Thoughts on the Market

Our Head of European Sustainability Research Rachel Fletcher talks about how AI’s is quickly reshaping employment and productivity across key industries and regions.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Rachel Fletcher: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Rachel Fletcher, Head of European Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, how AI is shaking up the global job market. It's Friday, February 20th at 2pm in London. You've probably asked yourself when all the excitement around AI is going to move beyond demos and headlines, and start showing up in ways that matter to your job, your investments, and even your day-to-day life. Our latest global AlphaWise AI survey suggests that the turning point may already be unfolding – especially in the labor market where AI is beginning to influence hiring, productivity, and workplace skills. Our survey covered the U.S., UK, Germany, Japan, and Australia, across five sectors where we see a significant AI adoption benefit. Consumer staples, distribution in retail, real estate, transportation, healthcare, equipment and services, and autos. We found that AI contributed to 11 percent of jobs being eliminated over the past 12 months, with another 12 percent not backfilled. These job cuts were partially offset by 18 percent new hires, which results in a net 4 percent global job loss. It's important to note that the survey focused on companies that had already been adopting AI for at least a year. In fact, most of the companies in our survey had been adopting AI for more than two years. So, this is likely the most significant downside case in terms of the impact of AI on jobs, but it is still an early signal of potential job disruption. In Europe, the picture is nuanced. The UK saw the highest net job loss at 8 percent. This was primarily driven by a lower level of new hires in the UK compared to other countries that we surveyed, as well as a high level of positions not backfilled. This compares to Germany, which posted a 4 percent net job loss in line with the all-country average. There could be some other factors amplifying the impact in the UK. For example, broader labor market weakness driven by higher labor costs and higher levels of unemployment amongst younger workers. Ultimately, disentangling AI from macro forces remains challenging. Moving to sector impacts in Europe, autos experience the largest net job loss at 13 percent, and this compares to a 10 percent global average for the sector. It's possible these numbers reflect persistent sales weakness, and AI driven cost cutting. Transportation was least affected at 3 percent, whilst other sectors clustered around 6 to 7 percent. If we look at the top quintile of European companies reducing headcount, they've outperformed other companies that are more actively hiring. This suggests that investors are rewarding efficiency. On the downside, staffing firms face potential growth risks from AI displacement. On productivity, European firms report 10 to 11 percent gains from AI, close to the 11.5 percent global average, and the U.S. at 10.8 percent. It's worth noting that whilst Europe lags the U.S. in exposure to AI enablers, adopters and adopter enablers make up more than two-thirds of the MSCI Europe Index. However, European AI adopters have traded at a material discount versus their equivalent U.S. AI adoption peers. So, turning AI adoption into real ROI and defending pricing power is crucial for European companies. If we shift our focus to the U.S., there's a contrast. Whilst the global net job change was a 4 percent loss, the U.S. actually saw a 2 percent net gain, driven by AI related hiring. Our U.S. strategists have lifted expectations for S&P 500 margin expansion by 40 basis points in 2026 and 60 basis points in 2027. In our survey, the most frequently cited goals of AI deployment in the U.S. are boosting productivity, personalizing customer interactions, and accelerating data insights. Other common use cases include search, content generation, dashboards, and virtual agents. What's becoming clear is AI is no longer theoretical. Our survey data suggests that it is reshaping hiring, productivity and margins. The investor question is not whether AI matters, but who captures the value. 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 FX and EM Strategy James Lord and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss what’s driving the U.S. policy for the dollar and the outlook for other global currencies.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----James Lord: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Lord, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter:  And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. James Lord: Today we're talking about U.S. currency policy and whether recent news on intervention and nominations to the Fed change anything for the outlook of the dollar. It's Thursday, February 19th at 3pm in London. So it's been an interesting few weeks in currency markets. Plenty of dollar selling going on But then, we got  news that Kevin Warsh is going to be nominated to  Chair of the Board of Governors. And that sent the dollar back higher, reminding everybody that monetary policy and central bank policy still matter.    So, in the aftermath of the dollar-yen rate check, investors started to discuss whether or not the U.S. might be starting to target a weaker currency. Not just be comfortable with a weaker currency, but actually explicitly target a weaker currency, which would presumably be a shift away from the stronger strong dollar policy that Secretary Bessent referenced. So, what is your understanding? What do you think the strong dollar policy actually means? Seth Carpenter: Strong dollar policy,  that's a phrase, that's a term; it's a concept that lots of Secretaries of the Treasury have used for a long time. And I specifically point to the Secretary of the Treasury because at least in the recent couple of decades, there has been in  standard Washington D.C. approach to things, a strong dichotomy that currency policy is the policy of the Treasury Department, not of the central bank. And that's always been important. I remember when I was working at the Treasury Department, that was still part of the talking points that the secretary used. However, you also hear Secretaries of the Treasury say that exchange rates should be market determined; that that's a key part of it. And with the back and forth between the U.S. and China, for example, there was a lot of discussion: Was the Chinese government  adjusting or manipulating the value of their currency? And there was a push that currencies should be market determined. And so, if you think about those two things, at the same time – pushing really hard that the dollar should be strong, pushing really hard that currencies should be market determined – you start to very quickly run into a bit of an intellectual tension. And I think all of that is pretty intentional. What does it mean?  It means that there's no single clear definition of strong dollar policy. It's a little bit of the eye of the beholder. It's an acknowledgement that the dollar plays a clear key role in global markets, and it's good for the U.S. for that to happen. That's traditionally been what it means. But it has not meant a specific number relative to any other currency or any basket of currency. It has not meant a specific value based on some sort of long run theoretical fair value. It is always meant to be a very vague,  deliberately so, very vague concept. James Lord: So, in that version of what the strong dollar policy means,  presumably the sort of ambiguity still  leaves space for the Treasury to conduct some kind of intervention in dollar-yen, if they wanted to. And that would still be very much consistent with that definition of the strong dollar policy. I also, in the back of my head, always wonder whether the strong dollar policy has anything to do with the dollar's  global role. And the sort of foreign policy power that gives the Treasury in sanctions policy. And other areas where, you know, they can control dollar flows and so on. And that gives the U.S. government some leverage. And that allows them to project strength in foreign policy. Has that anything to do with the traditional versions of the strong policy?  Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think all of that is part and parcel to it. But it also helps to explain a little bit of why there's never going to be a very crisp, specific numerical definition of what a strong dollar policy is.So, first and foremost, I think the discussion of intervention; I think it is, in lots of ways, consistent, especially if you have that more expansive definition of strong dollar, i.e. the currency that's very important, or most important in global financial markets and in global trade. So, I think in that regard, you could have both the intervention and the strong dollar at the same time. I will add though that the administration has not had a clear, consistent view in this regard, in the following very specific sense. When now Governor Myron was chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, he penned a piece on the Council of Economics website that said that the reserve currency status of the dollar had brought with it some adverse effects on the U.S., and in terms of what happened in terms of trade flows and that sort of thing.So again, this administration has also tried to find ways to increase the nuance about what the currency policy is, and putting forward the idea that too strong of a dollar in the FX sense. In the sense that you and your colleagues in FX markets would think about is a high valuation of the dollar relative to other currencies – could have contributed to these trade deficits that they're trying to push back against. So, I would say we went from the previous broad, perhaps vague definition of strong dollar. And now we're in an even murkier regime where there could be other motivations for changing the value of the dollar. Seth Carpenter:  So, James, that's been our view in terms of the Fed, but let me come back to you because there are lots of different forces going on at the same time. The central bank is clearly an important one, but it's only one factor among many. So, if you think about where the dollar is likely to go over the next three months, over the next six months, maybe over the next year, what is it that you and your team are looking for? Where are the questions that you're getting from clients? James Lord: Yeah, so when we came into the start of this year, we did have a bearish view on the dollar. I would say that the drivers of it, we'd split up into two components. The first component was a lot more of the conventional stuff about growth expectations, what we see the Fed doing. And then there was another component to it where – what we defined as risk premia, I suppose. The more unconventional catalysts that can push the dollar around, as we saw, come very much to market attention during the second quarter of last year, when the Liberation Day tariffs were announced and the dollar weakened far in excess of what rate differentials would imply. And so, I would say so far this year, the majority of the dollar move that we've seen, the weakening in the dollar that we've seen, has been driven by that second component. What we've kind of called risk premia. And the conversations that, you know, investors have been having about U.S. policy towards Greenland, and then more recently, the conversations that people have been having around FX intervention following the dollar-yen rate check. These sorts of things have been really driving the currency up until , when the Kevin Warsh nomination was announced. When we look at the extent of the risk premia that we see in the dollar now, it is pretty close to the levels that we saw in the second quarter of last year, which is to say it's pretty big. Euro dollar would probably be closer to 1-10, if we were just thinking about the impact of rate differentials and none of this risk premia stuff over the past year had materialized. That's obviously a very big gap. And I think for now that gap probably isn't going to widen much further, particularly now that  market attention is much more focused on the impact that Kevin Warsh will have on markets and the dollar. We also have, you know, the ECB and the Bank of England;  , house call for those two central banks is for them to be cutting rates.    That could also put some downward pressure on those currencies, relative to the dollar. So all of that is to say for some of the major currencies within the G10 space, like sterling, like euro against the dollar, this probably isn't the time to be pushing a weaker dollar. But I think there are some other currencies which still have some opportunity in the short term, but also over the longer run as well. And that's really in emerging markets. So all of that is to say, I think there is a strong monetary policy anchor for emerging market currencies. This is an asset class that has been under invested in for some time. And we do think that there are more gains there in the short term and over the medium term as well. Seth Carpenter: So on that topic, James, would you then agree? So if I think about some of the EM central banks, think about Banxico, think about the BCB – where the dollar falling in value, their currency gaining in value – that could actually have a couple things go on to allow the central bank, maybe to ease more than they would've otherwise. One, in terms of imported inflation, their currency strengthening on a relative basis probably helps with a bit lower inflation. And secondly, a lot of EM central banks have to worry a bit about defending their currency, especially in a volatile geopolitical time. And you were pointing to sort of lower volatility more broadly. So is this a reinforcing trend perhaps, where if the dollar is coming down a little bit, especially against DM currencies, it allows more external stability for those central banks, allowing them to just focus on their domestic mandates, which could also lead to a further reduction in their domestic rates, which might be good for investors. Jame

More Americans are blaming the AI infrastructure expansion for rising electricity bills. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explains how the topic may influence policy announcements ahead of the midterm elections.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about the relationship between affordability, the data center buildout, and the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, February 18th at 10am in New York. Markets and voters continue to grapple with questions on AI, including its potential scope, impact, and disruption across industries. That's been a clear theme on the policy side as voters seem to be pushing back against AI development and data center buildout in particular. In key states, voters are associating the rise in electricity bills with AI infrastructure – and we think that could be an important read across for the midterm elections in November. Now to be sure, electricity inflation has stayed sticky at around four to 5 percent year-over- year, and our economists expect it to remain in that range through this year and next. Nationally the impact of data centers on electricity prices has been relatively modest so far, but regionally, the pressure has been more visible. To that point, a recent survey in Pennsylvania found that nearly twice as many respondents believe AI will hurt the economy as it will help. More than half – 55 percent – think AI is likely to take away jobs in their own industry, and 71 percent said they're concerned about how much electricity data centers consume. But this isn't just a Pennsylvania story. In other battleground states like Arizona and Michigan, voters have actually rejected plans to build new data centers locally. So, what could that mean for the midterm elections? Think back to the off-cycle elections in November of last year. Candidates who ran on this theme of affordability and actually pushed back against data center construction tended to do pretty well in their respective races. Looking ahead to the midterm elections later this year, we see two clear takeaways from a policy perspective. First, it's important to note that more of the policy action here will actually continue to be at the local rather than federal level. Some states with heavy data center build out – so Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas among others – are now debating who should pay for grid upgrades. Federal proposals on this topic are still pretty nascent and fragmented. Meanwhile, public utility commissions in states like Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana have adopted or proposed large load tariffs. These require data centers to shoulder more upfront grid costs; or can reflect conditional charges like long-term contracts, minimum demand charges, exit fees or collateral requirements – all of which are designed to prevent costs from spilling over to households. And secondly, because of that limited federal action, we expect the Trump administration to continue leaning on other levers of affordability policy, where the president actually does have some more unilateral control. We've been expecting the administration to continue focusing on broader affordability areas ranging from housing to trade policy, as we've said on this podcast in the past. That dynamic is especially relevant this week as the Supreme Court could rule as soon as Friday on whether or not the president has the authority under IEEPA to impose the broad-based reciprocal tariffs. The administration thus far has been projecting a message of continuity. But we've noted that a decision that constrains that authority could give the president an opportunity to pursue a lighter touch tariff policy in response to the public's concerns around affordability. That's why we think the AI infrastructure buildout debate will continue to be a flashpoint into November, especially in the context of rising data center demand. Next week, when the president delivers his State of the Union address, we expect to hear plenty about not just affordability, but also AI leadership and competitiveness. But an equally important message will be around the administration's potential policy options to address its associated costs. That tension between AI supremacy and rising everyday costs for voters will be critical in shaping the electoral landscape into November. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of U.S. Internet Research Brian Nowak joins U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst Nathan Feather to explain why the future of agentic commerce is closer than you think.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet ResearchNathan Feather: And I'm Nathan Feather, U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst.Brian Nowak: Today, how AI-powered shopping assistants are set to revolutionize the e-commerce experience.It's Tuesday, February 17th at 8am in New York.Nathan, let's talk a little bit about agentic commerce. When was the last time you reordered groceries? Or bought household packaged goods? Or compared prices for items you [b]ought online and said, ‘Boy, I wish there was an easier way to do this. I wish technology could solve this for me.’Nathan Feather: Yeah. Yesterday, about 24 hours ago.Brian Nowak: Well, our work on agentic commerce shows a lot of these capabilities could be [coming] sooner than a lot of people appreciate. We believe that agentic commerce could grow to be 10 to 20 percent of overall U.S. e-commerce by 2030, and potentially add 100 to 300 basis points of overall growth to e-commerce.There are certain categories of spend we think are going to be particularly large unlocks for agentic commerce. I mentioned grocery, I mentioned household essentials. We think these are some of the items that agentic commerce is really going to drive a further digitization of over the next five years.So maybe Nathan, let's start at the very top. Our work we did together shows that 40 to 50 percent of consumers in the U.S. already use different AI tools for product research, but only a mid single digit percentage of them are actually really starting their shopping journey or buying things today. What does that gap tell you about the agentic opportunity and some of the hurdles we have to overcome to close that gap from research to actual purchasing?Nathan Feather: Well, I think what it shows is that clearly there is demand from consumers for these products. We think agentic opens up both evolutionary and revolutionary ways to shop online for consumers. But at the moment, the tools aren't fully developed and the consumer behavior isn't yet there. And so, we think it'll take time for these tools to develop. But once they do, it's clear that the consumer use case is there and you'll start to see adoption.And building on that, Brian, on the large cap side, you've done a lot of work here on how the shopping funnel itself could evolve. Traditionally discovery has flowed through search, social or direct traffic. Now we're seeing agents begin to sit in the start of the funnel acting as the gatekeeper to the transaction. For the biggest platforms with massive reach, how meaningful is that shift?Brian Nowak: It is very meaningful. And I think that this agentic shift in how people research products, price compare products, purchase products, is going to lead to even more advertis[ing] and value creation opportunity for the big social media platforms, for the big video platforms. Because essentially these big platforms that have large corpuses of users, spending a lot of time on them are going to be more important than ever for companies that want to launch new products. Companies that want to introduce their products to new customers.People that want to start new businesses entirely, it's going to be harder to reach new potential customers in an agentic world. So, I think some of these leading social and reach based video platforms are going to go up in value and you'll see more spend on those for people to build awareness around new and existing products.On this point of the products, you know, our work shows that grocery and consumer packaged goods are probably going to be one of the largest category unlocks. You know, we already know that over 50 percent of incremental e-commerce growth in the U.S. is going to come from grocery and CPG. And we think agentic is going to be a similar dynamic where grocery and CPG is going to drive a lot of agentic spend.Why do you think that is? And sort of walk us through, what has to happen in your mind for people to really pivot and start using agents to shop for their weekly grocery basket?Nathan Feather: I think one of the key things about the grocery category is it's a very high friction category online. You have to go through and select each individual ingredient you want [in] the order, ensure that you have the right brand, the right number of units, and ensure that the substitutions – when somebody actually gets to the store – are correct.And so for a user, it just takes a substantial amount of time to build a basket for online grocery. We think agentic can change that by becoming your personal digital shopper. You can say something as simple as, ‘I want to make steak tacos for dinner.’ And it can add all of the ingredients you want to your order. Go from the grocery store you like. And hey, it'll know your preferences. It'll know you already like a certain brand of tortillas, and it'll add those to the cart. And so it just dramatically reduces the friction.Now, that will take time to build the tools. The tools aren't there today, but we think that can come sooner than people expect. Even over the next one to two years that you start to get this revolutionary grocery experience.And so, it's coming. And from your perspective, Brian, once agentic grocery shopping does start to work, how does that impact the broader e-commerce adoption curve? Does it pull forward agentic behavior in other categories as well?Brian Nowak: I think it does. I think it does lead to more durable multi-year, overall e-commerce growth. And potentially in some of our more bull case scenarios, we've built out – even an acceleration in e-commerce growth, even though the numbers and the dollars added are getting larger. But there is some tension around profitability.We are in a world where a lot of e-commerce companies, they generate an outsized percentage of their profit from advertising and retail media that is attached to current transactions. Agentic commerce and agents wedging themself between the consumer and these platforms potentially put some of these high-margin retail media ad dollars at risk.So talk us through some of the math that we've run on that potential risk to any of the companies that are feeding into these agents for people to shop through.Nathan Feather: Well, in our work for most e-commerce companies, a majority – or sometimes even all – of their e-commerce profitability comes from the advertising side. And so this is the key profit pool for e-commerce. To the extent that goes away, there is one potential offset here, which is the lower fee that agentic offers for companies that currently have high marketing spend. To the extent that agentic offers a lower take rate, that could be an offset.But we think it's going to be very important for companies to monitor the retail media landscape and ensure they can try to keep direct traffic as best as possible. And things like onsite agents could be really important to making sure you're staying top of mind and owning that customer relationship.Now, on the platform side, search today captures an implied take rates that are 5-10 times higher than what we're seeing in the early agentic transaction fees. If this model does shift from CPC – or cost per click – towards a more commission based model, Brian, how do you think search platforms respond?Brian Nowak: I think the punchline is the percentage of traffic and transactions that retailers or brands or companies selling their items online that's paid is going to go up. You know, while search is a relatively more expensive channel on a per transaction basis, search works because there's a very large amount of unpaid and direct traffic that retailers benefit from post the first time they spend on search.Just some math on this. We're still at a situation where 80 percent of retailers' online traffic is free. Or direct. And so if we do get into a situation where there's a transition from a higher monetizing per transaction search to a lower monetizing per transaction agent, I would expect the search platforms to react by essentially making it more challenging to get free and direct and unpaid traffic. And we'll have that transition from more transactions at a lower rate; as opposed to fewer transactions at a higher rate, which is what we have now,Nathan, in our work, we also talked about a Five I’s framework. We talked about inventory, infrastructure, innovation, incrementality and income statement, sort of a retailer framework to assess positioning within the agentic transition. Maybe walk us through what your big takeaways were from the Five I’s framework and what it means that retailers need to be mindful of throughout this agentic transition.Nathan Feather: Well, for retailers, I think it's going to be very important that you're winning by differentiation. Having unique, competitively priced inventory with infrastructure that can fulfill that quickly to the consumer and critically staying on the leading edge of innovation.It's one thing to have the inventory. It's another thing to be able to be actively plugged into these agentic tools and make sure you're developing good experiences for your customers that actually are on this cutting edge. In addition, it's one thing to have all of that, but you want to make sure there's also incrementality opportunity.So [the] ability to go out, expand the TAM and gain market share. And of course what we just talked about with the margin risk, I think all of those are going to be very important. And so on balance for retailers, we do see a lot of opportunity. That's balanced with a lot of risk. But this is one of those key transition moments that we think companies that really execute and perform well should be able to perform nicely.Now fi

Iconic investors sit down with Morgan Stanley leaders to go behind the scenes on the critical moments – both successes and setbacks – that shaped who they are today.Watch and listen to the series on your favorite platform.

Arunima Sinha, from the U.S. and Global Economics team, discusses how an upcoming Supreme Court decision could reshape consumer prices, retail margins and the inflation outlook in 2026.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's U.S. and Global Economics Teams.Today: How a single Supreme Court ruling could change the tariff math for U.S. consumers.It's Friday, February 13th at 10am in New York.The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether the U.S. president has legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs under IEEPA. That decision could come as soon as next Friday. IEEPA, or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, is the legal backbone for a significant share of today's consumer goods tariffs. If the Supreme Court limits how it can be used, tariffs on many everyday items could fall quickly – affecting prices on the shelf, margins for retailers, and the broader inflation outlook.As of now, effective tariff rates on consumer goods are running about 15 percent, and that's based on late 2025 November data. And that's quite a bit higher than the roughly 10 percent average, which we're seeing as tariffs on all goods. In a post IEEPA scenario, we think that the effective tariff rate on consumer goods could fall to the mid-11 percent range.It's not zero, but it is meaningfully lower.An important caveat is that this is not going to be eliminating all tariffs. Other trade tools – like Section 232s, which are the national security tariffs, Section 301s, the tariffs that are related to unfair trade practices – would remain in place. Autos and metals, for example, are largely outside the IEEPA discussion.The main pressure point we think is consumer goods. IEEPA has been used for two major sets of tariffs. The fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, and the so-called reciprocal tariffs applied broadly across trading partners. And these often stack on top of the existing tariffs, such as the MFN, the Most Favored Nation rates, and the section 301 duties on China that were already existing before 2025.The exposure is really concentrated in certain categories of consumer goods. So, for example, in apparel and footwear, about 60 percent of the applied tariffs are IEEPA related. For furniture and home improvement, it's over 70 percent. For toys, games, and sporting equipment, it's more than 90 percent. So, if the IEEPA authority is curtailed, the category level effects would be meaningful.There are caveats, of course. The court's decision may not be all or nothing. And policymakers could turn to alternative authorities. One example is Section 122, which allows across the board tariffs for up to 15 percent for 150 days. So, tariffs could just reappear under different tools. But in the near term, fully replacing IEEPA-based tariffs on consumer goods may not be straightforward, especially given ongoing affordability concerns.So, how does that matter for the real economy? There are two key channels, prices and margins. On prices we estimate that about 60 percent of the tariff costs are typically passed on to the consumers over two to three quarters, but it’s not instant. Margins though could respond faster. If companies get cost relief before they adjust prices downwards, that creates a temporary margin tailwind. That could influence hiring, investment and earnings across retail and consumer supply chains.Over time, lower tariffs could also reinforce that broader return to core goods disinflation starting in the second quarter of this year. And because tariff driven inflation has weighed more heavily on the middle- and lower-income households, any eventual price relief could disproportionately benefit those groups.At the end of the day, this isn't just a legal story. It is a timing story. If IEEPA authority is curtailed, the arithmetic shifts pretty quickly. Margins move first, prices follow later, and the path back to goods disinflation could accelerate. That's why this is one ruling worth watching before the gavel drops.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 Research Andrew Sheets explains how key market indicators reflect a constructive view around the global cyclical outlook, despite a volatile start to 2026.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about the unusual alignment of a number of key indicators. It's Thursday, February 12th at 2pm in London. A frustrating element of investing is that any indicator at any time can let you down. That makes sense. With so much on the line, the secret to markets probably isn't just one of a hundreds of data series that a thousand of us can access at the push of a button. But many indicators all suggesting the same? That's far more notable. And despite a volatile start to 2026 with big swings in everything from Japanese government bonds to software stocks, it is very much what we think is happening below the surface. Specifically, a variety of indicators linked to optimism around the global cyclical outlook are all stronger, all moving up and to the right. Copper, which is closely followed as an economically sensitive commodity, is up strongly. Korean equities, which have above average cyclicality and sensitivity to global trade is the best performing of any major global equity market over the last year. Financials, which lie at the heart of credit creation, have been outperforming across the U.S., Europe, and Asia. And more recently, year-to-date cyclicals and transports are outperforming. Small caps are leading, breadth is improving, and the yield curve is bear steepening. All of these are the outcomes that you'd expect, all else equal, if global growth is going to be stronger in the future than it is today. Now individually, these data points can be explained away. Maybe Copper is just part of an AI build out story. Maybe Korea is just rebounding off extreme levels of valuation. Maybe Financials are just about deregulation in a steeper yield curve. Maybe the steeper yield curve is just about the policy uncertainty. And small cap stocks have been long-term laggards – maybe every dog has its day. But collectively, well, they're exactly what investors will be looking for to confirm that the global growth backdrop is getting stronger, and we believe they form a pretty powerful, overlapping signal worthy of respect. But if things are getting better, how much is too much. In the face of easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy, the market may focus on other signposts to determine whether we now have too much of a good thing. For example, is there signs of significant inflation on the horizon? Is volatility in the bond market increasing? Is the U.S. dollar deviating significantly from its fair value? Is the credit market showing weakness? And do stocks and credit now react badly when the data is good? So far, not yet. As we discussed on this program last week, long run inflation expectations in the U.S. and euro area remain pretty consistent with central bank targets. Expected volatility in U.S. interest rates has actually fallen year-to-date. The U.S. dollar’s valuation is pretty close to what purchasing power parity would suggest. Credit has been very stable. And better than expected labor market data on Wednesday was treated well. Any single indicator can and eventually will let investors down. But when a broad set of economically sensitive signals all point in the same direction, we listen. Taken together, we think this alignment is still telling a story of supportive fundamental tailwinds while key measures of stress hold. Until that evidence changes, we think those signals deserve respect. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

With the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement coming up for review, our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore unpacks whether our 2025 call for deeper trade integration still holds.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about our expectations for the upcoming USMCA review, and how the landscape has shifted from last year. It's Wednesday, February 11th at 4pm in London. As we highlighted last fall, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement is approaching its first mandatory review in 2026. At the time, we argued that the risks were skewed modestly to the upside. Structural contingencies built into the agreement we think cap downside risk and tilt most outcomes toward preserving and over time deepening North American trade integration. That framing, we think, remains broadly intact. But some developments over the past few months suggest that the timing and the structure of that deeper integration could end up looking a little bit different than we initially expected. We still see a scenario where negotiators resolve targeted frictions and make limited updates, but we're increasingly mindful that some of the more ambitious policy maker goals – for example, new chapters on AI, critical minerals or more explicit guardrails on Chinese investment in Mexico – may be harder to formalize ahead of the mid-2026 deadline. So, what does the base case as we framed it last year still look like? We continue to expect an outcome that preserves the agreement and resolves several outstanding disputes – auto rules of origin, labor enforcement procedures, and select digital trade provisions. On the China question, our view from last year also still holds. We expect incremental steps by Mexico to reduce trans-shipment risk and better align with U.S. trade priorities, though likely without a fully institutionalized enforcement mechanism by mid-2026. And remember, the USMCA’s 10-year escape clause keeps the agreement enforced at least through 2036, meaning the probability of a disruptive trade shock is structurally quite low. What may be shifting is not the direction of travel, but the pace and the form. A more comprehensive agreement may ultimately come, but possibly with a longer runway or through site agreements rather than updates to the USMCA text itself. Of course, those come with an enforcement risk just given the lack of congressional backing. We still expect the formal review to conclude around mid-2026, albeit with a growing possibility that deeper institutional alignment happens further out or via parallel frameworks. It also is possible that into that deadline all three sides decide to extend negotiations out further into the future, extending the uncertainty for even longer. So what does it all mean for macro and markets? For Mexico, maintaining tariff free access to the U.S. continues to be essential. The base case supports ongoing manufacturing integration, especially in autos and electronics. But without the newer, more strategic chapters that policymakers have discussed, the agreement would leave Mexico in a position that it's accustomed to – stable but short of a full nearshoring acceleration. This aligns with our view from last year, but we now see clearer near-term risks to the thesis of rapid institutional, deeper trade integration. For FX, the pace of benefit is from reduced uncertainty, but the effect is likely gradual. The absence of tangible progress on adding to the original deal suggests a more muted near-term impulse. For Canada, the implications are similarly two-sided. Near-term volatility around the review is likely underpriced, but a limited agreement should eventually lead to medium term USD-CAD downside. On the economics front, last year, we argued that the review would reinforce North America as a manufacturing block, even if it didn't fully resolve supply chain diversification from China. We think that remains true today, but with the added nuance that some of the more ambitious integration pathways may be pushed further out or structured outside of the formal USMCA chapters. So bottom line, our base case remains a measured, pragmatic outcome that reduces uncertainty, but preserves the core benefits of North American trade and supports growth across key asset classes. But it also increasingly looks like an outcome that may leave some strategic opportunities on the table for now, setting the stage for deeper alignment later – on a slightly longer horizon, or through a more flexible framework. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver lay out Morgan Stanley’s four key Research themes for 2026, and how those themes could unfold across markets for the rest of the year.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Stephen Byrd: I was recently on the show to discuss Morgan Stanley's four key themes for 2026. Today, a look at how those themes could actually play out in the real world over the course of this year. It's Tuesday, February 10th at 10am in New York. So one of the biggest challenges for investors right now is separating signal from noise. Markets are reacting to headlines by the minute, but the real drivers of long-term returns tend to move much more slowly and much more powerfully. That's why thematic analysis has been such an important part of how we think about markets, particularly during periods of high volatility. For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy, the multipolar world, and societal shifts. In other words, three familiar themes and one meaningful evolution from last year. So Michelle, let's start at the top. When investors hear four key themes, what's different about the 2026 framework versus what we laid out in 2025? Michelle Weaver: Well, like you mentioned before, three of our four key themes are the same as last year, so we're gonna continue to see important market impacts from AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy and the multipolar world.But our fourth key theme, societal shifts, is really an expansion of our prior key theme longevity from last year. And while three of the four themes are the same broad categories, the way they impact the market is going to evolve. And these themes don't exist in isolation. They collide and they intersect with one another, having other important market implications. And we'll talk about many of those intersections today as they relate to multiple themes. Let's start with AI. How does the AI and tech diffusion theme specifically evolve since last year? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. You know, you mentioned earlier the evolution of all of our themes, and that was certainly the case with AI and tech diffusion. What I think we'll see in 2026 is a few major evolutions. So, one is a concept that we think of as two worlds of LLM progress and AI adoption; and let me walk through what I mean by that. On LLM progress, we do think that the handful of American LLM developers that have 10 times the compute they had last year are going to be training and producing models of unprecedented capability. We do not think the Chinese models will be able to keep up because they simply do not have the compute required for the training. And so we will see two worlds, very different approaches. That said, the Chinese models are quite excellent in terms of providing low cost solutions to a wide range of very practical business cases. So that's one case of two worlds when we think about the world of AI and tech diffusion. Another is that essentially we could see a really big gap between what you can do with an LLM and what the average user is actually doing with LLMs. Now there're going to be outliers where really leaders will be able to fully utilize LLMs and achieve fairly substantial and breathtaking results. But on average, that won't be the case. And so you'll see a bit of a lag there. That said, I do think when investors see what those frontier capabilities are, I think that does eventually lead to bullishness. So that's one dynamic. Another really big dynamic in 2026 is the mismatch between compute demand and compute supply. We dove very deeply into this in our note, and essentially where we come out is we believe, and our analysis supports this, that the demand for compute is going to be systematically much higher than the supply. That has all kinds of implications. Compute becomes a very precious resource, both at the company level, at the national level. So those are a couple of areas of evolution.So Michelle, let's shift over to the future of energy, which does feel very different today than it did a year ago. Can you kind of walk through what's changed? Michelle Weaver: Well, we absolutely still think that power is one of the key bottlenecks for data center growth. And our power modeling work shows around a 47 gigawatt shortfall before considering innovative time to power solutions. We get down to around a 10 to 20 percent shortfall in power needed in the U.S. though, even after considering those solutions. So power is still very much a bottleneck. But the power picture is becoming even more challenged for data centers, and that's largely because of a major political overhang that's emerging. Consumers across the U.S. have seen their electricity bills rise and are increasingly pointing to data centers as the culprit behind this. I really want to emphasize though this is a nuanced issue and data center power demand is driving consumer bills higher in some areas like the Mid-Atlantic. But this isn't the case nationwide and really depends on a number of factors like data center density in the region and whether it's a regulated or unregulated utility market.But public perception has really turned against data centers and local pushback is causing planned data centers to be canceled or delayed. And you're seeing similar opinions both across political affiliations and across different regional areas. So yes, in some areas data centers have impacted consumer power bills, but in other areas that hasn't been the case. But this is good news though, for companies that offer off-grid power generation, who are able to completely insulate consumers because they're not connecting to the grid.Stephen, the multipolar theme was already strong last year. Why has it become even more central for 2026? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, you're right. It was strong in 2025. In fact, of our 21 categories of stocks, the top three performing were really driven by multipolar world dynamics. Let me walk through three areas of focus that we have for multipolar world in 2026. Number one is an aggressive U.S. policy agenda, and that's going to show up in a number of ways. But examples here would be major efforts to reshore manufacturing, a real evolution in military spending towards a wide range of newer military technologies, reducing power prices and inflation more broadly. And also really focusing on trying to eliminate dependency on China for rare earths. So that's the first big area of focus. The second is around AI technology transfer. And this is quite closely linked to rare earths. So here's the dynamic as we think about U.S. and China. China has a commanding position in rare earths. The United States has a leading position in access to computational resources. Those two are going to interplay quite a bit in 2026. So, for example, we have a view that in 2026, when those American models, these LLMs achieve these step changes up in capabilities that China cannot match, we think that it's very likely that China may exert pressure in terms of rare earths access in order to force the transfer of technology, the best AI technology to China. So that's an example of this linkage between AI and rare earths. And the last dynamic, I'd say broadly, would be the politics of energy, which you described quite well. I think that's going to be a big multipolar world dynamic everywhere around the world. A focus on how much of an impact our data centers are having – whether it's water access, price of power, et cetera. What are the impacts to jobs? And that's going to show up in a variety of policy actions in 2026. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Stephen Byrd: So Michelle, the last of our four key themes is societal shifts, and you walked through that briefly before. This expands on our prior longevity work. What does this broader framing capture? Michelle Weaver: Societal shifts will include important topics from longevity still. So, things like preparing for an aging population and AI in healthcare. But the expansion really lets us look at the full age range of the demographic spectrum, and we can also now start thinking about what younger consumers want. It also allows us to look at other income based demographics, like what's been going on with the K-economy, which has been an important theme around the world. And a really critical element, though, of this new theme is AI's impact on the labor market. Last year we did a big piece called The Future of Work. And in it we estimated that around 90 percent of jobs would be impacted by AI. I want to be clear: That's not to say that 90 percent of jobs would be lost by AI or automated by AI. But rather some task or some component of that job could be automated or augmented using AI. And so you might have, you know, the jobs of today looking very different five years from now. Workers are adaptable and, and we do expect many to reskill as part of this evolving job landscape. We've talked about the evolution of our key themes, but now let's focus a little on the results. So how have these themes actually performed from an investment standpoint? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. I was very happy with the results in 2025. When we looked across our categories of thematic stocks; we have 21 categories of thematic stocks within our four big themes. On average in 2025, our thematic stock categories outperformed MSCI World by 16 percent and the S&P 500 by 27 percent respectively. So, I was very happy with that result. When you look at the breakdown, it is interesting in terms of the categories, you did really well. As I mentioned, the top three were driven by multipolar world. That is Critical Minerals, AI Semis, and Defense. But after that you c

Our Chief LatAm Equity Strategist Nikolaj Lippmann discusses why Latin America may be approaching a rare “Spring” moment – where geopolitics, peaking rates, and elections set the scene for an investment-led growth cycle with meaningful market upside.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Nikolaj Lippmann: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Nikolaj Lippmann, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Latin America Equity Strategist. If you ever felt like Latin America is too complicated to follow, today's episode is for you. It's Monday, February 9th at 10am in New York. The big idea in our research is simple. Latin America is facing a trifecta of change that could set up a very different investment story from what investors have gotten used to. We could be moving towards an investment or CapEx cycle in the shadow of the global AI CapEx cycle, and this is a stark departure from prior consumer cycles in Latin America. Latin America's GDP today is about $6 trillion. Yet Latin American equities account for just about 80 basis points of the main global index MSCI All Country World Equity benchmark. In plain English, it's really easy for investors to overlook such a vast region. But the narrative seems to be changing thanks to three key factors. Number one, shifting geopolitics in this increasingly global multipolar world. We can see this with trade rules, security priorities, supply chains that are getting rewritten. Capital and investment will often move alongside with these changing rules. Clearly, as we can all see U.S. priorities in Latin America have shifted, and with them have local priorities and incentives. Second, interest rates may very well have been peaking and could decline into [20]26. When borrowing cost fall, it just becomes easier to fund factories, infrastructure, AI, and expansion into all kinds of different investment, which become more feasible. What is more, we see a big shift in the size and growth of domestic capital markets in almost every country in Latin America – something that happens courtesy of reform and is certainly new versus prior cycles. And finally, elections that could lead to an important policy shift across Latin America. We see signs of movement towards greater fiscal responsibility in many sites of the region, with upcoming elections in Colombia and Brazil. We have already seen new policy makers in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, depart from prior populism. So, when we put all this together -- geopolitics, rates and local election -- you get to the core of our thesis, a possible LatAm spring; meaning a decisive break from the status quo towards fiscal consolidation, monetary easing, and structural reform. And we think that that could be a potential move that restores some confidence and attracts private capital. In our spring scenario, we see interest rates coming down, not rising in a scenario of higher growth to 6 percent in Brazil and Mexico, 7 percent in Argentina, and just 4 percent in Chile. This helps the rerating of the region. There's another powerful factor that I think many investors overlook, and that is a key difference versus prior cycles, as already mentioned. And that's the domestic savings. Local portfolios today are much bigger, much deeper capital markets, and they're heavily skewed towards fixed income. 75 percent of Latin American portfolios are in fixed income versus 25 percent in equity. In Brazil, the number's even higher with 90 to 95 percent in fixed income. If this shifts even halfway towards equity, it can deepen and support local capital markets; it supports valuation. For the region as a whole, sectors most impacted by this transformation would be Financial Services, Energy, Utilities, IT and Healthcare. Up until now, I think Latin America has been viewed as a region where a lot could go wrong. We asked the reverse question. What could go right? If the trifecta lines up: geopolitics, peaking rates and elections that enable a more investment friendly policy and CapEx cycle, Latin America could shift from being seen mainly as a supply of commodities and labor to far more investment driven engine of growth. That's why investors should put Latin America on the radar now and not wait until spring is already in full bloom. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter unpack the inner workings of the Federal Reserve to illustrate the challenges that Fed chair nominee Kevin Warsh may face.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, a further discussion of a new Fed chair and the challenges they may face. It's Friday, February 6th at 1 pm in New York. Seth, it's great to be here talking with you, and I really want to continue a conversation that listeners have been hearing on this podcast over this week about a new nominee to chair the Federal Reserve: Kevin Warsh. And you are the perfect person to talk about this, not just because you lead our economic research and our macro research, but you've also worked at the Fed. You've seen the inner workings of this organization and what a new Fed chair is going to have to deal with. So, maybe just for some broad framing, when you saw this announcement come out, what were some of the first things to go through your mind? Seth Carpenter: I will say first and foremost, Kevin Warsh's name was one of the names that had regularly come up when the White House was providing names of people they were considering in lots of news cycles. So, I think the first thing that's critically important from my perspective, is – not a shock, right? Sort of a known quantity. Second, when we think about these really important positions, there's a whole range of possible outcomes. And I would've said that of the four names that were in the final set of four that we kept hearing about in the news a lot. You know, some differences here and there across them, but none of them was substantially outside of what I would think of as mainstream sort of thinking. Nothing excessively unorthodox at all like that. So, in that regard as well, I think it should keep anybody from jumping to any big conclusions that there's a huge change that's imminent. I think the other thing that's really important is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve really is made by a committee. The Federal Open Market Committee and committee matters in these cases. The Fed has been under lots of scrutiny, under lots of pressure, depending on how you want to put it. And so, as a result, there's a lot of discussion within the institution about their independence, making sure they stick very scrupulously to their congressionally given mandate of stable prices, full employment. And so, what does that mean in practice? That means in practice, to get a substantially different outcome from what the committee would've done otherwise… So, the market is pricing; what's the market pricing for the funds rate at the end of this year? About 3.2 percent. Andrew Sheets: Something like that. Yeah. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So that's a reasonable forecast. It's not too far away from our house view.  For us to end up with a policy rate that's substantially away from that – call it 1 percentage, 2 percentage points away from that. I just don't see that as likely to happen. Because the committee can be led, can be swayed by the chair, but not to the tune of 1 or 2 percentage points. And so, I think for all those reasons, there wasn't that much surprise and there wasn't, for me, a big reason to fully reevaluate where we think the Fed's going. Andrew Sheets: So let me actually dig into that a little bit more because I know our listeners tune in every day to hear a lot about government meetings. But this is a case where that really matters because I think there can sometimes be a misperception around the power of this position. And it's both one of the most public important positions in the world of finance. And yet, as you mentioned, it is overseeing a committee where the majority matters. And so, can you take us just a little bit inside those discussions? I mean, how does the Fed Chair interact with their colleagues? How do they try to convince them and persuade them to take a particular course of action? Seth Carpenter: Great question. And you're right, I sort of spent a bunch of time there at the Fed. I started when Greenspan was chair. I worked under the Bernanke Fed. And of course, for the end of that, Janet Yellen was the vice chair. So, I've worked with her. Jay Powell was on the committee the whole time. So, the cast of characters quite familiar and the process is important. So, I would say a few things. The chair convenes the meetings; the chair creates the agenda for the meeting. The chair directs the staff on what the policy documents are that the committee is going to get. So, there's a huge amount of influence, let's say, there. But in order to actually get a specific outcome, there really is a vote. And we only have to look back a couple weeks to the last FOMC meeting when there were two dissents against the policy decision. So, dissents are not super common. They don't happen at every single meeting, but they're not unheard of by any stretch of the imagination either. And if we go back over the past few years, lots going on with inflation and how the economy was going was uncertain. Chair Powell took some dissents. If we go back to the financial crisis Chair Bernanke took a bunch of dissents. If we go back even further through time, Paul Volcker, when he was there trying to staunch the flow of the high inflation of the 1970s, faced a lot of resistance within his committee. And reportedly threatened to quit if he couldn't get his way. And had to be very aggressive in trying to bring the committee along. So, the chair has to find a way to bring the committee along with the plan that the chair wants to execute. Lots of tools at their disposal, but not endless power or influence. Does that make sense? Andrew Sheets: That makes complete sense.  So, maybe my final question, Seth, is this is a tough job. This is a tough job in… Seth Carpenter: You mean your job and my job, or… Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Not at all. The chair of the Fed. And it seems especially tricky now. You know, inflation is above the Fed's target. Interest rates are still elevated. You know, certainly mortgage rates are still higher than a lot of Americans are used to over the last several years. And asset prices are high. You know, the valuation of the equity market is high. The level of credit spreads is tight. So, you could say, well, financial conditions are already quite easy, which can create some complications. I am sure Kevin Warsh is receiving lots of advice from lots of different angles. But, you know, if you think about what you've seen from the Fed over the years, what would be your advice to a new Fed chair – and to navigate some of these challenges? Seth Carpenter: I think first and foremost, you are absolutely right. This is a tough job in the best of times, and we are in some of the most difficult and difficult to understand macroeconomic times right now. So, you noted interest rates being high, mortgage rates being high. There's very much an eye of the beholder phenomenon going on here. Now you're younger than I am. The first mortgage I had. It was eight and a half percent. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: I bought a house in 2000 or something like that. So, by those standards, mortgage rates are actually quite low. So, it really comes down to a little bit of what you're used to. And I think that fact translates into lots of other places. So, inflation is now much higher than the committee's target. Call it 3 percent inflation instead core inflation on PCE, rather than 2 percent inflation target. Now, on the one hand that's clearly missing their target and the Fed has been missing their target for years. And we know that tariffs are pushing up inflation, at least for consumer goods. And Chair Powell and this committee have said they get that. They think that inflation will be temporary, and so they're going to look through that inflation. So again, there's a lot of judgment going on here. The labor market is quite weak. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: We don't have the latest months worth of job market data because of the government shutdown; that'll be delayed by a few days. But we know that at the end of last year, non-farm payrolls were running well below 50,000. Under most circumstances, you would say that is a clear indication of a super weak economy. But! But if we look at aggregate spending data, GDP, private-domestic final purchases, consumer spending, CapEx spending. It's actually pretty solid right now. And so again, that sense of judgment; what's the signal you're going to look for? That's very, very difficult right now, and that's part of what the chair is going to have to do to try to bring the committee together, in order to come to a decision.  So, one intellectually coherent argument is – the main way you could get strong aggregate demand, strong spending numbers, strong GDP numbers, but with pretty tepid labor force growth is if productivity is running higher and if productivity is going higher because of AI, for example, over time you could easily expect that to be disinflationary. And if it's disinflationary, then you can cut it. Interest rates now. Not worry as much as you would normally about high inflation. And so, the result could be a lower path for policy rates. So that's one version of the argument that I suspect you're going to hear. On the other hand, inflation is high and it's been high for years. So what does that mean? Well. History suggests that if inflation stays too high for too long, inflation psychology starts to change the way businesses start to set. Andrew Sheets: Mm-hmm. Seth Carpenter: Their own prices can get a little bit loosey-goosey. They might not have to worry as much about consumers being

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the path for U.S. interest rates after the nomination of Kevin Warsh for next Fed chair.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today we'll be talking about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting that occurred last week.It's Thursday, February 5th at 8:30 am in New York.So, Mike, last week we had the first Federal Open Market Committee meeting of 2026. What were your general impressions from the meeting? And how did it compare to what you had thought going in? Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think that the main question for markets was how hawkish a hold or how dovish a hold would this be. As you know, it was widely expected the Fed would be on hold. The incoming data had been fairly solid. Inflation wasn't all that concerning, and most of the employment data suggested things had stabilized. So, it was clear they were going to pause. The question was would they pause or would they be on pause, right? And in our view, it was more of a dovish hold. And by that, it suggests to us, or they suggested to us, I should say, that they still have an easing bias and rates should generally move lower over time. So, that really was the key takeaway for me. Would they signal a prolonged pause and perhaps suggest that they might be done with the easing cycle? Or would they say, yes, we've stopped for now, but we still expect to cut rates later? Perhaps when inflation comes down and therefore kind of retain a dovish bias or an easing bias in the policy rate path. So, to me, that was the main takeaway. Matthew Hornbach: Of course, as we all know, there are supposed to be some personnel changes on the committee this year. And Chair Powell was asked several questions to try to get at the future of this committee and what he himself was going to do personally. What was your impression of his response and what were the takeaways from that part of the press conference? Michael Gapen: Well, clearly, he's been reluctant to, say, pre-announce what he may do when his term is chair ends in May.  But his term as a governor extends into 2028. So, he has options. He could leave normally that's what happens. But he could also stay and he's never really made his intentions clear on that part. I think for maybe personal or professional reasons. But he has his own; he has his own reasons and, and that's fine. And I do think the recent subpoena by the DOJ has changed the calculus in that. At least my own view is that it makes it more likely that he stays around. It may be easier for him to act in response to that subpoena by being on staff. It's a request for additional information; he needs access to that information. I think you could construct a reasonable scenario under which, ‘Well, I have to see this through, therefore, I may stay around.’ But maybe he hasn't come to that conclusion yet. And then stepping back, that just complicates the whole picture in the sense that we now know the administration has put forward Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair. Will he be replacing the seat that Jay Powell currently sits in? Will he be replacing the seat that Stephen Myron is sitting in? So yes, we have a new name being put forward, but it's not exactly clear where that slot will be; and what the composition of the committee will look like. Matthew Hornbach: Well, you beat me to the punch on mentioning Kevin Warsh… Michael Gapen: I kind of assumed that's where you were going. Matthew Hornbach: It was going to be my next question.  I'm curious as to what you think that means for Fed policy later this year, if anything. And what it might mean more medium term? Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, first of all, congratulations to Mr. Warsh on the appointment. In terms of what we think it means for the outlook for the Fed's reaction function and interest rate policy, we doubt that there will be a material change in the Fed's reaction function. His previous public remarks don't suggest his views on interest rate policy are substantively outside the mainstream, or at least certainly the collective that's already in the FOMC. Some people would prefer not to ease. The majority of the committee still sees a couple more rate cuts ahead of them. Warsh is generally aligned with that, given his public remarks. But then also all the reserve bank presidents have been renominated. There's an ongoing Supreme Court case about the ability of the administration to fire Lisa Cook. If that is not successful, then Kevin Warsh will arrive in an FOMC where there's 16 other people who all get a say. So, the chair's primary responsibility is to build a consensus; to herd the cats, so to speak. To communicate to markets and communicate to the public. So, if Mr. Warsh wanted to deviate substantially from where the committee was, he would have to build a consensus to do that. So, we think, at least in the near term, the reaction function won't change. It'll be driven by the data, whether the labor market holds up, whether inflation, decelerates as expected. So, we don't look for material change. Now you also asked about the medium term. I do think where his views differ, at least with respect to current Fed policy is on the size of the Fed's balance sheet and its footprint in financial markets. So, he has argued over time for a much smaller balance sheet. He's called the Fed's balance sheet bloated. He has said that it creates distortions in markets, which mean interest rates could be higher than they otherwise would be. And so, I think if there is a substantive change in Fed policy going forward, it could be there on the balance sheet. But what I would just say on that is it'll likely take a lot of coordination with Treasury. It will likely take changes in rules, regulations, the supervisory landscape. Because if you want to reduce the balance sheet further without creating volatility in financial markets, you have to find a way to reduce bank demand for it. So, this will take time, it'll take study, it'll take patience. I wouldn't look for big material changes right out of the box. So Matt, what I'd like to do is, if I could flip it back to you, Warsh was certainly one of the expected candidates, right? So, his name is not a surprise. But as we knew financial markets, one day we're thinking it'd be one candidate. The next day it'd be thinking at the next it was somebody else. How did you see markets reacting to the announcement of Mr. Warsh? For the next Fed share, and then maybe put that in context of where markets were coming out of the last FOMC meeting. Matthew Hornbach: Yeah, so the markets that moved the most were not the traditional, very large macro markets like the interest rate marketplace or the foreign exchange market. The markets that moved the most were the prediction markets. These newer markets that offer investors the ability to wager on different outcomes for a whole variety of events around the world.  But when it comes to the implications of a Kevin Warsh led Fed – for the bigger macro markets like interest rates and currencies, the question really comes down to how? If the Fed's balance sheet policies are going to take a while to implement, those are not going to have an immediate effect, at least not an effect that is easily seen with the human eye. But it's other types of policy change in terms of his communication policy, for example. One of the points that you raised in your recent note, Mike, was how Kevin Warsh favored less communication than perhaps some of the recent, Federal Open Market Committees had with the public. And so, if there is some kind of a retrenchment from the type of over-communication to the marketplace, from either committee members or non-voters that could create a bit more volatility in the marketplace. Of course, the Fed has been one of the central banks that does not like to surprise the markets in terms of its monetary policy making. And so, that contrasts with other central banks in the G10. For example, the Swiss National Bank tends to surprise quite a lot. The Reserve Bank of Australia tends to surprise markets. More often, certainly than the Fed does. So, to the extent that there's some change in communication strategy going forward that could lead to more volatile interest rate in currency markets. And that then could cause investors to demand more risk premium to invest in those markets. If you previously were comfortable owning a longer duration Treasury security because you felt very comfortable with the future path of Fed policy, then a Kevin Warsh led Fed – if it decides to change the communication strategy – could naturally lead investors to demand more risk premium in their investments. And that, of course, would lead to a steeper U.S. Treasury curve, all else equal. So that would be one of the main effects that I could see happen in markets as a result of some potential changes that the Fed may consider going forward. So, Mike, with that said, this was the first FOMC meeting of the year, and the next meeting arrives in March. I guess we'll just have to wait between now and then to see if the Fed is on hold for a longer period of time or whether or not the data convinced them to move as soon as the March meeting. Thanks for taking time to talk, Mike. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Affordability is back in focus in D.C. after the brief U.S. shutdown. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore look at some proposals in play.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the continued focus on affordability, and how to parse signals from the noise on different policy proposals coming out of D.C.It's Wednesday, February 4th at 10am in New York. Ariana Salvatore: President Trump signed a bill yesterday, ending the partial government shutdown that had been in place for the past few days. But affordability is still in focus. It's something that our clients have been asking about a lot. And we might hear more news when the president delivers his State of the Union address on February 24th and possibly delivers his budget proposal, which should be around the same time. So, needless to say, it's still a topic that investors have been asking us about and one that we think warrants a little bit more scrutiny. Michael Zezas: But maybe before we get into how to think about these affordability policies, we should hit on what we're seeing as the real pressure points in the debate. Ariana, you recently did some work with our economists. What were some of your findings? Ariana Salvatore: So, Heather Berger and the rest of our U.S. econ[omics] team highlighted three groups in particular that are feeling more of the affordability crunch, so to speak. That's lower income consumers, younger consumers, and renters or recent home buyers. Lower income households have experienced persistently higher inflation and more recently weaker wage growth. Younger consumers were hit hardest when inflation peaked and are more exposed to higher borrowing costs. And lastly, renters and recent buyers are dealing with much higher shelter burdens that aren't fully captured in standard inflation metrics. Now, the reason I laid all that out is because these are also the cohorts where the president's approval ratings have seen the largest declines. Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it makes sense that those are the groups where the administration might be targeting some of these affordability initiatives. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. But that's not the only variable that they're solving for. Broadly speaking, we think that the president and Republicans in Congress really need to solve for four things when it comes to affordability policies. First, targeting these quote right cohorts, which are those, as we mentioned, that have either moved furthest away from the president politically, or have been the most under pressure. Second feasibility, right? So even if Republicans can agree on certain policies, getting them procedurally through Congress can still be a challenge. Third timing – just because the legislative calendar is so tight ahead of the November elections. And fourth speed of disbursement. So basically, how long it would take these policies to translate to an uplift for consumers ahead of the elections. Michael Zezas: So, thinking through each of these constraints, starting with how easy it might be to actually get some of these policies done, most of the policies that are being proposed on the housing side require congressional approval. In terms of these cohorts, it seems like these policies are most likely to focus on – that seems aimed at lower-income and younger voters. And in terms of timing, we know the legislative calendar is tight ahead of the midterms, and the policy makers want to pursue things that can be enacted quickly and show up for voters as soon as possible. Ariana Salvatore: So, using that lens, we think the most realistic near-term tools are probably mostly executive actions. Think agency directives and potential changes to tariff policy. If we do see a second reconciliation bill emerge, it will probably move more slowly but likely cover some of those housing related tax credit changes. But of course, not all these policies would move the needle in the same way. What do we think matters most from a macro perspective? Michael Zezas: So, what our economists have argued is that the affordability policies being discussed – tax credits subsidies, payment pauses – they could be meaningful at a micro level for targeted households, but for the most part, they don't materially change the macro outlook. The exception might be tariffs; that probably has the broadest and most sustained impact on affordability because it directly affects inflation. Lower tariffs would narrow inflation differentials across cohorts, support real income growth and make it easier for the Fed to cut rates. Ariana Salvatore: Right. And just to add a finer point on that, I think directionally speaking, this is where we've seen the administration moving in recent months. Remember, towards the end of last year, the Trump administration placed an exemption on a lot of agricultural imports. And just the other day, we heard news that the trade deal with India was finalized reducing the overall tariff rate to 18 percent from about 50 percent prior. Michael Zezas: Okay. So, putting it all together for what investors need to know. We see three key takeaways. First, even absent new policy, our economists expect some improvement in affordability this year as inflation decelerates and rate cuts come into view. And specifically, when we talk about improvements in affordability, what our economists are referring to is income growth consistently outpacing inflation, lowering required monthly payments. Second, most proposed affordability policies are unlikely to generate the meaningful macro growth impulse, so investors shouldn't overreact to headline announcements. And third, the cohort divergence matters for equities. Pressure on lower income in younger consumers helps explain why parts of consumer discretionary have lagged. While higher income exposed segments have remained more resilient. So, if inflation continues to cool, especially via tariff relief, that's what would broaden the consumer recovery and potentially create better returns for some of the sectors in the equity markets that have underperformed. Ariana Salvatore: Right, and from the policy side, I would say this probably isn't the last time we'll be talking about affordability. It's politically salient. The policy responses are likely targeted and incremental, and this should continue to remain a top focus for voters heading into November. Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang and senior leaders from Investment Management Andrew Slimmon and Jitania Kandhari unpack new investment trends from supportive monetary and fiscal policy and shifting market leadership.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Today we're revisiting the 2026 global equity outlook with two senior leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Andrew Slimmon: I am Andrew Slimmon, Head of Applied Equity Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Jitania Kandhari: And I'm Jitania Kandhari, Deputy CIO of the Solutions and Multi-Asset Group, Portfolio Manager for Passport Strategies and Head of Macro and Thematic Research for Emerging Market Equities within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.It's Tuesday, February 3rd at 10 am in New York. So as investors are entering in 2026, after several years of very strong equity returns with policy support reaccelerating. As regular listeners have probably heard, Mike Wilson, who of course is CIO and Chief Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley – his view is that we ended a three-year rolling earnings recession in last April and entered a rolling recovery and a new bull market. Now, Andrew, in the spirit of debate, I know you have a different take on valuations and where we are at in the cycle. I’d love to hear how you're framing this for investment management clients. Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I mean, I guess I focus a little bit more on the behavioral cycle. And I think that from a behavioral cycle we're following a very consistent pattern, which is we had a bad bear market in 2022 that bottomed down 25 percent. And that provided a wonderful opportunity to invest. But early in a behavioral cycle, investors are very pessimistic. And that was really the story of [20]23 and really 2024, which were; investors, you know, were negative on equities. The ratios were all very negative and investors sold out of equities. And that's consistent with a early cycle. And then as you move into the third-fourth year, investors tend to get more optimistic about returns. Doesn't necessarily mean the market goes down. But what it does mean is the market tends to get more volatile and returns start to compress, and ultimately, bull markets die on euphoria. And so, I think it's late cycle, but it's not end of cycle. And that's my theme; is late cycle but not end of cycle.Serena Tang: And I think on that point, one very unusual feature of this environment is that you have both monetary and fiscal policy being supportive at the same time, which, of course, rarely happens outside of recession. So how do you see those dual policy forces shaping market behavior and which parts of the market tend to benefit? Andrew Slimmon: Well, that's exactly right. Look, the last time I checked, page one of the investment handbook says, ‘Don't fight the Fed.’ And so, you have monetary policy easing. And what we; remember what happened in 2021? The Fed raised rates and monetary policy was tightening. Equities do well when the Fed is easing, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's not end of cycle. And then you layer in fiscal policy with tax relief coming, it is a reason to be relatively optimistic on equities in 2026. But it doesn't mean there can't be bumps along the way – and I think a higher level of optimism as we're seeing today is a result of that. But I think you stick with those more procyclical areas: Finance, Industrials, Technology, and then you move down the cap curve a little bit. I think those are the winning trades. They really started to come to the fore in the second half of last year, and I think that will continue into 2026. Serena Tang: Right. And we've definitely seen some bumps recently, but I think on your point around yields. So, Jitania, I think that policy backdrop really ties directly to your idea of the age of capped real rates. In very simple terms, can you explain what that means and what's behind that view? Jitania Kandhari: Sure. When I say age of real rates being capped, I mean like the structural template within which I'm operating, and real rates here are defined by the 10-year on the Treasury yield adjusted for CPI.Firstly, I'd say there was too much linear thinking in markets post Liberation Day. That tariffs equals inflation equals higher rates. Now, tariff impacts, as we have seen, can be offset in several ways, and economic relationships are rarely linear.So, inflation may not go up to the extent market is expecting. So that supports the case for capped rates. And the real constraint is the debt arithmetic, right? So, if you look at the history of public debt in the U.S., whenever there was a surge in public debt during the Civil War, two World Wars, Global Financial Crisis, even during COVID. In all these periods, when debt spiked, real rates have remained negative.So, there can be short term swings in rates, but I believe that markets not necessarily central banks will even enforce that cap. Serena Tang: You've described this moment, as the great broadening of 2026. What's driving this and what do you think is happening now after years of very narrow concentration? Jitania Kandhari: Yes. I think like if last decade was about concentration, now it's going to be about breadth. And if you look at where the concentration was, it was in the [Mag] 7, in the AI trade. We are beginning to see some cracks in the consensus where adoption is happening, but monetization is lagging.  But clearly the next phase of value creation could happen from just the model building to the application layer, as you guys have also talked about – from enablers to adopters.The other thing we are seeing is two AI ecosystems evolve globally. The high cost cutting edge U.S. innovation engine and the lower cost efficiency driven Chinese model, each of them have their own supply chain beneficiaries. And as AI is moving into physical world, you're going to see more opportunities. And then secondly, I think there are limitations on this tariff policies globally; and tariff fears to me remain more of an illusion than a reality because U.S. needs to import a lot of intermediate goods And then lastly, I see domestic cycles inflecting upwards in many other pockets of the world. And you add all this up; the message is clear that leadership is broadening and portfolio should broaden too. Serena Tang: And I want to sort of stay on this topic of broadening. So, Andrew, I think, you've also highlighted, you know, this market broadening, especially beyond the large cap leaders, even as AI investment continues, I think, as you touched on earlier. So why does that matter for equity leadership in 2026? And can you talk about the impact of this broadening on valuations in general? Andrew Slimmon: Sure. So I think, you know, I've been around a long time and I remember when the internet first rolled out, the Mosaic browser was introduced in 1993. And the first thing the stock market tried to do is appoint winners – of who was going to win the internet, you know, search race. And it was Ask Jeeves and it was Yahoo and it was Netscape. Well, none of those were the winners. We just don't know who's ultimately going to be the tech winner. I think it's much safer to know that just like the internet, AI is a technology productivity enhancing tool, and companies are going to embrace AI just like they embraced the internet. And the reason the stock market doubled between 1997 and the dotcom  peak was that productivity margins went up for a lot of companies in a lot of industries as they embraced the internet. So, to me, a broadening out and looking at lower valuations, it is in many ways safer than saying this is the technology winner, and this is technology loser. I think it's all many different industries are going to embrace and benefit from what's going on with AI. Serena Tang: You don't want to know where I was in 1993. And I don't recognize most of those names. Andrew Slimmon: Sorry. I was 14! Serena Tang: [Laughs] Ok. Investors often hear two competing messages now. Ignore the macro and buy great companies or let the big picture drive everything. How do you balance top-down signals with bottom-up fundamentals in your investment process? Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I think you have to employ both, and I hear that all the time; especially I hear, you know, my competitors, ‘Oh, I just focus on my stock picks, my bottom up.’ But, you know, look statistically, two-thirds of a manager's relative performance comes from macro. You know, how did growth do? How did value do?  All those types of things that have nothing to do with what stock picks... And likewise, much of a return of an individual stock has to do with things beyond just what's happening fundamentally. But some of it comes from what's happening at the company level. So, I think to be a great investor, you have to be aware of the macro. The Fed cutting rates this year is a very powerful tool, and if you don't understand the amplifications of that as per what types of stocks work, because you're so focused on the micro, I think that's a mistake. Likewise, you have to know what's going on in your company [be]cause one third of term does come from actual stock selection. So, I'm a big believer in marrying a top down and a bottom up and try to capture the two thirds and the one third.Serena Tang: Since that 2022 bear market low that you talked about earlier. I mean, your framework really favored growth and value over defensives. But I think more recently you've increased your non-U.S. exposure. What changed in your top-down signals and bottom-up data to make global opportunities more compelling now? Is it the narrative of the end of U.S. exceptionalism or something else? Andrew Slimmon: No, I really think it's actually something else, which is we have picked up signals from other parts of the w

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses how the nomination of Kevin Warsh to lead the Fed could move markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast: The implications of Kevin Warsh’s nomination as the next Fed Chair. It's Monday, February 2nd at 10 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.Last Friday, President Trump officially nominated Kevin Warsh to be the next Chair of the Fed. The prevailing narrative around Warsh is fairly straightforward: he’s seen as more hawkish on the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, potentially more flexible on interest rates, and less comfortable with open-ended liquidity support than the current leadership. That characterization is fair, but it doesn’t answer the more important question—why pick Warsh now, and what problem is this nomination trying to solve?In my view, the answer starts with markets, not politics. Over the past several months, we’ve witnessed parabolic moves in precious metals alongside persistent weakness in the U.S. dollar. While this administration has been very clear that a weaker dollar is not inherently a bad thing—especially as part of a broader economic rebalancing strategy—there’s an important distinction between a controlled decline and a disorderly one.To understand why this matters so much, you need to zoom out. The administration is attempting to rebalance the U.S. economy across three dimensions simultaneously, all with the same ultimate goal—growing out of an enormous debt burden that’s been building for more than two decades. At this point, simply cutting spending isn’t realistic, economically or politically. Nominal growth is the only viable path forward.The current strategy is more supply side driven. It focuses on rebalancing trade through tariffs and a weaker dollar, shifting the economy away from over-consumption and toward investment, and addressing inequality through immigration enforcement and deregulation. The goal is to let companies—not the government—make capital allocation decisions, while boosting income through wages rather than entitlements. If it works, the result should be higher nominal growth with a healthier mix of real growth driven by productivity.Markets, to some extent, have already started to price this in. Since last spring, cyclical stocks have outperformed, market breadth has improved, and leadership has begun to rotate away from the mega-cap names that dominated the last cycle. Small and mid-cap stocks are working again too. That’s exactly what you’d expect in the middle stages of a ‘hotter but shorter’ expansion, my core view. At the same time, the surge in gold tells us something else is going on. Precious metals don’t move like that unless investors are questioning the endgame.That’s where Kevin Warsh comes in. His nomination appears designed to restore credibility around the balance sheet and slow the momentum of that skepticism. Based on Friday’s price action, it worked. Gold and silver sold off sharply, the dollar strengthened modestly, and equities and rates stayed relatively stable. That combination buys time—and time is exactly what this strategy needs to work.One of the best ways to track whether markets are buying into this story is by watching the ratio of the S&P 500 to gold. It’s a simple but powerful proxy for confidence in productive growth. The recent collapse was driven mostly by gold rising—and Friday’s sharp reversal was mainly gold prices falling, one of the largest on record.That doesn’t mean skepticism has been eliminated. Instead, it tells me the administration is paying attention and understands they need to restore confidence. If the ratio continues to recover, it will likely come first through lower gold prices and tighter liquidity expectations, and later through stronger earnings growth driven by productivity gains. That could mean near term risk for other risk assets, including equities. Bottom line, the current ‘run it hot’ approach has a better chance of delivering sustainable growth than prior policy mixes—but it won’t be smooth, and confidence will ebb and flow along the way. Watching how markets respond, especially through signals like gold, the dollar, and capital spending trends, will tell us whether this strategy ultimately succeeds. My view is that it’s the best approach which keeps me bullish on 2026 even if the near term is more rocky.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets discusses key market metrics indicating that valuations should stay higher for longer, despite some investors’ concerns.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about key signposts for stability – in a world that from day to day feels anything but.It's Friday, January 30th at 2pm in London.A core theme for us at Morgan Stanley Research is that easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy in 2026 will support more risk taking, corporate activity and animal spirits. Yes, valuations are high. But with so many forces blowing in the same stimulative direction across so many geographies, those valuations may stay higher for longer.We think that the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of Japan, all lower interest rates more, or raise them less than markets expect. We think that fiscal policy will remain stimulative as governments in the United States, Germany, China, and Japan all spend more. And as I discussed on this program recently, regulation – a sleepy but essential part of this equation – is also aligning to support more risk taking.Of course, one concern with having so much stimulative sail out, so to speak, is that you lose control of the boat. As geopolitical headwinds swirl and the price of gold has risen a 100 percent in the last year, many investors are asking whether we're seeing too much of a shift in both government and fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy.Specifically, when I speak to investors, I think I can paraphrase these concerns as follows: Are we seeing expectations for future inflation rise sharply? Will we see more volatility in government debt? Has the valuation of the U.S. dollar deviated dramatically from fair value? And are credit markets showing early signs of stress?Notably, so far, the answer to all of these questions based on market pricing is no. The market's expectation for CPI inflation over the next decade is about 2.4 percent. Similar actually to what we saw in 2024, 2023. Expected volatility for U.S. interest rates over the next year is, well, lower than where it was on January 1st. The U.S. dollar, despite a lot of recent headlines, is trading roughly in line with its fair value, based on purchasing power based on data from Bloomberg. And the credit markets long seen as important leading indicators of risk, well, across a lot of different regions, they've been very well behaved, with spreads still historically tight.Uncertainty in U.S. foreign policy, big moves in Japanese interest rates and even larger moves in gold have all contributed to investor concerns around the potential instability of the macro backdrop. It's understandable, but for now we think that a number of key market-based measures of the stability are still holding.While that's the case, we think that a positive fundamental story, specifically our positive view on earnings growth can continue to support markets. Major shifts in these signposts, however, could change that.Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Original Release Date: January 16, 2026Our Head of Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the main themes for European stocks this year. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product here in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: Today, we are here to talk about the big debates for European equities moving into 2026.It's Friday, January the 16th at 8am in London.Marina, it's great to have you on Thoughts on the Market. I think we've got a fascinating year ahead of us, and there are plenty of big debates to be exploring here in Europe. But let's kick it off with the, sort of, obvious comparison to the U.S.How are you thinking about European equities versus the U.S. right now? When we cast our eyes back to last year, we had this surprising outperformance. Could that repeat?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, the biggest debate of all Paul, that's what you start with. So, actually it's not just last year. If you look since U.S. elections, I think it would surprise most people to know that if you compare in constant currency terms; so if you look in dollar terms or if you look in Euro terms, European equities have outperformed U.S. equities since US elections. I don't think that's something that a lot of people really think about as a fact.And something very interesting has happened at the start of this year. And let me set the scene before I tell you what that is.In the last 10 years, European equities have been in this constantly widening discount range versus the U.S. on valuation. So next one's P/E there's been, you know, we have tactical rallies from time to time; but in the last 10 years, they've always been tactical. But we're in this downward structural range where their discount just keeps going wider and wider and wider. And what's happened on December 31st is that for the first time in 10 years, European equities have broken the top of that discount range now consistently since December 31st. I've lost count of how many trading days that is. So about two weeks, we've broken the top of that discount range. And when you look at long-term history, that's happened a number of times before. And every time that happens, you start to go into an upward range.So, the discount is narrowing and narrowing; not in a straight line, in a range. But the discount narrows over time. The last couple of times that's happened, in the last 20 years, over time you narrow all the way to single digit discount rather than what we have right now in like-for-like terms of 23 percent.Paul Walsh: Yeah, so there's a significant discount. Now, obviously it's great that we are seeing increased inflows into European equities. So far this year, the performance at an index level has been pretty robust. We've just talked about the relative positioning of Europe versus the U.S.; and the perhaps not widely understood local currency outperformance of Europe versus the U.S. last year. But do you think this is a phenomenon that's sustainable? Or are we looking at, sort of, purely a Q1 phenomenon?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, it's a really good question and you make a good point on flows, which I forgot to mention. Which is that, last year in [Q1] we saw this really big diversification flow theme where investors were looking to reduce exposure in the U.S., add exposure to Europe – for a number of reasons that I won't go into.And we're seeing deja vu with that now, mostly on the – not really reducing that much in U.S., but more so, diversifying into Europe. And the feedback I get when speaking to investors is that the U.S. is so big, so concentrated and there's this trend of broadening in the U.S. that's happening; and that broadening is impacting Europe as well.Because if you're thinking about, ‘Okay, what do I invest in outside of seven stocks in the U.S.?’ You're also thinking about, ‘Okay, but Europe has discounts and maybe I should look at those European companies as well.’ That's exactly what's happening. So, diversification flows are sharply going up, in the last month or two in European equities coming into this year.And it's a very good question of whether this is just a [Q1] phenomenon. [Be]cause that's exactly what it was last year. I still struggle to see European equities outperforming the U.S. over the course of the full year because we're going to come into earnings now.We have much lower earnings growth at a headline level than the U.S. I have 4 percent earnings growth forecast. That's driven by some specific sectors. It's, you know, you have pockets of very high growth. But still at a headline level, we have 4 percent earnings growth on our base case. Consensus is too high in our view. And our U.S. equity strategists, they have 17 percent earnings growth, so we can't compete.Paul Walsh That's a very stark difference.Marina Zavolock: Yeah, we cannot compete with that. But what I will say is that historically when you've had these breakouts, you don't get out performance really. But what you get is a much narrower gap in performance. And I also think if you pick the right pockets within Europe, then you could; you can get out performance.Paul Walsh: So, something you and I talked about a lot in 2025, is the bull case for Europe. There are a number of themes and secular dynamics that could play out, frankly, to the benefits of Europe, and there are a number of them. I wondered if you could highlight the ones that you think are most important in terms of the bull case for Europe.Marina Zavolock: I think the most important one is AI adoption. We and our team, we have been able to quantify this. So, when we take our global AI mapping and we look at leading AI adopters in Europe, which is about a quarter of the index, they are showing very strong earnings and returns outperformance. Not just versus the European index, but versus their respective sectors. And versus their respective sectors, that gap of earnings outperformance is growing and becoming more meaningful every time that we update our own chart.To the point that I think at this rate, by the second half of this year, it's going to grow to a point that it’s more difficult for investors to ignore. That group of stocks, first of all, they trade again at a big discount to U.S. equivalent – 27 percent discount. Also, if you see adoption broadening overall, and we start to go into the phase of the AI cycle where adopters are, you know, are being sought after and are seen as in the front line of beneficiaries of AI. It's important to remember Europe; the European index because we don't have a lot of enablers in our index. It is very skewed to AI adopters. And then we also have a lot of low hanging fruit given productivity demographic challenges that AI can help to address. So that's the biggest one.Paul Walsh: Understood.Marina Zavolock: And the one I've spent most time on. But let me quickly mention a few others. M&A, we're seeing it rising in Europe, almost as sharply as we're seeing in the U.S. Again, I think there's low hanging fruit there. We're seeing easing competition commission rules, which has been an ongoing thing, but you know, that comes after decade of not seeing that. We're seeing corporate re-leveraging off of lows. Both of these things are still very far from cycle peaks. And we're seeing structural drivers, which for example, savings and investment union, which is multifaceted. I won't get into it. But that could really present a bull case.Paul Walsh: Yeah. And that could include pensions reform across Europe, particularly in Germany, deeper capital…Marina Zavolock: We're starting to see it.Paul Walsh: And in Europe as well, yeah. And so just going back to the base case, what are you advocating to clients in terms of what do we buy here in Europe, given the backdrop that you've framed?Marina Zavolock: Within Europe, I get asked a lot whether investors should be investing in cyclicals or value. Last year value really worked, or quality – maybe they will return. I think it's not really about any of those things. I think, similar to prior years, what we're going to see is stock level dispersion continuing to rise. That's what we keep seeing every month, every quarter, every year – for the last couple of years, we're seeing dispersion rising.Again, we're still far from where we normally get to, when we get to cycle peaks. So, Europe is really about stock picking. And the best way that we have at Morgan Stanley to capture this alpha under the surface of the European index. And the growth that we have under the surface of the index, is our analyst top picks – which are showing fairly consistent outperformance, not just versus the European index, but also versus the S&P. And since inception of top picks in 2021, European top picks have outperformed the S&P free float market cap weighted by over 90 percentage points. And they've outperformed, the S&P – this is pre-trade – by 17 percentage points in the last year. And whatever period we slice, we're seeing out performance.As far as sectors, key sectors, Banks is at the very top of our model. It's the first sector that non-dedicated investors ask me about. I think the investment case there is very compelling. Defense, we really like structurally with the rearmament theme in Europe, but it's also helpful that we're in this seasonal phase where defense tends to really outperform between; and have outsized returns between January and April. And then we like the powering AI thematic, and we are getting a lot of incoming on the powering AI thematic in Europe. We upgraded utilities recently.Paul, maybe if I ask you a question, one sector that I've missed out on, in our data-driven sector model, is the semis. But you've worked a lot with our semi's team who are quite constructive. Can you tell us about the investment c

Our Deputy Head of Global Research Michael Zezas explains why the risk of a new U.S. government shutdown is worth investor attention, but not overreaction.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Deputy Head of Global Research for Morgan Stanley. Today, we’ll discuss the possibility of a U.S. government shutdown later this week, and what investors should – and should not – be worried about. It’s Wednesday, January 28th at 10:30 am in New York. In recent weeks investors have had to consider all manner of policy catalysts for the markets – including the impact to oil supply and emerging markets from military action in Venezuela, potential military action in Iran, and risks of fracturing of the U.S.-Europe relationship over Greenland. By comparison, a potential U.S. government shutdown may seem rather quaint. But, a good investor aggressively manages all risks, so let's break this down. Amidst funding negotiations in the Senate, Democrats are pressing for tighter rules and more oversight on how immigration enforcement is carried out given recent events. Republicans have signaled some openness to negotiations, but the calendar is really a constraint. With the House out of session until early next week any Senate changes this week could lead to a lapse in funding. So, a brief shutdown this weekend, followed by a short continuing resolution once the House returns, is a very plausible path – not because either side wants a shutdown, but because they haven’t fully coalesced around the strategy and time is short. Of course, once a shutdown happens, there’s a risk it could drag on. But in general our base case is that the economic impact would be manageable. Historically, shutdowns create meaningful hardship for affected workers and contractors. But the aggregate macro effects tend to be modest and reversible. Most spending is eventually made up, and disruptions to growth typically unwind quickly once funding is restored. A useful rule of thumb is that a full shutdown trims roughly one‑tenth of a percentage point from the annualized quarterly GDP for each week it lasts. With several appropriations bills already passed, what we’d face now is a partial shutdown, meaning that figure would be even smaller. For markets, that means the reaction should also be modest. Shutdowns tend not to reprice the fundamental path of earnings, inflation, or the Fed – which are still the dominant drivers of asset performance. So, the market’s inclination will likely be to look past the noise and focus on more substantive catalysts ahead. Finally, it’s worth unpacking the politics here, because they’re relevant. But not in the way investors might think. The shutdown risk is emerging from actions that have contributed to sagging approval ratings for the President and Republicans – leading many investors to ask us what this means for midterm elections and resulting public policy choices. And taken together, one could read these dynamics as an early sign that the Republicans may face a difficult midterm environment. We think it's too early to draw any confident conclusions about this, but even if we could, we’re not sure it matters. First, many of the most market‑relevant policies—on trade, regulation, industrial strategy, re‑shoring, and increasingly AI—are being executed through executive authority, not congressional action. That means their trajectory is unlikely to be altered by near‑term political turbulence. Second, the President would almost certainly veto any effort to roll back last year’s tax bill, which created a suite of incentives aimed at corporate capex. A key driver of the 2026 outlook. Putting it all together, the bottom line is this: A short, calendar‑driven shutdown is a risk worth monitoring, but not one to overreact to. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review. And tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Our Head of Asian Gaming & Lodging and Hong Kong/India Real Estate Research Praveen Choudhary discusses the first synchronized growth cycle for Hong Kong’s major real estate segments in almost a decade.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Praveen Choudhary, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Asian Gaming & Lodging and Hong Kong/India Real Estate Research. Today – a look at a market that global investors often watch but may not fully appreciate: Hong Kong real estate. It’s Tuesday, January 27th, at 2pm in Hong Kong.Why should investors in New York, London, or Singapore care about trends in Hong Kong property? That’s easy to answer. Because Hong Kong remains one of the world’s most globally sensitive real estate markets. When [the] cycle turns here, it often reflects – and sometimes predicts – broader shift in liquidity, capital flows, and macro sentiment across Asia. And right now, for the first time since 2018, all three major Hong Kong property segments – residential prices, office rents in the Central district of Hong Kong, and retail sales – are set to grow together. That synchronized upturn hasn’t happened in almost a decade. What’s driving this shift? Residential real estate is the engine of this turnaround. Prices have finally bottomed after a 30 percent decline since 2018, and 2026 is shaping out to be a strong year. We actually expect home prices to grow more than 10 percent in 2026, after going up by 5 percent in 2025. And we think that it will grow further in 2027. There are three factors that give us confidence on this out-of-consensus call. The first one is policy. Back in February 2024, Hong Kong scrapped all extra stamp duty that had made it tougher for mainland Chinese or foreign buyers to enter the market. Stamp duty is basically a tax you pay when buying property, or even selling property; and it has been a key way for [the] government to control demand and raise revenue. With those extra charges gone, buying and selling real estate in Hong Kong, especially for mainlanders, is a lot more straightforward and penalty-free. In fact, post the removal of the stamp duty, [the] percentage of units that has been sold to mainlanders have gone to 50 percent of total; earlier it used to be 10-20 percent. Why is it non-consensus? That is because consensus believes that Hong Kong property price can’t go up when China residential outlook is negative. In mid-2025, consensus thought that the recovery was simply a cyclical response to a sharp drop in the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate, or HIBOR.But we believe the drivers are supply/demand mismatch, positive carry as rental go up but rates go down, and Hong Kong as a place for global monetary interconnection between China and the world that’s still thriving. Second, demand fundamentals are strengthening. Hong Kong’s population turned positive again, rising to 7.5 million in the first half of 2025. During COVID we had a population decline. Now, talent attraction scheme is driving around 140,000 visa approvals in 2025, which is double what it used to be pre-COVID level. New household formation is tracking above the long‑term average, and mainland buyers are now a powerful force. The third factor is affordability. So, after years of declines, the housing prices have come to a point where affordability is back to a long‑term average. In fact, the income versus the price is now back to 2011 level. You combine this with lower mortgage rates as the Fed cut moves through, and you have pent‑up demand finally returning. And don’t forget the wealth effect: Hang Seng Index climbed almost 30 percent in 2025. That kind of equity rebound historically spills over into property buying. As the recovery in residential real estate picks up speed, we're also seeing a fresh wave of optimism and actions across Hong Kong office and retail markets. So big picture: Hong Kong property market isn't just stabilizing. It’s turning. A 10 percent or more residential price rebound, a Central office market finding its footing, and an improved retail environment – all in the same year – marks the clearest green lights this market has seen since 2018.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 Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd discusses Morgan Stanley’s key investment themes for this year and how they’re influencing markets and economies.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Today – the four key themes that will define markets and economies in 2026. It’s Monday, January 26th, at 10am in New York. If you're feeling overwhelmed by all the market noise and constant swings, you're not alone. One of the biggest hurdles for investors today is really figuring out how to tune out the short-term ups and downs and focus on the bigger trends that are truly changing the world. At Morgan Stanley Research, thematic analysis has long been central to how we think about markets, especially in periods of extreme volatility. A thematic lens helps us step back from the noise and really focus on the structural forces reshaping economies, industries, and societies. And that perspective has delivered results. In 2025, on average, our thematic stock categories outperformed the MSCI World Index by 16 percent and the S&P 500 by 27 percent. And this really reinforces our view that long-term themes can be powerful drivers of alpha. For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and Tech Diffusion, The Future of Energy, The Multipolar World, and Societal Shifts. Now three of these themes carry forward from last year, but each has evolved meaningfully – and one of our themes represents a major expansion on our prior work. First, the AI and Tech Diffusion theme remains central, but has clearly matured and evolved. In 2025, the focus was on rapid capability gains. In 2026, the emphasis shifts to non-linear improvement and the growing gap between AI capabilities and real-world adoption. A critical evolution is our view that compute demand is likely to exceed supply meaningfully, even as software and hardware become more efficient. As AI use cases multiply and grow more complex, the infrastructure – especially computing power – emerges as a defining constraint. Next is The Future of Energy, which has taken on new urgency. Energy demand in developed markets, long assumed to be flat, is now inflecting upwards. And this is driven largely by AI infrastructure and data centers. Compared with 2025, this theme has expanded from a supply conversation into one focused on policy. Rising energy costs are becoming increasingly visible to consumers, elevating a concept we call the ‘politics of energy.’ Policymakers are under pressure to prioritize low-cost, reliable energy, even when trade-offs exist, and new strategies are emerging to secure power without destabilizing grids or increasing household bills. Our third theme, The Multipolar World, also builds on last year but with sharper edges. Globalization continues to fragment as countries prioritize security, resilience, and national self-sufficiency. Since 2025, competition has become more clearly defined by access to critical inputs – such as energy, materials, defense capabilities, and advanced technology. Notably, the top-performing thematic categories in 2025 were driven by Multipolar World dynamics, underscoring how geopolitical and industrial shifts are translating directly into market outcomes. Now the biggest evolution comes with our fourth key theme – which we call Societal Shifts – and this expands on our prior work on Longevity. This new framework captures a wider range of forces shaping societies globally: AI-driven labor disruption and evolution, aging populations, changing consumer preferences, the K-economy, the push for healthy longevity, and challenging demographics across many regions. These shifts increasingly influence government policy, corporate strategy, and economic growth – and their impact spans far more industries than investors often expect. Now crucially these themes don’t operate in isolation. AI accelerates energy demand. Energy costs shape politics. Politics influence supply chains and national priorities. And all of this feeds directly into societal outcomes: from employment to consumption patterns. The power of thematic investing lies in understanding these intersections, where multiple forces reinforce one another in underappreciated ways. So to sum it up, the most important investment questions for 2026 aren’t just about growth rates. They’re about structure. Understanding how technology, energy, geopolitics, and society evolve together may be the clearest way to see where opportunity, and risk, are truly heading. 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.