement will come under review in 2026.

Ariana, what are the expectations for the future of this agreement under the Trump administration?

Ariana Salvatore: So, I think this USMCA review that's coming up in 2026 is going to be a really critical litmus test of the US-Mexico relationship, and we're going to learn a lot about this China bridge or buffer question that you mentioned. Just for some very brief context, that agreement as you mentioned was signed in 2020, but it includes a clause that lets all parties evaluate the agreement six years into a 16-year time horizon.

So, at that point, they can decide to extend the agreement for another 16 years. Or to conduct a joint review on an annual basis until that original 16 years lapses. So, although the agreement will stay in force until at least 2036, the review period, which is around June of [20]26, provides an opportunity for the signing parties to provide recommendations or propose changes to the agreement short of a full-scale renegotiation.

We do see some overlapping objectives between the two parties. For example, things like updating the foundation for digital trade and AI, ensuring the endurance of labor protections, and addressing Mexico's energy sector. But Trump's approach likely will involve confronting the auto EV disputes and could possibly introduce an element of immigration policy within the revision. We also definitely expect this theme of Chinese investment in Mexico to feature heavily in the USMCA review discussions.

Finally, Nik, keeping in mind everything that we've discussed today, with global supply chains getting rewired post the pandemic, Mexico has been a beneficiary of the nearshoring trend. Do you think this is going to change as we look ahead?

Nikolaj Lippmann: So, look, we [are] still underweight Mexico, but I think risk ultimately biased with the upside over time with regards to trade.

We need evidence to be able to lay it out, these scenarios; Mexico could end up doing quite well with Trump. But much work needs to be done south of the border with regards to all the areas that we just mentioned there, Ariana.

When we reflect on this over the next couple of years, there's a couple of things that really stand out. Number one is that first wave of reshoring or nearshoring, which was really focused on brownfield. It was bringing our manufacturing ecosystems where we already had existing infrastructure.

What is potentially next, and what we're going to be watching in terms of sort of policy maker incentives and so on, will be some of the greenfield manufacturing ecosystems. That could involve things like IT hardware, maybe EV batteries, and a couple of other really important sectors.

Ariana Salvatore: And that's something we might get some insight into when we hear personnel appointments from President-elect Trump over the coming months. Nik, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Nikolaj Lippmann: Thank you very much, Arianna.

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

Our Sustainability analysts Stephen Byrd and Laura Sanchez discuss the range of impacts that the Republican sweep may have on energy policy and the ESG space.

----- Transcript -----

Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research and Head of Research Product for the Americas.

Laura Sanchez: And I'm Laura Sanchez, Head of Sustainability Equity Research for the Americas.

Stephen Byrd: Today, Laura and I will talk about the potential impact of the next Trump administration on the US energy transition, and on the US ESG Investing landscape.

It's Thursday, November 21st at 8 am in New York.

Now that Donald Trump has been re-elected, all eyes are on potential changes to the Inflation Reduction Act or IRA. So Laura, what are your expectations and on what kind of timeframe?

Laura Sanchez: There has been a lot of dialogue internally between our clean tech and public policy teams exactly on this question, Stephen. Basically, we continue to believe that a full repeal of the IRA is unlikely because a significant amount of investment has gone to Republican states that has in turn driven a good amount of good paying jobs. On the back of this, we have seen a large number of Republican legislators, as well as large oil and gas companies, write letters to high members of Congress supporting portions of the IRA.

Now, unfortunately, that doesn't mean that it won't be noisy. We do think that a partial repeal is likely, potentially a rebranding, and/or a clear phase out of the tax credits, by, let's say, the end of the decade.

It will take some time to get clarity around what's in and what's out to the second part of your question. We believe clarity on final changes is likely by the end of 2025 at the earliest, which is when the TCJA, or the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, is set to expire. And so, a lot of tax related conversations and concessions will happen then.

Lastly, a point that I want to make here is that many technologies received support in the IRA, and even though the next 12 months will be volatile or noisy, as I said before, we do think that some of them are relatively safe. And those include the domestic manufacturing tax credit, the production tax credit for nuclear power, and the tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration technology, as well as for clean hydrogen.

Stephen Byrd: That's really interesting, Laura. So, it really is a bit more nuanced than we often hear from many investors with portion of the IRA that are clearly at risk, others much less so at risk. That's really helpful. And Laura, a related topic that comes up a lot is concern around tariffs. So, do you see any risk to clean technologies from elevated trade tensions?

Laura Sanchez: Yes, I see multi multilayered risks. The first, which is I think well understood by investors, is the potential risk for higher tariffs on goods imported from China. We know that the supply chain for energy storage specifically, and particularly lithium-ion storage batteries, is highly linked to China. And even though solar equipment also tends to come up in conversations with investors, the supply chain there has somewhat decoupled from China.

However, a significant amount of supply is still sourced from China domiciled entities that operate in low-cost countries, such as those in Southeast Asia. But another risk, and I think this one is less understood or discussed by investors, is the potential inflationary pressure that could result from number one, higher tariffs on imported materials that are needed in the manufacturing of clean energy technologies. And number two, the potential risk of China responding to US imposed tariffs with additional export bans on minerals or materials that are key for the energy transition.

We have analyzed a long list and believe that those at the highest risk of disruption include rare earths, graphite, gallium, and cobalt, which are all used in electric vehicles, but also in other clean tech equipment such as wind and solar systems, stationary battery storage, and electrolysers.

Now, Stephen. Along with tariff escalation, President-elect Trump may look to roll back important EPA regulations that were put in place by the current administration to put the country on track to meet Paris aligned goals. What are the most important regulations investors should watch in your view?

Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Laura, I think there are going to be several EPA regulations that are going to be targeted for rollbacks. Let me just start first on the truck side of things, the Clean Trucks Plan that's commonly known as the EPA Tailpipe Emissions Rule – could be rolled back. We could also see the greenhouse gas standards and guidelines for fossil fuel fired power plants get rolled back. And lastly, we could see waste emissions charged for petroleum and natural gas systems get rolled back.

So, I think the overall message is actually; that the stock implications of this are actually relatively modest in most cases. What this does, in my view, is it sends a signal in terms of greater support from the Trump administration for fossil fuel. Usage in a number of areas, transport, infrastructure, et cetera I think we'll see that in power. And this does line up with some of the work we've done around the growth in data centers that we think will be powered by natural gas fire generation. So, this is consistent with that, and we do expect to see multiple layers of rollback at EPA.

Laura Sanchez: And outside of changes to the stick – which are the EPA regulations that you mentioned – and changes to the carrot – which is the IRA – what are other factors or risks that investors with a mandate on sustainability should consider during a second Trump presidency?

Stephen Byrd: Yes, for investors that do focus on sustainability, a few things that are on our mind. We could see additional states restrict the ability of state pension funds to consider ESG factors in their investment decision making process. We also, I think will see a lack of federal regulation that will require corporates to disclose certain ESG information. I think that's quite clear. And then also there could be additional legal and regulatory challenges around corporates and asset managers using sustainability as part of their decision-making process, as part of their fiduciary duties. So those are all the things that are on our mind.

Laura Sanchez: I think it's worth noting that some states, California particularly, are moving forward with their state level decarbonization goals and greenhouse gas emissions rules. But there is one dynamic to consider or track and that is the EPA granting the state of California a waiver that is needed for the state to move forward with heavy duty low NOx rules. So, linking this back to the EPA rules commentary, Stephen, I think that one, the EPA 2027 low NOx rules is one to keep an eye on because it links to the California waiver and the California rules; and is something that could potentially impact some of those stocks.

Stephen Byrd: Well, that's a good point, Laura, and I think that highlights this potential distinction between actions at the state level versus at the federal level, but sometimes those do intersect, such as, with the California heavy duty low NOx rules. So that’s helpful.

Well, Laura, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Laura Sanchez: Great speaking with you, Stephen.

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

Our South Asia Energy Analyst Mayank Maheshwari discusses the main drivers behind a shifting electric power landscape in his outlook for Asia energy.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s South Asia Energy Analyst. 

There’s been an investment surge in renewable energy – to field the world’s rising demands for energy and power. With a new White House administration, however, there are questions about its future. Today I want to dig into the profound shifts impacting the production and consumption of power in Asia.

It’s Wednesday, November 20, at 9pm in Singapore. 

The world consumed 25 trillion units of power last year and Asia accounted for about half of that. Asia demand is booming like the rest of the world, and power consumption is at a tipping point. We forecast global power consumption will grow 26 per cent faster through 2030 than in the last decade. Somewhat similar to the US, we are actually seeing tightness in Asian power markets in coming years as well. But even today countries like India, Singapore, and increasingly Malaysia are seeing power demand grow at 1.5 to 2x faster than pre-COVID levels. 

So, what’s driving this rapid growth? Outside of the residential power demand, growth is driven by GenAI datacenters, re-shoring of manufacturing facilities, there are new semi-conductor investments that are coming through, and expanding new energy supply chains itself are actually adding to the tightness. 

Importantly though, regional differences in clean power costs and demand are stark. In Asia, power prices have steadily risen. Multiple regulators are acknowledging the tightness by extending the life of coal plants, building new gas and coal facilities, and even restarting nuclear power generation capacity – as clean power alone cannot by itself handle this surge in demand. 

Interestingly though, the cost to produce clean power has declined pretty rapidly in 2024 to below-trend levels after a period of significant inflation we saw post-COVID. On average, solar panel prices in Asia declined 50 per cent, and the cost of onshore wind declined 10 per cent – with energy storage costs deflating by a third to levels not seen in the past five years. 

However, this cost deflation has been a lot more uneven across regions, with the US and Europe seeing much smaller declines due to tariffs and other supply bottlenecks. Asia is hence seeing significant inflection in the economics for power generation companies, especially in South Asia, which had lagged China capacity adds over the last several years. 

Part of the deflation in the clean power supply chain comes from even the capacity overbuilds that we are seeing in geographies that are looking to build their own clean power supply chains. Regions such as India and Southeast Asia, where clean power demand is growing very quickly, are adding to the glut in capacity on clean power supply chains that we have already seen in China.

Amid all the clean power developments in Asia, COP29 announced a[n] updated climate goal. The UN climate conference being held in Azerbaijan this year aims for a 59 per cent to 67 per cent reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. 

That’s the clean energy update from Asia for now. Listen in tomorrow, as my colleagues engage in a conversation about the impact of the US election results on the sector.

Thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or a colleague today.

On the second part of a two-part roundtable, our panel gives its 2025 preview for the housing and mortgage landscape, the US Treasury yield curve and currency markets.

----- Transcript -----

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.

Today we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, currencies, and housing. I'm joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist; James Lord, Global Head of Currency and Emerging Market Strategy; Jay Bacow, our co-head of Securitized Product Strategy; and Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Product Strategy.

It's Tuesday, November 19th, at 10am in New York.

Matt, I'd like to go to you first. 2024 was a fascinating year for government bond yields globally. We started with a deeply inverted US yield curve at the beginning of the year, and we are ending the year with a much steeper curve – with much of that inversion gone. We have seen both meaningful sell offs and rallies over the course of the year as markets negotiated hard landing, soft landing, and no landing scenarios.

With the election behind us and a significant change of policy ahead of us, how do you see the outlook for global government bond yields in 2025?

Matt Hornbach: With the US election outcome known, global rate markets can march to the beat of its consequences. Central banks around the world continue to lower policy rates in our economist baseline projection, with much lower policy rates taking hold in their hard landing scenario versus higher rates in their scenarios for re-acceleration.

This skew towards more dovish outcomes alongside the baseline for lower policy rates than captured in current market prices ultimately leads to lower government bond yields and steeper yield curves across most of the G10 through next year. Summarizing the regions, we expect treasury yields to move lower over the forecast horizon, helped by 75 [basis points] worth of Fed rate cuts, more than markets currently price.

We forecast 10-year Treasury yields reaching 3 and 3.75 per cent by the middle of next year and ending the year just above 3.5 per cent.

Our economists are forecasting a pause in the easing cycle in the second half of the year from the Fed. That would leave the Fed funds rate still above the median longer run dot.

The rationale for the pause involves Fed uncertainty over the ultimate effects of tariffs and immigration reform on growth and inflation.

We also see the treasury curve bull steepening throughout the forecast horizon with most of the steepening in the first half of the year, when most of the fall in yields occur.

Finally, on break even inflation rates, we see five- and 10-year break evens tightening slightly by the middle of 2025 as inflation risks cool. However, as the Trump administration starts implementing tariffs, break evens widen in our forecast with the five- and 10-year maturities reaching 2.55 per cent and 2.4 per cent respectively by the end of next year.

As such, we think real yields will lead the bulk of the decline in nominal yields in our forecasting with the 10-year real yield around 1.45 per cent by the middle of next year; and ending the year at 1.15 per cent.

Vishy Tirupattur: That's very helpful, Matt. James, clearly the incoming administration has policy choices, and their sequencing and severity will have major implications for the strength of the dollar that has rallied substantially in the last few months. Against this backdrop, how do you assess 2025 to be? What differences do you expect to see between DM and EM currency markets?

James Lord: The incoming administration's proposed policies could have far-reaching impacts on currency markets, some of which are already being reflected in the price of the dollar today. We had argued ahead of the election that a Republican sweep was probably the most bullish dollar outcome, and we are now seeing that being reflected.

We do think the dollar rally continues for a little bit longer as markets price in a higher likelihood of tariffs being implemented against trading partners and there being a risk of additional deficit expansion in 2025. However, we don't really see that dollar strength persisting for long throughout 2025.

So, I think that is – compared to the current debate, compared to the current market pricing – a negative dollar catalyst that should get priced into markets.

And to your question, Vishy, that there will be differences with EM and also within EM as well. Probably the most notable one is the renminbi. We have the renminbi as the weakest currency within all of our forecasts for 2025, really reflecting the impact of tariffs.

We expect tariffs against China to be more consequential than against other countries, thus requiring a bigger adjustment on the FX side. We see dollar China, or dollar renminbi ending next year at 7.6. So that represents a very sharp divergence versus dollar yen and the broader DXY moves – and is a consequence of tariffs.

And that does imply that the Fed's broad dollar index only has a pretty modest decline next year, despite the bigger move in the DXY. The rest of Asia will likely follow dollar China more closely than dollar yen, in our view, causing AXJ currencies to generally underperform; versus CMEA and Latin America, which on the whole do a bit better.

Vishy Tirupattur: Jay, in contrast to corporate credit, mortgage spreads are at or about their long-term average levels. How do you expect 2025 to pan out for mortgages? What are the key drivers of your expectations, and which potential policy changes you are most focused on?

Jay Bacow: As you point out, mortgage spreads do look wide to corporate spreads, but there are good reasons for that. We all know that the Fed is reducing their holdings of mortgages, and they're the largest holder of mortgages in the world.

We don't expect Fed balance sheet reduction of mortgages to change, even if they do NQT, as is our forecast in the first quarter of 2025. When they NQT, we expect mortgage runoff to continue to go into treasuries. What we do expect to change next year is that bank demand function will shift. We are working under the assumption that the Basel III endgame either stalls under the next administration or gets released in a way that is capital neutral. And that's going to free up excess capital for banks and reduce regulatory uncertainty for them in how they deploy the cash in their portfolios.

The one thing that we've been waiting for is this clarity around regulations. When that changes, we think that's going to be a positive, but it's not just banks returning to the market.

We think that there's going to be tailwinds from overseas investors that are going to be hedging out their FX risks as the Fed cuts rates, and the Bank of Japan hikes, so we expect more demand from Japanese life insurance companies.

A steeper yield curve is going to be good for REIT demand. And these buyers, banks, overseas REITs, they typically buy CUSIPs, and that's going to help not just from a demand side, but it's going to help funding on mortgages improve as well. And all of those things are going to take mortgage spreads tighter, and that's why we are bullish.

I also want to mention agency CMBS for a moment. The technical pressure there is even better than in single family mortgages. The supply story is still constrained, but there is no Fed QT in multifamily. And then also the capital that's going to be available for banks from the deregulation will allow them – in combination with the portfolio layer hedging – to add agency CMBS in a way that they haven't really been adding in the last few years. So that could take spreads tighter as well.

Now, Vishy, you also mentioned policy changes. We think discussions around GSE reform are likely to become more prevalent under the new administration.

And we think that given that improved capitalization, depending on the path of their earnings and any plans to raise capital, we could see an attempt to exit conservatorship during this administration.

But we will simply state our view that any plan that results in a meaningful change to the capital treatment – or credit risk – to the investors of conventional mortgages is going to be too destabilizing for the housing finance markets to implement. And so, we don't think that path could go forward.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Jay. Jim, it was a challenging year for the housing market with historically high levels of unaffordability and continued headwinds of limited supply. How do you see 2025 to be for the US housing market? And going beyond housing, what is your outlook for the opportunity set in securitized credit for 2025?

James Egan: For the housing market, the 2025 narrative is going to be one about absolute level versus the direction and rate of change. For instance, Vishy, you mentioned affordability. Mortgage rates have increased significantly since the beginning of September, but it's also true that they're down roughly a hundred basis points from the fourth quarter of 2023 and we're forecasting pretty healthy decreases in the 10-year Treasury throughout 2025. So, we expect affordability to improve over the coming year. Supply? It remains near historic lows, but it's been increasing year to date.

So similar to the affordability narrative, it's more challenged than it's been in decades; but it's also less challenged than it was a year ago.

So, what does all this mean for the housing market as we look through 2025? Despite the improvements in affordability, sales volumes have been pretty stagnant this year. Total volumes – so existing plus new volumes – are actually down about 3 per cent year to date. And look, that isn't unusual. It typically takes about a year for sales volumes to pick up when you see this kind of significant affordability improvement that we've witnessed over the past year, even with the recent backup in mortgage rates.

And that means we think we're kind of entering that sweet spot for increased sales now. We've seen purchase applications turn positive year over year. We've seen pending home sales turn positive year over year. That's the first time both of those things have happened since 2021. But when we think about how much sales 2025, we think it's going to be a little bit more curtailed. There are a whole host of reasons for that – but one of them the lock in effect has been a very popular talking point in the housing market this year. If we look at just the difference between the effective mortgage rate on the outstanding universe and where you can take out a mortgage rate today, the universe is still over 200 basis points out of the money.

To the upside, you're not going to get 10 per cent growth there, but you're going to get more than 5 per cent growth in new home sales. And what I really want to emphasize here is – yes, mortgage rates have increased recently. We expect them to come down in 2025; but even if they don't, we don't think there's a lot of room for downside to existing home sales from here.

There's some level of housing activity that has to happen, regardless of where mortgage rates or affordability are. We think we're there. Turnover measured as the number of transactions – existing transactions – as a share of the outstanding housing market is lower now than it was during the great financial crisis. It's as low as it's been in a little bit over 40 years. We just don't think it can fall that much further from here.

But as we go through 2025, we do think it dips negative. We have a negative 2 per cent HPA call next year, not significantly down. We don't think there's a lot of room to the downside given the healthy foundation, the low supply, the strong credit standards in the housing market. But there is a little bit of negativity next year before home prices reaccelerate.

This leaves us generically constructive on securitized products across the board. Given how much of the capital structure has flattened this year, we think CLO AAAs actually offer the best value amongst the debt tranches there. We think non-QM triple AAAs and agency MBS is going to tighten. They look cheap to IG corporates. Consumer ABS, we also think still looks pretty cheap to IG corporates. Even in the CMBS pace, we think there's opportunities. CMBS has really outperformed this year as rates have come down. Now our bull bear spread differentials are much wider in CMBS than they are elsewhere, but in our base case, conduit BBB minuses still offer attractive value.

That being said, if we're going to go down the capital structure, our favorite expression in the securitized credit space is US CLO equity.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Jay and Jim, and also Matt and James.

We'll close it out here. As a reminder, 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.

On the first part of a two-part roundtable, our panel discusses why the US is likely to see a slowdown and where investors can look for growth.

----- Transcript -----

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today in the podcast, we are hosting a special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.

I'm joined by my colleagues: Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist; Mike Wilson, Chief US Equity Strategist and the firm's Chief Investment Officer; and Andrew Sheets, Global Head of [Corporate] Credit Research.

It's Monday, November 18th, at 10am in New York.

Gentlemen. Thank you all for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, and so I'm going to go right into it.

Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2025, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy?

Seth Carpenter: I have to say – it's always difficult to do forecasts. But I think right now the uncertainty is even greater than usual. It's pretty tricky. I think if you do it at a global level, we're not actually looking for all that much of a change, you know, around 3-ish percent growth; but the composition is surely going to change some.

So, let's hit the big economies around the world. For the US, we are looking for a bit of a slowdown. Now, some of that was unsustainable growth this year and last year. There's a bit of waning residual impetus from fiscal policy that's going to come off in growth rate terms. Monetary policy is still restrictive, and there's some lag effects there; so even though the Fed is cutting rates, there's still going to be a little bit of a slowdown coming next year from that.

But I think the really big question, and you alluded to this in your question, is what about other policy changes here? For fiscal policy, we think that's really an issue for 2026. That's when the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) tax cuts expire, and so we think there's going to be a fix for that; but that's going to take most of 2025 to address legislatively. And so, the fiscal impetus really is a question for 2026.

But immigration, tariffs; those matter a lot. And here the question really is, do things get front loaded? Is it everything all at once right at the beginning? Is it phased in over time a bit like it was over 2018? I think our baseline assumption is that there will be tariffs; there will be an increase in tariffs, especially on China. But they will get phased in over the course of 2025. And so, as a result, the first thing you see is some increase in inflation and it will build over time as the tariffs build. The slowdown from growth, though, gets backloaded to the end of 2025 and then really spills over into to 2026.

Now, Europe is still in a situation where they've got some sluggish growth. We think things stabilize. We get, you know, 1 percent growth or so. So not a further deterioration there; but not a huge increase that would make you super excited. The ECB should probably keep cutting interest rates. And we actually think there's a really good chance that inflation in the euro area goes below their target. And so, as a result, what do we see? Well, the ECB cutting down below their best guess of neutral. They think 2 percent nominal is neutral and they go below that.

China is another big curveball here for the forecast because they've been in this debt deflation spiral for a while. We don't think the pivot in fiscal policy is anywhere near sufficient to ward things off. And so, we could actually see a further slowing down of growth in China in 2025 as the policy makers do this reactive kind of policy response. And so, it's going to take a while there, and we think there's a downside risk there.

On the upside. I mean, we're still bullish on Japan. We're still very bullish on India and its growth; and across other parts of EM, there's some bright spots. So, it's a real mixed bag. I don't think there's a single trend across the globe that's going to drive the overall growth narrative.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Seth. Mike, I'd like to go to you next. 2024 has turned out to be a strong year for equity markets globally, particularly for US and Japanese equities. While we did see modest earnings growth, equity returns were mostly about multiple expansion. How do you expect 2025 to turn out for the global equity markets? What are the key challenges and opportunities ahead for the equity markets that you see?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, this year was interesting because we had what I would say was very modest earnings growth in the US in particular; relative to the performance. It was really all multiple expansion, and that's probably not going to repeat this year. We're looking for better earnings growth given our soft landing outcome from an economic standpoint and rates coming down. But we don't think multiples will expand any further. In fact, we think they'll come down by about 5 percent. But that still gets us a decent return in the base case of sort of high single digits.

You know, Japan is the second market we like relative to the rest of the world because of the corporate governance story. So there, too, we're looking for high single digit earnings growth and high single digits or 10 percent return in total. And Europe is when we're sort of down taking a bit because of tariff risk and also pressure from China, where they have a lot of export business.

You know, the challenges I think going forward is that growth continues to be below trend in many regions. The second challenge is that, you know, high quality assets are expensive everywhere. It's not just the US. It's sort of everywhere in the world. So, you get what you pay for. You know, the S&P is extremely expensive, but that's because the ROE is higher, and growth is higher.

So, you know, in other words, these are not well-kept secrets. And so just valuation is a real challenge. And then, of course, the consensus views are generally fairly narrow around the soft landing and that's very priced as well. So, the risks are that the consensus view doesn't play out. And that's why we have two bull and two bear cases in the US – just like we did in the mid-year outlook; and in fact, what happened is one of our bull cases is what played out in the second half of this year.

So, the real opportunity from our standpoint, I think this is a global call as well – which is that we continue to be pretty big rotations around the macro-outlook, which remains uncertain, given the policy changes we're seeing in the US potentially, and also the geopolitical risks that still is out there.

And then the other big opportunity has been stock picking. Dispersion is extremely high. Clients are really being rewarded for taking single stock exposures. And I think that continues into next year. So, we're going to do what we did this year is we're going to try to rotate around from a style and size perspective, depending on the macro-outlook.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Mike. Andrew, we are ending 2024 in a reasonably good setup for credit markets, with spreads at or near multi-decade tights for many markets. How do you expect the global credit markets to play out in 2025? What are the best places to be within the credit spectrum and across different regions?

Andrew Sheets: I think that's the best way to frame it – to start a little bit about where we are and then talk about where we might be going. I think it's safe to say that this has been an absolutely phenomenal backdrop for corporate credit. Corporate credit likes moderation. And I think you've seen an unusual amount of moderation at both the macro and the micro level.

You've seen kind of moderate growth, moderating inflation, moderating policy rates across DM. And then at the micro level, even though markets have been very strong, corporate aggressiveness has not been. M&A has been well below trend. Corporate balance sheets have been pretty stable.

So, what I think is notable is you've had an economic backdrop that credit has really liked, as you correctly note. We've pushed spreads near 20-year tights based on that backdrop. But it's a backdrop that credit markets liked, but US voters did not like, and they voted for different policy.

And so, when we look ahead – the range of outcomes, I think across both the macro and the micro, is expanding. And I think the policy uncertainty that markets now face is increasing both scenarios to the upside where things are hotter and you see more animal spirits; and risk to the downside, where potentially more aggressive tariffs or action on immigration creates more kind of stagflationary types of risk.

So one element that we're facing is we feel like we're leaving behind a really good environment for corporate credit and we're entering something that's more uncertain. But then balancing that is that you're not going to transition immediately.

You still have a lot of momentum in the US and European economy. I look at the forecasts from Seth's team, the global economic numbers, or at least kind of the DM economic numbers into the first half of next year – still look fine. We still have the Fed cutting. We still have the ECB cutting. We still have inflation moderating.

So, part of our thinking for this year is it could be a little bit of a story of two halves that we titled our section, “On Borrowed Time.” That the credit is still likely to hold in well and perform better in the first half of the year. Yields are still good; the Fed is still cutting; the backdrop hasn't changed that much. And then it's the second half of the year where some of our economic numbers start to show more divergence, where the Fed is no longer cutting rates, where all in yield levels are lower on our interest rate forecasts, which could temper demand. That looks somewhat trickier.

In terms of how we think about what we like within credit, we do think the levered loan market continues to be attractive. That's part of credit where spreads are not particularly tight versus history. That's one area where we still see risk premium. I think this is also an environment where regionally we see Asia underperforming. It's a market that's both very expensive from a spread perspective but also faces potentially kind of outsized economic and tariff uncertainty. And we think that the US might outperform in context to at least initially investors feeling like the US is at less relative risk from tariffs and policy uncertainty than some other markets.

So, Vishy, I'll pause there and pass it back to you.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Mike, Seth, and Andrew.

Thank you all for listening. We are going to take a pause here and we'll be back tomorrow with our year ahead round table continued, where we'll share our forecast for government bonds, currencies and housing.

As a reminder, if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why a stronger economy, moderate inflation and future rate cuts could prompt deal-making.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll discuss why we remain believers in a large, sustained uptick in corporate activity. 

It's Friday, November 15th at 2pm in London. 

We continue to think that 2024 will mark the start of a significant, multiyear uplift in global merger and acquisition activity – or M&A. In new work out this week, we are reiterating that view. While the 25 percent rise in volumes this year is actually somewhat short of our original expectations from March, the core drivers of a large and sustained increase in activity, in our view, remain intact. 

Those drivers remain multiple. Current levels of global M&A volumes are still unusually low relative to their own historical trend or the broader strength that we see in stock markets. The overall economy, which often matters for M&A activity, has been strong, especially in the US, while inflation continues to moderate and rate cuts have begun. We see motivations for sellers – from ageing private equity portfolios, maturing venture capital pipelines, and higher valuations for the median stock. And we see more factors driving buyers from $4 trillion of private market "dry powder," to around $7.5 trillion of cash that's sitting idly on non-financial balance sheets, to wide-open capital markets that provide the ability to finance deals. 

These high level drivers are also confirmed bottom up by boots on the ground. Our colleagues across Morgan Stanley Equity Research also see a stronger case for activity – and we polled over 60 global equity teams for their views. While the results vary by geography and sector, the Morgan Stanley Equity analysts who cover these sectors in the most depth also see a strong case for more activity. 

The policy backdrop also matters. While activity has risen this year, one reason it might not have risen as much as we initially expected was uncertainty about both when central banks would start cutting rates and the outcome of US elections. 

But both of those uncertainties have now, to some extent, waned. Rate cuts from the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of England have now started, while the Red Sweep in US elections could, in our view, drive more animal spirits. And Europe is an important part of this story too, as we think the European Union’s new approach to consolidation could be more supportive for activity. For investors, an expectation that corporate activity will continue to rise is, in our view, supportive for Financial equities. 

Where could we be wrong? M&A activity does fundamentally depend on economic and market confidence; and a weaker than expected economy or weaker than expected equity market would drive lower than expected volumes. Policy still matters. And while we view the incoming US administration as more M&A supportive, that could be misguided – if policy changes dent corporate confidence or increase inflation. 

Finally, we think that a more multipolar world could actually support more M&A, as there’s a push to create more regional champions to compete on the global stage. But this could be incorrect, if those same global frictions disrupt activity or confidence more generally. Time will tell. 

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

While the market waits for the incoming Trump administration to present its policy agenda, our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas maps out some areas of early investor interest, including regulation and the US Treasury market.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast we’ll be talking about key themes coming out of the US election.

It’s Thursday, Nov 14 at 10am in New York.

The US election is over, and now the work begins for President Trump and Republican leaders in Congress. They’ll continue to focus in the coming weeks on staffing key roles in the government and fleshing out the policy agenda. When it comes to the economic and markets outlook for 2025, those details will matter a lot – particularly the sequencing and severity of changes to tariffs, immigration, and tax policy. That means for us the next few weeks will be key to learning what next year will look like. But there are still some areas where there’s already some signal for investors to lean on. 

One is in the financial sector and relates to regulation. A potentially delayed or diluted approach to bank regulation resulting from the policies of the new administration is one reason that our Banks Analyst Betsy Graseck is flagging a more bullish outcome and substantial outperformance potential for the sector. Similarly, our global head of credit research, Andrew Sheets, notes this election outcome should boost M&A activity, where an expected 50 percent pick-up in volumes next year could reach 75 percent or more. 

Another area is industrials, a sector where companies tend to spend a lot on capital. The Republican sweep substantially increases the chances that key tax benefits reducing the cost of capital expenditures are extended in a timely fashion. 

And in the U.S. treasury market, there’s signs that the most volatile part of the increase in yields is behind us. While it's true that extending expiring tax cuts means deficits will be higher next year than they otherwise would have been, it's basically just an extension of current policy – so any incremental impact to growth and inflation expectations being priced into this market is still an open question. This should be helpful to fixed income markets finding their footing into year end. 

But, as we started off with, there’s a lot to be learned in the coming weeks, and we’ll flag here what you need to know and how it may impact the direction of markets. 

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

As President-Elect Trump’s new administration takes shape, all eyes are on fiscal policy that may follow. Our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter uses the United Kingdom’s recent election as a guide for how markets could react to a policy shift in the US.  

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about the US election and fiscal policy and what lessons we might be able to draw from the fiscal experience in the UK. 

It's Wednesday, November 13th at 10am in New York.  

In a lot of our recent research, the US election has figured prominently, and we highlighted three key policy dimensions that the US administration is going to have to confront. Immigration, tariffs, and, of course, fiscal policy. We're going to keep elections as a theme, but it might be useful to draw some comparisons to the UK to see what lessons we might have for the US. 

We think the experience in the UK, which recently proposed a new fiscal budget months after an election, is relevant mostly because of the time between taking power and the budget being presented. While markets are in the business of anticipating changes, the process of actually creating policy is a lot more cumbersome and time consuming. 

In this week, where we've seen lots of expectations already being priced in, it's probably useful to try to think about that process of forming policy in the UK and see what lessons it implies for the US.  

Back in May, the UK elected a new government, changing party control after 14 years. A key moment for markets came just over a week ago, though, when the new government's presentation of their budget for the next fiscal year came up. 

Now, we should remember, the trust government had faced a market test when the announcement of their budget proposals led to a big sell off in interest rates. As a result, markets were keenly attuned this time to the new labor government's budget, particularly because the US fiscal position requires a primary balance to stabilize the debt to GDP ratio. And in particular, when their debt costs rise, when interest rates go up, the primary balances that are needed keep increasing if they want to keep the debt stable. 

Now, the new labor government proposed to fill a funding gap through tax increases while simultaneously increasing Government investment spending. To manage some of the communication challenges here, many of these proposals, especially about the tax increases, they were made public in advance. The likelihood of additional government spending was also well known, and UK rates had moved higher for months leading up to the formal presentation of the budget. 

But, markets reacted on the day of the budget reveal, despite all of that prelude. The degree of front loading of the investment spending was seen as a surprise in markets, as was the Office of Budget Responsibility's concurrent assessment that the policy would lead to higher growth, higher inflation, and as a result, a need for higher interest rates. 

Now, conversations with clients have brought up the similarities of the US and the UK. US interest costs are steadily rising as the cost of the debt reprices to the current yield curve. And, over time, the ratio of interest expense on the debt relative to, say, the GDP of the country, well, that's going to continue to rise as well, and it will very soon eclipse its previous all time high. 

So, fiscal consolidation would be needed in the United States if we really want to see a stabilized debt to GDP ratio. Markets will need to assess the credibility of fiscal policy and the scrutiny will increase the higher the interest burden gets. The budget process for the US is much less clear cut than that in the UK and deliberations and debates will likely happen over most of 2025. And there's an additional question of how much revenue tariffs might be able to generate on a sustained basis. History suggests that trade diversion tends to limit those revenue gains. All of these facts taken together suggest that the outlook for US fiscal policy will continue to evolve for quite some time.  

Well, thanks for listening, and if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or a colleague today.

Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses the potential impact of tariffs on China and other Asian countries following the US election.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today on the podcast – with a Republican White House now in place, tariffs are the key issue that will matter to Asia.

It’s Tuesday, November 12, at 2 PM in Hong Kong. 

With the US election results in, the question now is not if there will be tariff hikes, but when and how much. Will China alone see rising tariffs, or will there be universal tariff imposed on all imports to the US? 

The previous president Trump administration imposed several tariffs on Chinese imports beginning in 2018. And looking back, our learning is that weaker corporate confidence weighed more heavily on Asia’s growth outlook than the direct effect of tariffs on exports. Just to elaborate on the point on direct impact of tariffs: Despite the tariffs imposed on China during that period, what we observed is that China’s market share in global goods exports improved after the US started to impose tariffs on imports from China. 

Looking forward, let’s consider a scenario of 50 per cent tariffs on China alone. The hit to global and China corporate confidence may not be as large as it was in 2018 and 2019. This is in part because US-China trade tensions have persisted for several years now. Companies have invested in diversifying their supply chains since then, and the US share in China's exports has declined since 2017. Given all this, the drag on China’s exports may be less than the 1 percentage point that we saw last time. 

The rest of Asia would also experience a slowdown, but we think the overall drag on growth would be less significant this time. The effects on individual economies would differ based on their exposure to China. We think Australia and Indonesia will be more exposed. Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Thailand would be moderately exposed. And India and Japan would be less exposed given a low share of export to China. 

But what happens if the US imposes 50 per cent tariffs on China and a 10 per cent universal tariff on the rest of the world? In this scenario, the damage to corporate confidence and the global capex and trade cycle would be much larger. The drag could be similar or greater than what we saw in 2018 and 2019. Asia excluding China has now become more dependent on the US as a source of end-demand. Global supply chains might have to be rewired yet again. This would cause a significant disruption to the corporate sector and a material impact on Asia’s growth trajectory. 

Of course, the final effect of US tariffs on Asia growth would also depend on the scale of policy support. Asia’s policy makers could allow their currencies to depreciate in response to a strong dollar. Then, against a backdrop of weaker currencies, Asia’s central banks could be constrained in their ability to cut rates immediately – similar to what happened in 2018-[20]19. 

Hence, they would prefer to take a fiscal easing first. Back in 2017-[20]19, Asia's fiscal deficit widened in aggregate by 1.1 percentage point as policymakers sought to provide some cushion to growth downside. Once currencies stabilize, they will take up monetary easing.

Things may move quickly once Trump takes office in January, and we will continue to keep you updated. 

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

With the Republican party poised to clinch control of the White House and Congress, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist says markets are readying for a lighter regulatory environment, supportive tax policy and a possible rebound in investor enthusiasm.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I'll be talking about the results of last week’s election and its impact on equity markets.

It's Monday, Nov 11th at 11:30am in New York.

So let’s get after it.

Our work leading up to the election showed that stocks likely to benefit from a Republican sweep did not actually see material outperformance up and through November 5th. In other words, this political outcome was not fully priced. As a result, this allowed for significant outperformance of Financials, Industrials, and other cyclicals last week. We see further follow through to the upside in quality cyclicals as prospects for a lighter regulatory environment, supportive tax policy and a potential rebound in animal spirits should rise following the election outcome. These developments came on the back of a macro backdrop that was already becoming more supportive of cyclical outperformance – and why we upgraded this cohort to overweight in early October. We continue to be sellers though of tariff-exposed consumer stocks and renewable energy stocks. 

Our upgrade to Financials in early October was rooted in our view that expectations were low going into earnings season while positioning remained light. Our work since then showed that the majority of the group's outperformance into the election could be explained by strong earnings revisions as opposed to rising odds of a Trump win in prediction markets. Now that we have the election results in hand, it appears that expectations for de-regulation are also driving performance upside in addition to improving fundamentals.  

While the 2016 playbook would suggest small caps and lower quality equities could see a period  of outperformance following the election, there are a couple of important differences worth considering. First, several of these areas of the market are exhibiting a negative correlation to interest rates today whereas they were showing a positive correlation in 2016. In other words, in today's later cycle environment, these cohorts' adverse sensitivity to rising rates is greater than it was in that period. Should rates see more upside post the election, there is likely less upside this time for small caps and lower quality cyclicals. Furthermore, relative earnings revisions breadth for small cap cyclicals is negative today, whereas it was positive in 2016. Finally, even with the increase in animal spirits following the 2016 election, small caps' relative performance peaked in early December of that year, just one month after the election.

While the momentum remains to the upside for US equity markets led by quality cyclicals, it's  worth considering the potential risks. The first one is a material move higher in interest rates driven by a rising term premium. The 50 basis point rise in term premium so far has not been enough to worry equity investors yet. However, should the term premium accelerate materially from here driven by fiscal sustainability concerns, equity valuations would likely face headwinds. Second, one of the more popular views in the macro community is for a stronger dollar. If such strength continues into year-end, it could provide a headwind to multinationals' Earnings growth for 2024 and 2025.

 A final risk to the positive price momentum is simply price itself. Over the past several months, the price change of the S&P 500 has distanced itself from the fundamentals. More specifically, the year-over-year change in the S&P has rarely been this disconnected from earnings revision breadth and business confidence surveys. However, given the positive reaction to the election so far in markets and from many business leaders, perhaps animal spirits can take earnings guidance higher – which is necessary to maintain the current trajectory in equity markets, especially since that is now expected by stock prices.  

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets provides an overview of uncertainty around policy following the election of a Republican administration.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about the US election - the implications in the past, present and future. 

It's Friday, November 8th at 2pm in London. 

The US Election is over, and the result was relatively clear. Republicans won control of the Presidency, the Senate, and on current projections, are likely to narrowly take the House of Representatives. The so-called ‘sweep’ will provide significant leeway to enact policy. 

There is going to be lots of time over future weeks and months, and even years, to discuss what all of this is going to mean. But for now, I want to offer a few thoughts on the impact across the past, the present and the future. 

Looking back, the US election has been a very well-known uncertainty that has hung over this market all year. The polling was close between two candidates with very different policy priorities. To the extent the simply not knowing was holding some investors back, or that investors were worried about a contested outcome, or even worse, political unrest – that issue has now passed. The relief from that passing may help explain some of the recent positive market reaction. 

For the present, we now sit in this curious middle-place where the uncertainty of the result is behind us, but any uncertainty from policy changes have not yet arrived. Coupled with still strong US economic data, another interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve yesterday, and the tendency of markets to perform well in November and December, and the path of least resistance in the near term may be for markets to continue to trade well.

The future, however, may have just become less certain. Credit likes moderation and stability, and we think the current economic mix, with US GDP growth and inflation at both around 2.5 per cent, while the unemployment rate sits near historic lows at 4.2 per cent, has been a good one for credit. It’s been a major driver of our optimistic spread forecasts this year. 

Yet based on exit polls, US voters were not happy with this economy, and voted for change. The question, which will now dominate investor conversations, is how much of what the new administration has said they will do, will end up happening – on everything from tariffs, to taxes, to immigration. 

I can assure you that there’s a very wide investor expectations around this. The ambiguity isn’t necessarily a problem now, but we expect these questions to harden as we get into early next year. And given the likely sweep, the odds for larger changes in policy, especially much looser fiscal policy, have risen significantly. Whatever your average expectation for the US economy over the next 24 months now is, we think the bands around that have widened, and that’s also true globally, from Latin America, to Europe, to Asia. 

To be a little more specific about these wider bands: To the downside, there are now scenarios where tariffs and deportations push up inflation and weaken growth. And to the upside, there are scenarios where potentially lower taxes and looser regulation could drive higher stock markets and more corporate animal spirits. 

But for credit, both of these present challenges: tight spreads are absolutely not priced for stagflation, while animal spirits and more corporate aggression aren’t necessarily a great story if you’re a lender. A more benign, middle scenario is, of course, still possible, and we’re keeping an open mind. But the future has now become more uncertain. 

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

Our panel of analysts discusses the health of the US consumer through the lens of spending, credit use and home ownership. 

----- Transcript -----

James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Egan, Morgan Stanley's co-head of Securitized Product Strategy, and today we're going to take a look at the state of the US consumer from several different perspectives.

Recent economic data suggests that the US economy is strong, and that inflation is on a downward trend. Yet, some of the underlying performance data is a little bit weaker. To understand what's happening, I'm joined by my colleagues Arunima Sinha and Heather Berger from the Global and US Economics teams.

It's Thursday, November 7th, at 10am in New York.

Now, the macro data on the consumer has looked pretty strong. Arunima, can you give a little bit more detail here? And specifically, how has consumer spending in the US been trending relative to where it was last year?

Arunima Sinha: So, a good place to start, Jim, would be just to see where consumption spending was last year. And there it ended on a strong note. And in the first three-quarters of 2023, the average quarterly analyzed growth for consumption was just under 3 per cent. And that's where we are this year. We've seen solid growth rates in all three quarters this year, with the third quarter at 3.7 per cent. A particularly interesting aspect has been that the spending on goods has actually accelerated this year, with the third [quarter] number at a blistering 6.0 per cent on a quarterly basis.

We have chalked this down to labor income growth remaining robust; and we did an analysis which showed that past growth in labor income boosts real consumption spending. Over this year, labor compensation has been growing strongly. So over 6 per cent in the first quarter and about 3.5 per cent in quarters two and three.

And so, we continue to expect that that solid labor income growth is going to continue to boost real consumption spending.

James Egan: All right. So, if I'm hearing you correctly – good spending, holding up; services, holding up. What about discretionary versus non-discretionary spend?

Arunima Sinha: That's a great question, Jim, especially because discretionary spending is 70 per cent of all nominal personal consumption spending in the US. So just for context, what does discretionary include? It's going to be all the spending on durable goods, some non-durables, and then non-essential services such as health and transport, financial services, etc. And what we also saw – that a larger share of labor income is now being spent on discretionary items relative to the pre-COVID phase.

So where are growth rates running? Discretionary spending is running strong on both a nominal and a real basis. So, on a nominal basis, we have about 5.5 to 6 per cent year on year, over this year, and over 3 per cent on a real basis. And these are largely in line with pre-COVID rates, if a little bit stronger now.

For non-discretionary spending – that's the spending on food at home, and clothing, energy, and housing services – nominal spending has been decent. So, 4 per cent year on year on the first three quarters this year, and real spending has been a little bit less than the pre-COVID rate. So, between 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent. And so, this suggests what we expected to see, which is there's likely greater price sensitivity among consumers for these non-discretionary categories.

What do we see going forward? We think that those increases in labor income are going to continue to provide boosts to discretionary spending. And one of the interesting aspects that we found was that lending standards seem to matter for discretionary spending. So, there's been some slowing down and the tightening of lending standards – and that could provide a further tailwind to discretionary spending.

James Egan: Alright, that all sounds pretty positive and makes sense as to why we're getting so many questions about economic data that looks very healthy from a consumer perspective. But then, Heather. Other consumer data is showing a little bit more weakness. Arunima just mentioned credit standards. What are we seeing from the performance perspective on the consumer credit side?

Heather Berger: Well, as you mentioned, the consumer credit data has shown more weakness, as more consumers are missing payments on their loans. We initially saw delinquency rates start to pick up in loans concentrated towards consumers with lower credit scores, such as subprime auto loans and unsecured personal loans, as those consumers were more affected early on by high inflation and then rising rates.

Delinquency rates for those lower credit score loans are near the highest we have on record in some cases. In the past year, though, we have also seen that delinquency rates have picked up in loans aimed at consumers with higher credit scores, such as credit cards and prime auto loans. The weakness in these is not as extreme as in subprime, but the delinquency rates of the loans taken out recently is still relatively high historically. 

James Egan: So, it sounds like what you are describing is that there are pockets of consumers that are feeling more weakness than others.

Heather Berger: Yes, exactly. And so, on the prime consumer side, even if these consumers have higher credit scores or higher incomes, if they took out loans recently, they likely did so at higher rates, and they're really feeling the pressures of higher debt service costs.

We can also see some of the bifurcation between low income and high-income consumers. In some of the more detailed economic data, we have a breakdown of 2023 spending by income group, which is a bit outdated but still useful to see the narrative – and what it shows is that in 2023 higher income consumers made up near the largest share of discretionary spending as they have historically. For lower income consumers, their spending has shifted more towards essentials, with shelter increasing the most as a share of their spending from the prior year.

Now, Jim, we really think that the housing backdrop has played a role here, so can you explain a bit more of what's going on there?

James Egan: Yes, now my co-head of Securitized Product Strategy, Jay Bacow, and I have been on this podcast a few times talking about the role that the housing market is playing in the economy right now. We've really talked about the lock in effect. And when we're thinking about the role that housing plays in the consumer specifically, we're talking about lower income households, more discretionary spending, shelter increasing that's not happening at the higher end, and we think that's the lock in effect.

A majority of homeowners were able to get low fixed rate mortgages for 30 years with 3 or 4 per cent mortgage rates. The effective mortgage rate would be on the outstanding market right now is, average is 4 per cent. Prevailing rates are north of 6 per cent right now. So that has helped that higher end consumer who is more likely to be a homeowner – 65 per cent of the US households are homeowners – maintain that lower level.

But I don't want to gloss over that entirely. Other costs of homeownership are increasing. For instance, property taxes and insurance costs are up. Homeowners have realized swelling home equity amounts amid record home price growth in recent years; perhaps giving them more confidence to spend, but that equity hasn't exactly been easy to access.

Now, second lean and HELOC balances have been increasing; but the amount of equity that's being withdrawn falls well shy of previous highs, which were set back in 2009. And that's despite the fact that the overall equity in the housing market is $20 trillion larger today than it was back then. While the equity itself should provide a buffer for homeowning consumers from ultimately defaulting, these dynamics could be resulting in some of the short-term delinquency increases that we think we're seeing in products like Prime Auto, for example.

But Arunima, can you tie a bow on this for us? What does all of this mean for the consumer moving forward?

Arunima Sinha: Moving forward Jim, we really just see a solid consumer. So, for the end of this year, our forecast is real consumption spending growing at 2.6 per cent; at the end of next year at over 2 per cent. And that really is tied to our view on the labor market – that it's going to continue to decelerate, but not in any sudden ways.

So that's it. We are seeing a strong consumer, and we are going to be watching for pockets of weakness.

James Egan: All right. Arunima, Heather, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me on, Jim.

Heather Berger: Great talking to you both.

James Egan: And to our listeners, 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.

With a second Trump term at least partially reflected in the price of global markets, we focus on two key debates for the longer-term: Potential tariffs and fiscal policy. 

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast – some initial thoughts on the market implications of a second term for President Trump.

It’s Wednesday, Nov 6, at 2pm in New York.

As it became clearer on election night that Former President Trump was set to win a second term in the White House, markets began to price in the expected impacts of resulting public policy choices. The US dollar rallied, which makes sense when you consider that President Trump has argued for higher tariffs, something that could hurt rest of world growth more than the US.  

US Treasuries sold off and yield rose, something that makes sense given President Trump supports tax policy choices that could meaningfully expand deficits. And US equity markets rallied led by key sectors that could benefit fundamentally from extended tax breaks and deregulation, including industrials and energy. 

But with a second Trump term now at least partially reflected in the price of markets across assets, it gets harder from here to understand how markets move.  There’s several key debates we’ll be tracking, here’s two that are top of mind. 

First, how will tariffs be implemented? Per the work of our economists, higher tariffs can raise inflation and crimp growth. They estimated that a blanket 10 per cent tariffs and 60 per cent tariffs on China imports would raise inflation by 1 per cent and dampen GDP growth by 1.4 per cent. Some pretty big numbers that would really challenge the soft-landing narrative and positive backdrop for equities and other riskier assets. Other approaches may carry the same risks, but to a lesser degree. Tariffs exercised via executive authority would, in our view, likely have to be targeted to countries and products – as opposed to implemented on a blanket basis. So, the approach to tariffs could represent a substantial difference in the outlook for markets. 

Second, how quickly and to what degree might US deficits expand? Our presumption has been that fiscal policy action, regardless of US election outcome, wouldn’t become clear until late 2025, largely governed by the need to address several provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire at the end of that year. But, while not our base case it's of course possible that a Republican Congressional majority could deliver on tax cuts earlier – and perhaps even in larger size. The resolution to this debate could make the difference between yields climbing even higher than they have recently and taking a pause at these levels. 

Bottom line, as the election ends and the Presidential transition begins, there’s a lot about policy implementation that we can learn to guide our market strategy. We’ll be paying attention to all the key policymaker statements and deliberations, and feed through the signal to you.

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

Analyst Nathan Feather discusses why the online dating market is slowing down, and whether or not it can get back on track.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nathan Feather, Morgan Stanley’s Online Dating and US Small- and Mid-Cap eCommerce Analyst. 

Today, people across America are casting their votes. On this podcast, however, we're taking a break from our election coverage. And taking a leap into a different matter on many minds … and hearts. Online dating. Why it fell out of favor and how it might make a comeback.

It’s November 5, at 10am in New York. 

Finding love is a tricky business. Dating has never been easy; but with an epidemic of loneliness and isolation, singles today are finding it harder than ever. 

For those looking for love, online dating seems to offer endless possibilities. Since its inception just three decades ago, the stigma around online dating has faded, leading more and more daters to put their faith – and money – into the algorithm. In the US, three out of four actively dating singles have used it at some point in their journey. 

But after years of consistent double-digit growth, the online dating market is now faltering, with US industry revenue growing just 1 per cent this year.  

Why? Well, we think the issue lies primarily in weakening user trends with the US user bases of major dating apps in decline. Since last spring, we have seen around a 15 per cent decrease in dating app use by singles actively looking for a relationship. To us this indicates that the product is not matching user expectations as some daters have grown tired of the persistent swiping and dead ends. Consequently, daters' intentions to use online dating in the future have consistently declined. 

Now, there are many theories about why this is happening. We think there may be residual impact from the pandemic when singles used online dating at record rates. People who found relationships during that time likely left the apps. And those who didn't find a partner also often left the apps, disappointed and less likely to return. But that’s not all; while Millennials embraced the fun and casual experience of swipe apps, Gen Z isn’t so enamored – instead searching for greater authenticity. 

So, can online dating be fixed or are these issues beyond repair? Well, there are two main schools of thought. The first believes that the issue with online dating is a lack of innovation, and an improved product should lead to improved financials. The second camp argues that daters are fundamentally shifting away from these products to date in person or not at all. 

We sit firmly in the first camp and think this is a product issue. The apps need to do a better job helping people find lasting relationships. Granted, fixing this is far easier said than done. Human relationships are messy and complicated. But we do think there are clear opportunities. Many of the large apps have stayed relatively unchanged over the past five to 10 years and are meeting the demands of users from then – and not now. With improvements to the user experience and better tailoring to the goals of today’s daters, we believe the apps can reaccelerate user growth. In fact, brands that have consistently improved the user experience have recently fared far better. 

With that being said, we do think it will take time to find the product improvements that really work and convince daters to give the apps another shot. But as products evolve, we think daters and investors can rekindle their relationship with online dating.

If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market today, with a friend, colleague, significant other -- even a situationship. Thanks for listening.

On the eve of a competitive US election, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist joins our head of Corporate Credit Research and Chief Fixed Income Strategist to asses how investors are preparing for each possible outcome of the race.

----- Transcript -----

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

Andrew Sheets: I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

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

Mike Wilson: Today on the show, the day before the US election, we're going to do a conversation with my colleagues about what we're watching out for in the markets.

It's Monday, November 4th, at 1130am in New York.

So let's get after it.

Andrew Sheets: Well, Mike, like you said, it's the day before the US election. The campaign is going down to the wire and the polling looks very close. Which means both it could be a while before we know the results and a lot of different potential outcomes are still in play. So it would be great to just start with a high-level overview of how you're thinking about the different outcomes.

So, first Mike, to you, as you think across some of the broad different scenarios that we could see post election, what do you think are some of the most important takeaways for how markets might react?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, thanks, Andrew. I mean, it's hard to, you know, consider oneself as an expert in these types of events, which are extremely hard to predict. And there's a lot of permutations, by the way. There's obviously the presidential election, but then of course there's congressional elections. And it's the combination of all those that then feed into policy, which could be immediate or longer lasting.

So, the other thing to just keep in mind is that, you know, markets tend to pre-trade events like this. I mean, this is a known date, right? A known kind of event. It's not a surprise. And the outcome is a surprise. So people are making investments based on how they think the outcome is going to come. So that's the way we think about it now.

Clearly, you know, treasury markets have sold off. Some of that's better economic data, as our strategists in fixed income have told us. But I think it's also this view that, you know, Trump presidency, particularly Republican sweep, may lead to more spending or bigger budget deficits. And so, term premium has widened out a bit, so that’s been an area; here I think you could get some reversion if Harris were to win.

And that has impact on the equity markets -- whether that's some maybe small cap stocks or financials; some of the, you know, names that are levered to industrial spending that they want to do from a traditional energy standpoint.

And then, of course, on the negative side, you know, a lot of consumer-oriented stocks have suffered because of fears about tariffs increasing along with renewables. Because of the view that, you know, the IRA would be pared back or even repealed.

And I think there's still follow through particularly in financials. So, if Trump were to win, with a Republican Congress, I think, you know, financials could see some follow through. I think you could see some more strength in small caps because of perhaps animal spirits increasing a little further; a bit of a blow off move, perhaps, in the indices.

And then, of course, if Harris wins, I would expect, perhaps, bonds to rally. I think you might see some of these, you know, micro trades like in financials give back some along with small caps. And then you'd see a big rally in the renewables. And some of the tariff losers that have suffered recently. So, there's a lot, there's a lot of opportunity, depending on the outcome tomorrow.

Andrew Sheets: And Vishy, as you think about these outcomes for fixed income, what really stands out to you?

Vishy Tirupattur: I think what is important, Andrew, is really to think about what's happening today in the macro context, related to what was happening in 2016. So, if you look at 2016; and people are too quick to turn to the 2016 playbook and look at, you know, what a potential Trump, win would mean to the rates markets.

I think we should keep in mind that going into the polls in 2016, the market was expecting a 30 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months. And that rate hike expectation transitioned into something like a 125 place basis points over the following 12 months. And where we are today is very different.

We are looking at a[n] expectation of a 130-135 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months. So what that means to me is underlying macroeconomic conditions in where the economy is, where monetary policy is very, very different. So, we should not expect the same reaction in the markets, whether it's a micro or macro -- similar to what happened in 2016.

So that's the first point. The second thing I want to; I'm really focused on is – if it is a Harris win, it's more of a policy continuity. And if it's a Trump win, there is going to be significant policy changes. But in thinking about those policy changes, you know, before we leap into deficit expansion, et cetera, we need to think in terms of the sequencing of the policy and what is really doable.

You know, we're thinking three buckets. I think in terms of changes to immigration policy, changes to tariff policy, and changes to tax code. Of these things, the thing that requires no congressional approval is the changes to tariff policy, and the tariffs are probably are going to be much more front loaded compared to immigration. Or certainly the tax policy [is] going to take a quite a bit of time for it to work out – even under the Republican sweep scenario.

So, the sequencing of even the tariff policy, the effect of the tariffs really depends upon the sequencing of tariffs itself. Do we get to the 60 per cent China tariffs off the bat? Or will that be built over time? Are we looking at across the board, 10 per cent tariffs? Or are we looking at it in much more sequential terms? So, I would be careful not to jump into any knee-jerk reaction to any outcome.

Andrew Sheets: So, Mike, the next question I wanted to ask you is – you've been obviously having a lot of conversations with investors around this topic. And so, is there a piece of kind of conventional wisdom around the election or how markets will react to the election that you find yourself disagreeing with the most?

Mike Wilson: Well, I don't think there's any standard reaction function because, as Vishy said -- depending on when the election's occurring, it's a very different setup. And I will go back to what he was saying on 2016. I remember in 2016, thinking after Trump won, which was a surprise to the markets, that was a reflationary trade that we were very bullish on because there was so much slack in the economy.

We had borrowing capabilities and we hadn't done any tax cuts yet. So, there was just; there was a lot of running room to kind of push that envelope.

If we start pushing the envelope further on spending or reflationary type policies, all of a sudden the Fed probably can't cut. And that changes the dynamics in the bond market. It changes the dynamics in the stock market from a valuation standpoint, for sure. We've really priced in this like, kind of glide path now on, on Fed policy, which will be kind of turned upside down if we try to reflate things.

Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, that's a great point because, you know, I imagine something that investors do ask a lot about towards the bond market is, you know, we see these yields rising. Are they rising for kind of good reasons because the economy is better? Are they rising for less good reasons, maybe because inflation's higher or the deficit's widening too much? How do you think about that issue of the rise in bond yields? At what point is it rising for kind of less healthy reasons?

Vishy Tirupattur: So Andrew, if you look back to the last 30 days or so, the reaction the Treasury yields is mostly on account of stronger data. Not to say that the expectation changes about the presidential election outcomes haven't played a role. They have. But we've had really strong data. You know, we can ignore the data from last Friday – because the employment data that we got last Friday was affected by hurricanes and strikes, etc. But take that out of the picture. The data has been very strong. So, it's really a reflection of both of them. But we think stronger data have played a bigger role in yield rise than electoral outcome expectation changes.

Andrew Sheets: Mike, maybe to take that question and throw it back to you, as you think about this issue of the rise in yields – and at what point they're a problem for the equity market. How are you thinking about that?

Mike Wilson: Well, I think there's two ways to think about it. Number one, if it really is about the data getting better, then all of a sudden, you know, maybe the multiple expansion we've seen is right. And that, it's sort of foretelling of an earnings growth picture next year that's, you know, much faster than what, the consensus is modeling.

However, I'd push back on that because the consensus already is modeling a pretty good growth trajectory of about 12 per cent earnings growth. And that's, you know, quite healthy. I think, you know, it's probably more mixed. I mean, the term premium has gone up by 50 basis points, so some of this is about fiscal sustainability – no matter who wins, by the way. I wouldn't say either party has done a very good stewardship of, you know, monitoring the fiscal deficits; and I think some of it is definitely part of that. And then, look, I mean, this is what happened last year where, you know, we get financial conditions loosened up so much that inflation comes back. And then the Fed can't cut.

So to me, you know, we're right there and we've written about this extensively. We're right around the 200-day moving average for 10-year yields. The term premium now is up about 50 basis points. There's not a lot of wiggle room now. Stock market did trade poorly last week as we went through those levels. So, I think if rates go up another 10 or 20 basis points post the election, no matter who wins and it's driven at least half by term premium, I think the equity market's not gonna like that.

If rates kind of stay right around in here and we see term premium stabilize, or even come down because people get more excited about growth -- well then, we can probably rally a bit. So it's much a reason of why rates are going up as much as how much they're going up for the impact on equity multiples.

Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, how are you thinking about credit markets against this background?

Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think a few things are important for credit. So first is I do think credit is a[n] asset class that likes moderation. And so, I think outcomes that are likely to deliver much larger changes in economic, domestic, foreign policy are worse for credit. I mean, I think that the current status quo is quite helpful to credit given we're trading at some of the tightest spreads in the last 20 years. So, I think the less that changes around that for the macro backdrop for credit, the better.

I think secondly, you know, if I -- and Mike correct me, if you think I'm phrasing this wrong. But I think kind of some of the upside case that people make, that investors make for equities in the Republican sweep scenario is some version of kind of an animal spirits case; that you'll see lower taxes, less regulation, more corporate risk taking higher corporate confidence. That might be good for the equity market, but usually greater animal spirits are not good for the credit market. That higher level of risk taking is often not as good for the lenders. So, there are scenarios that you could get outcomes that might be, you know, positive for equities that would not be positive for credit.

And then I think conversely, in say the event of a democratic sweep or in the scenarios where Harris wins, I do think the market would probably see those as potentially, you know, the lower vol events – as they're probably most similar to the status quo. And again, I think that vol suppression that might be helpful to credit; that might be helpful for things like mortgages that credit is compared to. And so, I think that's also kind of important for how we're thinking about it.

To both Mike and Vishy, to round out the episode, as we mentioned, the race is close. We might not know the outcome immediately. As you're going to be looking at the news and the markets over Tuesday evening, into Wednesday morning. What's your process? How closely do you follow the events? What are you going to be focused on and what are kind of the pitfalls that you're trying to avoid?

Maybe Vishy, I'll start with you.

Vishy Tirupattur: I think the first thing I'd like to avoid is – do not make any market conclusions based on the first initial set of data. This is going to be a somewhat drawn out; maybe not as drawn out as last time around in 2020. But it is probably unlikely, but we will know the outcome on Tuesday night as we did in 2016.

So, hurry up and wait as my colleague, Michael Zezas puts it.

Mike Wilson: And I'm going to take the view, which I think most clients have taken over the last, you know, really several months, which is -- price is your best analyst, sadly. And I think a lot of people are going to do the same thing, right? So, we're all going to watch price to see kind of, ‘Okay, well, how was the market adjusting to the results that we know and to the results that we don't know?’

Because that's how you trade it, right? I mean, if you get big price swings in certain things that look like they're out of bounds because of positioning, you gotta take advantage of that. And vice versa. If you think that the price movement is kind of correct with it, there's probably maybe more momentum if in fact, the market's getting it right.

So this is what makes this so tricky – is that, you know, markets move not just based on the outcome of events or earnings or whatever it might be; but how positioning is. And so, the first two or three days – you know, it's a clearing event. You know, volatility is probably going to come down as we learn the results, no matter who wins. And then you're going to have to figure out, okay, where are things priced correctly? And where are things priced incorrectly? And then I can look at my analysis as to what I actually want to own, as opposed to trade

Andrew Sheets: That's great. And if I could just maybe add one, one thing for my side, you know, Mike – which you mentioned about volatility coming down. I do think that makes a lot of sense. That's something, you know, we're going to be watching on the credit side. If that does not happen, kind of as expected, that would be notable. And I also think what you mentioned about that interplay between, you know, higher yields and higher equities on some sort of initial move – especially if it was, a Republican sweep scenario where I think kind of the consensus view is that might be a 'stocks up yields up' type of type of environment. I think that will be very interesting to watch in terms of do we start to see a different interaction between stocks and yields as we break through some key levels. And I think for the credit market that interaction could certainly matter.

It's great to catch up. Hopefully we'll know a lot more about how this all turned out pretty soon.

Vishy Tirupattur: It's great chatting with both of you, Mike and Andrew.

Mike Wilson: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Fintech and Payments analyst reviews a recent survey that reveals key trends on how Gen Z and Millennials handle their personal finances.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Faucette, Morgan Stanley’s Head of US Fintech and Payments. Today I’ll dig into the way young people in the US approach their finances and why it matters.

It’s Friday, November 1st, at 10am in New York. 

You’d think that Millennials – also commonly known as Gen Y – and Gen Z would come up with new ways to think about money. After all, they live most of their lives online, and don’t always rely on their parents for advice – financial or otherwise. But a survey we conducted suggests the opposite may be true. 

To understand how 16 to 43 year-olds – who make up nearly 40 per cent of the US population – view money, we ran an AlphaWise survey of more than 4,000 US consumers. 

In general, our work suggests that both Millennials and Gen Z’s financial goals, banking preferences, and medium-term aspirations are not much different from the priorities of previous generations. Young consumers still believe family is the most important aspect in life, similar to what we found in our 2018 survey. They have a positive outlook on home ownership, college education, employment, and their personal financial situation. 28-to-43-year-olds have the second highest average annual income among all age cohorts, earning more than $100,000. They spend an average of $86,000 per year, of which more than a third goes toward housing. 

Gen Y and Z largely expect to live in owned homes at a greater rate in five to 10 years, and younger Gen Y cohorts' highest priority is starting a family and raising children in the medium term. This should be a tailwind for many consumer-facing real estate property sectors including retail, residential, lodging and self-storage. However, Gen Y and Z are less mobile today than they were pre-pandemic. Compared to their peers in 2018, they intend to keep living in the same area they're currently living in for the next five to 10 years. 

Gen Y and Z consumers reported higher propensity for saving each month relative to older generations, which could be a potential tailwind for discretionary spending. And travel remains a top priority across age cohorts, which sets the stage for ongoing travel strength and favorable cross-border trends for the major credit card providers. 

In addition to all these findings, our analysis suggests several surprising facts. For example, our survey results contradict the widely accepted notion that younger generations are "credit averse." The vast majority of Gen Z consumers have one or more traditional credit cards – at a similar rate to Gen X and Millennials. Although traditional credit card usage is higher among Millennials and Gen Z than it was in 2018, data suggests this is driven by convenience, not financing needs. Younger people’s borrowing is primarily related to auto and home loans from traditional lenders rather than fintechs. 

Another unexpected finding is that while Gen Y and Z are more drawn to online banking than their predecessors, about 75 per cent acknowledge the importance of physical branch locations – and still prefer to bank with their traditional national, regional, and community banks over online-only providers. What’s more, they also believe physical bank branches will be important long-term. 

Overall, our analysis suggests that generations tend to maintain their key priorities as they age. Whether this pattern holds in the future is something we will continue to watch.

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.

With the US election as a backdrop, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets tells three stories that help encapsulate the state of global credit markets.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll go around the credit world in three short stories. 

It's Thursday, October 31st at 2pm in London.

The US election next Tuesday continues to be a top issue on investor minds, and indeed is a top issue for us here at Thoughts on the Market, where it’s dominating your feed over this week. 

For credit, our positive view this year has been closely tied to the idea that the asset class likes moderation. For example, in data released yesterday the US economy grew a solid 2.8 per cent in the third quarter, while core inflation moderated to just 2.2 per cent, close to the Fed’s target. And Morgan Stanley’s forecasts for the rest of this year and next see that pattern continuing: Solid US Growth, falling inflation, driving steady further rate cuts from the Federal Reserve and all creating a better-than-expected backdrop for credit that should support tighter than average spreads. 

That idea that credit likes moderation is core to how we view the election. Outcomes that could drive larger changes in economic policy, domestic policy or foreign policy, are all larger risks. And outcomes that could drive more moderate outcomes across all of these factors are likely going to be better for credit, in our view. 

But you may also be tired of hearing about the election. And so for you, here is a quick tour of the credit world in three non-election stories. 

In Asia, Korea will be added to the FTSE World Government Bond Index, an important benchmark for global bond investors. This has significant implications across Korean assets, but for Credit, it may be most important for sparking more interest in Corporate Bonds denominated in local Korean Won.

This is a larger market than investors may initially realize, totaling roughly $1 trillion US equivalent in size. And meanwhile, the exposure of foreign investors to this market is historically low. A large market with little global exposure is a potential opportunity. 

Moving to Europe, you could be forgiven for thinking the mood is pretty dour. Growth has been weaker than in the United States, while the US Election is raising questions around everything from disruptions to trans-Atlantic trade, to the future of NATO, to the war in Ukraine. 

But over the last month, flows into European credit have been extremely good. Per work by my colleagues, inflows into European credit have reached record levels over the last several months. The start of rate cuts leading investors to lock in still-attractive all-in yields in Europe is a big part of this story. 

Finally, in the US, we continue to see remarkable shifts in the ease with which investors can trade large volumes of corporate bonds. So-called portfolio trading, where investors buy or sell bonds as a group, continues to grow, with September seeing a new all-time high in activity. Year-to-date, through September, we estimate that roughly $760 billion – with a ‘b’ – has been traded this way. It’s never been easier to trade very large volumes of corporate bonds. 

The US election on November 5th will continue to dominate investor focus over the coming days. As it should. Credit has been an enormous beneficiary of the recent backdrop that’s seen solid growth, moderating inflation, and moderating policy rates. The vote will have an important bearing on whether that moderation continues, or if something new takes its place. 

But away from the election there are other important things happening. Korea’s Local Currency Corporate bond market is a large, underinvested market that may get more attention after index inclusion. European Credit is seeing record flows despite its macro uncertainties, an indicator of underlying investor demand. And in the US, the continued rise of portfolio trading is re-shaping market structure and improving the ability to trade ever larger volumes of corporate bonds. 

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

Oh, and Happy Halloween.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research, Michael Zezas, outlines how investors should navigate the closing days of the presidential campaign -- including a vote-counting period that could extend past Election Day.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today is going to be a little bit different. We’re exactly six days away from the US election. The race is neck-and-neck, and I want to sketch out what investors should expect in the next couple of weeks. 

It’s Wednesday, October 30, at 10 AM in New York.

This is an historic election, and the outcome remains highly uncertain. What’s more, there’s a good chance we won’t know the winner on election night due to close vote counts. My colleagues and I have spent a lot of time on this show trying to give our listeners a sense of how the election might impact different economies around the word as well as markets, sectors, and specific industries. But today I want to take a step back and highlight a few things that investors should keep in mind right now. 

To sum up what we’ve covered so far: The key policies at stake are taxes, tariffs, and immigration. Congressional composition will be critical in determining the extent of tax cut extensions in either win outcome. Domestic, consumer-oriented sectors are most exposed to tax changes, while clean-tech is the most exposed to potential efforts at a repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act. Macro impacts vary depending on the scope of policies and their sequencing, but we see downside risks to growth in a Republican win outcome. 

As our listeners know, a candidate needs 270 Electoral College votes to win. Former President Trump’s most likely path to victory is through the Sun Belt – Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia; while Vice President Harris’ most likely path to victory is through the so-called Blue Wall – Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. 

In terms of the Senate, polling and prediction markets have consistently implied higher likelihood of Republicans winning control. Democrats are defending more seats in states that Trump won in 2020, as well as more seats in states Biden won by a small margin. As far as the House of Representatives, Republicans need 11 of the 25 toss-up seats to maintain control of the House, and Democrats need 15. The generic ballot is the most reliable House indicator, in our view. It’s a political poll which asks not which candidate you plan to vote for to represent you in Congress, but rather which political party – Democrat, Republican or Independent – that you would support. The generic ballot historically correlates with the House winner, and it currently favors Democrats. 

All this leaves us with two key takeaways: 

First, don’t expect conclusive results on election night. Early vote data from key states reflects our view that vote-by-mail levels are lower than in 2020 but still elevated versus historical levels. And it may take days to get all the mail-in votes counted. 

Second, full election results may differ from early returns. Why is that? A candidate may have a deficit in election night vote counts but still come back to win the race once all ballots are counted. This depends on two key variables: The share of the electorate who vote by mail; and the skew among those ballots toward Democrats – a blue shift – or Republicans – a red shift. 

So again, we need to be patient and wait for the final results. And when that happens, we will start digging deep into the post-election outlook for the economy and markets. 

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

Our U.S. Public Policy and Valuation, Accounting & Tax strategists assess the possible scenarios in the upcoming elections, and what they could mean for both taxpayers and the market.

----- Transcript -----

Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US public policy strategist.

Todd Castagno: And I'm Todd Costagno, Head of Global Valuation, Accounting, and Tax Research at Morgan Stanley.

Ariana Salvatore: With less than a week to go until the US election, the race is still neck and neck. Today, we dig into a key issue voters care about: Taxes.

Todd Castagno: It's Tuesday, October 29th at 10am in New York.

So, Ariana. Taxes are an issue that impact both businesses and individuals. It's a key component of both candidates plans and proposals. How have they evolved over the campaign?

Ariana Salvatore: I'd say in general we do tend to see a lot of overlap between Harris' proposals and the ones that the Democrats were campaigning on before she took over the mantle from President Biden in July. That being said, in some instances, her plans go beyond what was requested in the president's fiscal year [20]25 budget request.

For example, that $6,000 credit for newborns and the $25,000 homebuyer tax credit. These are areas where we've seen her campaign go beyond the scope of what Biden was campaigning on while he was still in the race. Of course, it's important to remember that any of these proposals would have to pass muster in a Democrat controlled or a split Congress – meaning that there will be some tempering of these plans at the margin.

Todd Castagno: So former President Trump campaigned in his first election on tax policy. He's campaigning on tax policy in his current campaign. What are his plans and views?

Ariana Salvatore: We've been talking about the Republican sweep outcome as the most deficit expansionary from tax policy changes because Republicans understandably have more fealty to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

That law is set to expire by the end of next year. So, in a Trump win scenario plus Republican Congress, we think you can get most of that 2017 law extended. While in a Trump win scenario with divided government, it's probably a little bit narrower. In general, as I said, deficits skew larger in Republican win outcomes for that reason, with an asymmetry across the other election scenarios. That being said, we do still expect to see deficit expansion in 2026, regardless of who's in power, because these tax cuts will be extended one way or another.

But Todd, you've done a lot of work in this area and there are some substantial impacts from a potential corporate rate increase to think through. Can you give us a little bit of detail on what that kind of increase would mean for stocks and bonds?

Todd Castagno: Yeah. So, investors have been very focused on the rate and where it matters and where it does not matter. So, if you really think about it, most companies that are exposed to a rate increase or decrease are domestic oriented, consumer companies, retail companies, you know, hospital facilities, industrials; those are the most exposed to a rate increase.

Multinationals this time around are less exposed. So, if we go back to 2017, we think about it; that was a different story. We had $2 trillion of trapped cash on the sidelines that did come back – buybacks, dividends, corporate hiring. You know, this time around, that's a different story. So there is exposure but it's mainly consumer-oriented companies.

Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. And you mentioned the 2017 almost as a blueprint for what we saw last time. You mentioned dividends and buybacks.

Do you have any sense of how this time around could be different? What do we think companies would likely spend these tax cuts on?

Todd Castagno: Well, there are tax cuts. I do think it's going to be different. I do think the $2 trillion does not exist. That's not going to happen. So, you're going to have fewer buybacks, fewer dividends. But you could see some changes in employment. You could see some changes in investment. Things like upfront expensing could help boost the economy, higher jobs, et cetera.

One thing, Ariana. You know, tax cuts are expensive. I think that's what we've all contemplated for almost 10 years now. How are we going to pay for these in this new world?

Ariana Salvatore: Well Republicans have proposed a few different pay forwards. But to your point, we're not in the same environment as 2017, and we don't expect to see the same ones that were part of the original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act negotiations this time around. Specifically, former President Trump has talked about not extending the SALT cap, which was a revenue raiser that capped the amount of deductions some individuals could take between state and federal taxes. That provision raised about $900 billion over 10 years.

Republicans in general are mainly focused on peeling back some parts of the IRA – or the Inflation Reduction Act – as a cost saving measure, as well as letting some of the tax cuts from the 2017 law roll off.

We contrast that with the Democrat sweep outcome, where we could see a corporate rate increase to 25 per cent in our view, in spite of Harris’ pledge to bring it up to 28 per cent from the current 21 per cent.

Todd Castagno: So, we could talk about the Inflation Reduction Act for a second. You know, that was a bill that was designed to bring energy, clean energy manufacturing back to the United States.

It was a very large bill; it was partisan. But what do we think about in this next election outcome of actually repealing some of those items?

Ariana Salvatore: It's a great question. And Republicans on the campaign trail have been talking a lot about peeling back the IRA. Importantly, in our view, we don't think a full-scale repeal is likely even in a Republican sweep outcome. There are a few reasons for that, but mainly because if you look at where these projects are being located, it's in Republican held states and districts. And Republicans in the house currently have said that they're not interested in rolling back the law. That being said, there are ways to potentially cap the amount of outstanding money that has not yet been allocated.

And the president could work with the treasury or other federal agencies to tighten up some of the criteria or the guidance around accessing some of the tax credits that will limit the overall deployment.

Todd Castagno: I think the recent Supreme Court decision also plays into that.

With candidates’ tax plans – I’ve run a lot of numbers from a company perspective. You've run a lot of numbers top down from a deficit perspective. What did you come to view?

Ariana Salvatore: We do see deficits expanding in 2026 and beyond. That's because, in our view, it's not really in lawmakers’ interest to allow all of the tax cuts – both individual and corporate – from 2017 to expire. We think the largest extension, as I mentioned before, comes in a Republican sweep. But in general, in some form or another, we think that at least a portion of these lower tax rates are going to stay around.

That adds $2.8 trillion to the deficit over 10 years on the high end per our estimates; and $700 billion over 10 years in our smallest expansion scenario, a Democrat sweep.

So finally, Todd, in either win outcome, what's the timeline of key tax-related events that investors should be paying attention to?

Todd Castagno: So, this is the trillion-dollar question. So, most of the individual side of the tax cuts and jobs act expires at the end of 2025. There are certain business provisions that have already started to phase out. There are certain provisions that are permanent, like the corporate rate.

When will Congress get to this? They will get to it at some point, but we just don't know when that is. Could it be early 2025? Could it be 2026? And I think investors should pay attention to that because Congress doesn't always act on time; and we also don't know what the extensions will look like. Some things could be extended three years, five years, 10 years. Some things could be permanent.

So that's the jigsaw puzzle that we'll have to put together after the election.

Ariana Salvatore: Great. Well, I guess three things in life are certain – death, taxes, and the fact that we will be following this issue very closely.

Todd, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Todd Castagno: Great to speak with you.

Ariana Salvatore: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As the U.S. presidential race continues to be neck and neck according to opinion polls, our Chief Fixed Income Strategist considers the possible market implications if some policies proposed during this campaign are implemented.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about understanding market dynamics against the backdrop of U.S. elections. 

It's Monday, Oct 28th at 1 pm in New York.

The outcome of the U.S. elections, now just over a week away, has been at the center of every discussion I have had in the last several days. There have been significant moves, not so much in the opinion polls – but in prediction markets. In the opinion polls, the presidential race remains tight and neck-to-neck in key swing states with poll numbers well within the margin of error. But some prediction markets have shifted meaningfully toward Republicans in the contests for both the presidency and control of Congress. 

Financial markets have also moved a lot. Stocks exposed to a Republican win outcome have risen a fair bit. 

To understand the potential policy changes that can have an impact on markets, I think it is crucial to understand the sequencing of those policy changes. 

Given the moves in the prediction markets, let us first frame a Trump win scenario. It seems reasonable to bucket the possible shifts into three categories – fiscal policy, immigration controls, and tariffs. 

Meaningful changes in fiscal policy require control of both houses of Congress; and even in a Republican sweep, scenario legislation would still be time-consuming and likely come last. We don’t really have many details on how changes to immigration policy would be implemented and so their timing remains very unclear. On the other hand, given broad presidential discretion on trade policy, Trump’s expressed intentions in his campaign messaging, and the precedent of his first term, tariff changes would likely come first.

Our economists have looked at the potential impact of tariffs on the economy. They concluded that broad tariffs imply downside risks to growth through declines in consumption, investment spending, payrolls, and labor income, and upside risks to inflation. Their estimates suggest that imposing all the tariffs currently under discussion could result in a delayed drag of -1.4 per cent on real GDP growth and a more rapid boost of 0.9 per cent to inflation. 

How do we reconcile the equity market’s reaction to the increasing odds of a Trump win in some prediction markets with the idea that there will be a drag on GDP growth and boost to inflation that our economists assess? 

Two explanations. Markets could be counting on the prospect that all tariffs would not be imposed. Or at least would be sequenced over an extended period, with some coming much later than others. Also, markets could be putting greater emphasis on the revival of “animal spirits” driven by expectations of regulatory easing, which is hard to define or quantify.

Let us look at other markets. 

In the bond markets, treasury yields have risen notably in the last month. Many investors see the Republican sweep outcome as most bearish for US Treasuries, based on the experience of the 2016 election. As Matt Hornbach, our global head of macro strategy has noted, there are meaningful differences between the Fed’s monetary policy today and the pre-election period in 2016, suggesting that any rise in Treasury yields would be more contained this time, even in a Republican sweep outcome. 

In 2016, markets were pricing in about 30 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months. Contrast that to the current market expectation of about 135 basis points in rate cuts over the next 12 months. Also, in the year after the 2016 election, expectations for the Fed Funds Rate rose nearly 125 basis points. A similar rise in expectations for Fed policy now would require market participants to expect the Fed to stop cutting immediately; and refrain from further cuts through 2025. This seems like a remote possibility – even under a Republican sweep elections scenario. 

Given the recent moves across markets and the expectations they are pricing in, markets may now be somewhat offside should Harris win, as they would have to reverse the course. 

Elections are a known unknown. Based on opinion polls, this race remains extremely tight, and multiple combinations of presidential and congressional outcomes are very much in play. We must also contend with the prospect that determining the outcome may take much longer this time.

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

After decades of offshoring, the pendulum for US manufacturing is swinging back toward domestic production. Our US Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder looks at what’s behind this trend.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley’s US Multi-Industry Analyst. Today I’ll discuss the far-reaching implications of shifting industrial production back to the United States. 

It’s Friday, October 25th, at 10am in New York.

Global manufacturing is undergoing a seismic shift, and the United States is at the epicenter of this transformation. After decades of offshoring and relying on international supply chains, the pendulum is swinging back toward domestic production. This movement – known as reshoring – is not just a fleeting trend but a strategic realignment of manufacturing capabilities that is indicative of the “multipolar” theme playing out globally.

In fact, we believe the US is entering the early innings of re-Industrialization – a multi-decade opportunity that we size at $10 trillion and think has the potential to restore growth to the US industrial economy following more than 20 years of stagnation. 

The reshoring of manufacturing to the US is fueled by a combination of factors that are making domestic production both viable and lucrative. While the initial sparks were ignited by policy changes, including tariffs and trade agreements, the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the risks of elongated supply chains and over-dependence on foreign manufacturing.

Meanwhile, the diffusion of cutting-edge technologies, such as automation, artificial intelligence, and advanced robotics, has diminished the cost advantages of low-wage countries. The US -- with its robust tech sector and innovation ecosystem -- is uniquely positioned to leverage technology to revitalize its manufacturing base. 

Who are the direct beneficiaries? High-tech sectors, such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and advanced manufacturing systems, are likely to be the biggest winners. Traditional industrial sectors, such as automotive and aerospace, are also seeing a resurgence. Finally, companies that invest in more sustainable manufacturing processes stand to gain from both policy-driven incentives and a growing market demand. All told, these businesses should see shorter supply chains, reduced legal and tariff costs, and a more resilient operational structure. 

As for the broader US economy? We think the implications are pretty profound. In altering the US industrial landscape, reshoring promises not only to boost GDP growth, but it could also stabilize and potentially reverse the trade deficits that have plagued the US economy for years.

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.

Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Research Product Paul Walsh speaks to Betsy Graseck, Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance, and Bruce Hamilton, European Asset Managers Diversified Financials Analyst, about the implications of increasing life expectancy for the financial industry.

----- Transcript -----

Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product, and today we dig into a topic that really affects us all. Retirement.

Life cycles are extending as people are living longer, healthier lives. Coupled with government pension funds that are increasingly under pressure, this means that consumers will need to build much more robust investment plans to substitute for salaries to carry them through a longer retirement.

And to understand more about the changing financial needs and challenges of an aging population, I'm delighted to be joined by my colleagues, Betsy Graseck, Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance, and Bruce Hamilton, our European Asset Managers Diversified Financials Analyst.

It's Thursday, October the 24th at 3pm in London.

Betsy Graseck: And it's 10 am in New York.

Paul Walsh: Now Bruce, let's start with you. As people live longer, they will likely spend more time in retirement. Managing and ensuring retirement income over a longer duration could have a significant impact on asset management. What are the broad trends you're seeing in the industry right now?

Bruce Hamilton: So, the asset management industry in large part has focused on the accumulation phase of investors journey. Whilst this remains critical as people build assets for retirement – and we see growing allocations from affluent investors to private markets as a trend which is likely to be reinforced by the aging theme – there's a significant need for decumulation products and solutions that can offer returns and income over a prolonged retirement.

We see a lot of innovation as asset managers look to develop products to meet this need.

Paul Walsh: So Betsy, people are living longer. How ready are consumers for retirement? Are most retirement plans or similar financial services ready to handle this challenge?

Betsy Graseck: Some are ready. But given how rapidly the global population is aging, there is an increasing need to provide solutions to individuals. Just to put a number on it, the global population that is 65 years old or older in the year 2000 was only 7 per cent. This is set to hit 10 per cent next year in 2025 and 16 per cent in 2050. All groups need service and advice – with the affluent group needing the most increase in services especially if government pension funds come under more pressure.

Paul Walsh: So, I think you set the scene really well there, Betsy, and I guess the obvious question is, how can wealth and financial planners best respond, do you think? Is it by creating new products? Or do we need a much deeper transformation?

Betsy Graseck: We see individuals today having a wide range of retirement choices. What we feel they really need here is personalized, customized advice, delivering solutions that can address their unique needs. These span from affluent individuals needing salary replacement strategies to high-net-worth individuals looking for philanthropic and wealth transfer strategies. A focus on integrated, personalized advice, innovative products, and high-quality service that meets clients as they wish to connect effectively will be critical.

Paul Walsh: It seems to me that it is – but is this a positive for the financial services sector? And if so, what do you think is the size of this revenue opportunity and over what time period do you think?

Betsy Graseck: Well, the way we've looked at this is across the global asset manager and global wealth manager industry, as they will be the ones called upon to address these needs. And we do see a roughly 30 per cent uplift in global revenues by 2028, which equates to [$]400 billion in incremental revenues across the global industry.

And that is driven by the expansion of individuals looking for advice, in particular from the affluent group, as well as an increase in fee-based products to address the income needs.

Paul Walsh: And there's some big numbers that you've quoted there, Betsy. So let's dig into the financial subsector and industries. What are the biggest untapped opportunities there?

Betsy Graseck: Well, the number one is the affluent customer base that we do see having the biggest need for advice, relative to advice seeking today. And as that group, reaches out and receives advice from wealth channels, that is one major driver here. The second driver is the increase in fee-based products to service the income replacement needs.

Paul Walsh: And what are the biggest challenges do you think? Obviously, we've talked about the opportunity there, but the biggest challenges to financial services that you see along the way.

Betsy Graseck: Well, the way I think about this is what is required to be a winner, and the winners need to be able to integrate their entire organizations to deliver for clients. And also leverage technology efficiently and effectively to be able not only to deliver the highest quality service in the way the client wants to be serviced; but also to optimize cost structures, which then can get reinvested – you know, higher pretext getting reinvested into the business.

The challenges are the opposite of institutions that remain siloed and institutions that have, you know, maybe a tech strategy that is not set to respond to the needs of this client set.

Paul Walsh: Thanks for that, Betsy; and Bruce, I just want to pivot back to you. Some asset managers are partnering with insurance companies to offer guaranteed income streams and wealth transfer solutions. What are some of the successful models that you've seen so far?

Bruce Hamilton: So, asset managers are adopting a range of approaches. Some have acquired insurance subsidiaries, some have taken significant minority stakes, while others have looked to deepen partnerships with insurance. Trade offs include the degree of control versus the capital intensity that ownership of insurance brings. So, we see more than one route, but a continued push towards greater collaboration between asset managers and insurers.

Given the potential for the asset managers to access stable, permanent capital, that can then be deployed in a range of investment strategies to offer diversified sources of income via private or structured credit to support returns for the end insurance clients.

Theoretically, the best place models to deliver retirement solutions will have elements of wealth advice, plus a hybrid asset management insurance product approach. Given the importance of providing investors with regular and variable income, a guaranteed minimum level of income, plus an ability to generate a return to offer potential for legacy to pass to heirs.

Paul Walsh: And of course, Bruce, it's very difficult to talk about product innovation, without bringing in the topic of AI. As asset managers are working to create ever more personalized retirement solutions as we've heard, how and to what extent do you think they are leveraging AI?

Bruce Hamilton: So, our interviews with a range of management players confirmed that many of the potential use cases being worked on 12 months ago have now been put into production. It's still early days, and so far, most use cases are focused on areas that can drive efficiencies.

So, for example, in RFP report writing, synthesis of research, and some of the middle and back-office processes for asset managers. But over time, AI can clearly feed more bespoke client service by wealth and asset managers with areas such as customized investment proposals and financial planning offering potential.

Paul Walsh: Fascinating topic. Betsy and Bruce, thank you so much for taking the time to talk.

It's clear that increasing lifespans are reshaping the financials sector by driving product innovation, influencing asset allocation strategies, and, of course, creating new market opportunities.

And to our listeners, thanks as always for taking the time to listen in. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please do leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

Our Chief Europe Economist Jens Eisenschmidt and Europe Equity Strategist Regiane Yamanari discuss the strain of an aging population on the future of Europe’s economy and markets.

----- Transcript -----

Jens Eisenschmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist.

Regiane Yamanari: And I’m Regiane Yamanari from the European Equity Strategy Team.

Jens Eisenschmidt: Today we are discussing one of the most urgent challenges Europe is facing right now, a declining working age population – and its implication for Europe's economy and potential solutions.

It’s Wednesday, October 23rd, at 3 pm in Frankfurt.

Regiane Yamanari: And 2 pm in London.

So Jens, people are getting older around the world, living longer. Although the rate of change is different from country to country, can you tell us what's the situation in Europe right now?

Jens Eisenschmidt: Yes, Europe faces a declining working age population, so much is sure. We have just put out a big report, where we come up with numbers around this issue. We think for the large four Euro area countries – Germany, France, Italy, and Spain – we see a decline in Euro area working population by 2040 by 6.4 per cent. People also get older, so that doesn't necessarily mean the overall population is declining by as much. It simply means that working age population, as a sort of most direct, relevant measure for the economy, is declining.

Regiane Yamanari: Why does an aging population hamper economic growth?

Jens Eisenschmidt: So, think about the economy producing, in a very stylized sense, with two factors. One is capital and the other one is labor. And typically, these two factors are connected. So, you can't really produce just with one factor. Typically, you need at least some labor to produce something or at least some machinery to produce something with labor.

So we just; I mean, it's a very simple way of looking at the economy, but typically very powerful in explaining what's going on. So, if we take this approach and look at our economy through the lens of these two factors and we have one factor declining significantly, this will affect the amount the economy can produce.

So, we are talking here about so-called potential growth or potential output. And we think the declining working age population will lead to a decline in potential output. For the Euro area economies I was just mentioning, we think it could be around 4 per cent over the period 2000, from now to 2040. And that amounts to on an annual basis around 25 basis points lower growth potential.

Regiane Yamanari: Suppose policy makers want to boost Europe's working age population, which they do. What options do they have? Which European countries most benefit from these policies or options?

Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, the oldest policy measure, or if you want the most discussed one, typically has been birth rates.

Now, many of the policies being implemented here – and they have been implemented for decades already – have been found to be not really changing [the] situation in a profound way. So, birth rates have either stopped increasing again or actually continued dropping. So, policy makers’ attention probably for this reason has turned to other measures.

Other measures we think of here mostly in the current debate is increasing net migration, so you're basically getting your working age population replenished to some extent from the outside. Changing participation pattern in your own domestic labor market – typically, it's framed around the question, how much or how high is the share of one cohort versus the other.

For instance, males versus females. We have countries where there is a large gap between these two groups, just to name an example here. And you know, closing that gap could help you increasing or offset; some of the projected decline in working age population.

Another measure that's often discussed is increasing, retirement age. So essentially working age population is defined by those age between 15 and 64. And of course, if you work for longer, so you increase retirement age, that will also help, to stem against some of the projected decline in working age population.

Now, if you look around for the countries that we are discussing in the report, um, then there are different ways these policies affect these countries.

So, for instance, in Italy, closing the gap between male and female labor force participation would offset a large part of the projected fall in its working age population because that gap is so large. In France, in terms of our numbers, the most effective measure would be increasing the retirement age. And again, in Germany and Spain, it would probably be migration policies that are most effective.

Okay now let's consider the alternative, Regiane. Suppose nothing changes. There are fewer and fewer working age people in Europe. How would this affect companies earning growth?

Regiane Yamanari: So, if there are no policy action, and here assuming all else equal, I mean, no change in productivity, for example. Due to a lower GDP growth, we estimate the headwinds of European demographics could lower companies long term earnings growth by 90 basis points. So, from 5.1 to 4.2 per cent by the end of the decade. And this compares to an average growth of 6.4 per cent that we had in the past 10 years.

Jens Eisenschmidt: And how would this be reflected in the stock market?

Regiane Yamanari: Yeah, so potential lower earnings growth is negative for European equities, right? But it's worth highlighting two points here. First, is that European companies have been diversifying their activities and revenues across the globe in the recent decades. And the revenue exposure of European companies to develop Europe, including the UK has reached a 30-year low. So, we estimate that just 38 per cent of European companies’ revenues are generated in develop Europe, on a free flow market cap weighted basis.

And second, I think we see this impact being more idiosyncratic at sector at stock level. Just to give an example, so we have this factor analysis that we have done. We found that companies reducing headcount in Europe have been outperforming companies increasing. So in our view, this impact, it will be idiosyncratic, and it will depend by sector and the the stock.

Jens Eisenschmidt: What sectors and industries then do you expect to be most affected by an aging population and the declining labor force?

Regiane Yamanari: Yeah, so first of all, I think one thing to mention is that it's very clear that the theme of, aging population is gaining traction in European C-suite commentary. So we found using AlphaSense Large Language Model, when we analyze companies transcripts, a notable rise in mentions of aging population – and in particular, if we compare to the US, to the US companies, we know that labor intensive industries like kept goods, construction and materials, business services are among those at the top of the list.

And those mentions have been increasing in most cases when we compare to the average of the last five years.

Jens Eisenschmidt: So how are companies adjusting their business models to account for these challenging demographic trends? 

Regiane Yamanari: So we see, for example, industrial automation, robotics, and software adoption accelerating in the face of declining working age population across Europe, which might surprise some people as some people is relatively under-penetrated by technology.

Regiane Yamanari: For example, if we look at industrial robot density in Germany, that is less than half of South Korea. And there are some sectors, for example, like hospitality that our analyst has flagged that the companies have been changing and adopting initiatives related to recruitment, technology adoption, portfolio rationalization – just a few examples here – and adjusting their business models as well to navigate a scenario of reduced labor availability and higher costs. And well, not to mention AI, which we have seen a rapid development and pace of adoption as well.

Jens Eisenschmidt: I'm glad you mentioned AI. It was on my mind. I was about to ask you. So, what do you think, uh, the role of AI could be in helping with the demographic challenge?

Regiane Yamanari: Our view is mainly on productivity gains. So, we them to start materializing, but they are likely to be small and grow consistently over time. An important portion of AI adopter companies cost base are related to R&D, marketing, distribution costs – and these areas we still are to see broad based application of AI, if this is really to be meaningful at the corporate level or even a national level.

So the way we see is that the productivity gains being reflected on margins, but still to be small at this level.

Jens Eisenschmidt: So, this one remains to be seen. We will surely be watching closely whether AI can deliver what it seems to be promising to generate productivity gains to offset the demographic challenge.

Regiane, thanks a lot for taking the time to talk.

Regiane Yamanari: Great speaking with you, Jens.

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

Our Medical Technology expert analyzes the medical potential and market opportunity in technology that allows direct communication between the human brain and an external device.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kallum Titchmarsh, from Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Medical Technology Team. On today’s episode – a dive into a topic that sounds like it’s straight out of science fiction. Brain Computer Interfaces, or BCIs.

It’s Tuesday, October 22, at 10 AM in New York.

The latest version of Tony Stark – better known as his alter ego Iron Man – is a good example of a brain computer interface. When the billionaire businessman-inventor is critically wounded, he builds an armor suit that gives him superhuman abilities. Flying through air. Clearing out obstacles with repulsor blasts. Shooting enemies with guided missiles. All controlled by his brain. 

This, of course, is the stuff of science fiction. Real world examples of brain computer interfaces – or BCIs – aren’t fantastical. But they are fascinating. Translating thoughts into actions like generating text on a screen or moving a robotic limb.

BCIs have been in development for more than a century, but recent advances have brought them much closer to becoming a reality. We expect to see BCIs in commercial medical use in about five years, at which point they can help treat a wide range of health disorders, from motor neuron disease – such as ALS – to depression. 

The market opportunity for BCIs looks enormous – $400 billion of total addressable market – or TAM – in the US alone. This figure includes two types of BCIs: enabling BCIs, which facilitate behaviors like moving a cursor on a screen, and preventive BCIs, which can prevent adverse events like depressive states or epileptic seizures. 

We divide the BCI healthcare opportunity into two segments: early TAM and intermediate TAM. The early TAM includes individuals with critical upper limb impairment and select variants of neurological conditions like epilepsy and depression. These patients will likely be the first to receive a BCI. The intermediate TAM includes patients with moderate upper limb impairment and severe lower limb impairment. As BCI technology develops, these patients will eventually become eligible for treatment. 

There are at least 2.8 million patients in the US forming the early TAM and an additional 6.8 million within the intermediate TAM. Together, these groups represent the $400 billion of potential revenue I already mentioned based on a single implant procedure. 

The opportunity may be significantly larger when factoring for potential replacement cycles and recurring revenues from software upgrades. But while the estimated TAM is indeed vast, we think penetration will remain limited through the first 20 years of launch. By 2035, we expect just under $1.5 billion of revenue to be generated from BCI implant procedures, hitting north of a $500 million annual run rate in 2036, and reaching the $1 billion annual run rate by 2041. 

It’s exciting to think BCIs will begin their healthcare application in the coming years, but we anticipate a number of regulatory hurdles on the way to widespread adoption in healthcare and beyond. Will BCIs push into fields like neurogaming, warfare, and even biological optimization of humans? 

The potential is certainly there, and with it the burden of the safe and responsible use of this cutting-edge technology. 

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

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist explains his preference for cyclical stocks amid a rise in global money supply and current US election dynamics.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about our recent upgrade of quality cyclicals and how it will be affected by the US election and liquidity.

It's Monday, Oct 21st at 11:30am in New York. 

So let’s get after it. 

We continue to have conviction in our recent cyclical shift and Financials upgrade. Indeed, cyclicals traded well last week as most economic data came in stronger than expected. It’s worth noting we recommend investors stay up the quality curve within the cyclical space, however. While Financials have been the best performing sector in the S&P 500 since our upgrade, institutional investors remain under-exposed to Financials based on our data suggesting the sector can run further. 

In addition to better economic data, there are other factors affecting pro-cyclical stocks. We are focused on two, in particular. The election and global liquidity. 

We believe a Trump win with a split Congress would provide a pro-cyclical bias with small caps keeping pace with large caps. The markets seem to agree, with the recent cyclicals outperformance led by financials. Meanwhile, consumer stocks negatively exposed to tariff risks under a Trump win have underperformed. Interestingly, there is some overlap between this recent leadership and the post Biden debate period in early July as well as the months surrounding the 2016 election. Finally, we've also witnessed higher interest rates and a stronger US Dollar more recently, which is something to watch closely as a possible headwind for liquidity post election and into 2025. 

While some argue a Trump win would be a headwind for growth and equity markets, due to tariff risks and slower immigration, we think there's an additional element from the 2016 experience that’s worth considering—rising animal spirits. More specifically, in 2016 Trump's pro-business approach led to the largest three-month positive impact on small business confidence in the past 40 years. It also translated into a spike in individual investor sentiment. It appears to me that markets may be trying to front-run a repeat of this outcome as Trump's win in 2016 came as a surprise to pundits and markets alike.

This also means a Harris win could lead to some reversion in terms of overall equity market performance and leadership. Most notably, bonds could potentially rally with defensive and quality growth stocks doing better like earlier this year. Secondarily, even with a Trump win, certain areas of the market may be vulnerable to a ‘sell the news’ phenomena if the upside is already priced amid bullish positioning. 

On this front, we would also point out that the economic set-up today is very different than the 2016 period when the economy had much more slack and could absorb additional pro-cyclical policies like tax cuts or other forms of fiscal stimulus.

Turning to liquidity, we note that global money supply in US dollars has surged at an 18 per cent annualized rate since the end of June. I believe this has also had a positive effect on equity prices, not to mention credit spreads, precious metals, cryptocurrencies and real estate. 

Bottom line, in the absence of a major swing in election probabilities or global liquidity between now and the election, equity markets are likely to trade with a bullish tilt both at the index level and from a style, sector, factor standpoint. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses why uncertainty around the election’s outcome could be detrimental for credit investors.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the US Election, and how it might matter for Credit. 

It's Friday, October 18th, at 4pm in London. 

Morgan Stanley’s positive view on credit this year has been anchored on a simplistic thesis. Credit is an asset class that hates extremes, as it faces losses if a company fails, but doesn’t earn extra if that company’s profits double or even triple. Credit, to an unusual degree, is an asset class that loves moderation. 

And here at Morgan Stanley, we’ve been forecasting … a lot of moderation. Moderate growth for the U.S. and Europe. Moderating inflation, that continues to fall into next year. And a moderation of central bank interest rates, rather than the type of sharp declines that you tend to see around recessions; as we think Fed funds will settle in a little bit below three-and-a-half per cent by the middle of next year. This moderate economy, coupled with moderate levels of corporate aggressiveness should be music to a credit investor’s ears, and support richer-than-average valuations, in our view. 

So how does the upcoming U.S. election on November 5th fit into this otherwise benign picture? 

Who runs a government matters, especially when it’s the government of the world’s largest and strongest economy. This election is also notable for the differences between the two candidates, who are presenting sharply contrasting visions of economic, domestic and foreign policy. Against this backdrop, we suggest credit investors try to keep a few things top of mind. 

First, and most broadly, the idea that “credit likes moderation” remains our north star. Outcomes that could drive larger changes of economic policy, or larger uncertainty in policy in general, are probably going to be a larger risk for credit.

Second, of all the various policies under discussion, tariffs feel especially important as they can be largely implemented without congressional approval, and are thus far easier to see go into effect. Tariff proposals could create significant dispersion at the single-name level in credit, and pose significant risks for sectors like retail, which import a large share of their ultimate goods. For time-limited investors, tariffs are the policy area where we’d spend the most time – and where much of our Credit Research around the election has been focused. 

Third, it’s notable that as we head into this election, expected volatility, in equities or credit, is elevated even as the stock market sits near all time highs, and credit spreads are historically low. So this begs the question. Do these options markets know something that the rest of the market does not? We’re skeptical. Historically, when you’ve seen high volatility alongside all-time-highs in the market – and it’s not all that common – it’s tended to be a positive short-term indicator, rather than a negative one. And one way we could perhaps explain this is that it suggests that investors are still a little bit nervous, and not as positive as they otherwise could be. 

The U.S. election is close in time, uncertain in outcome, and has stakes for future policy. That high implied volatility we see at the moment, in our view, could reflect known unknowns, rather than some hidden factor. Tariff policy, being largely independent of congress and thus easier to implement, is probably the most relevant for single-name credit exposures. And most broadly, credit likes moderation, and should do best in outcomes that are more likely to achieve that.  

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.