Thoughts on the Market

Our U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver discusses how the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history could reshape saving, spending and investment behavior across America.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----    Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Today, a powerful force reshaping the financial lives of millions of Americans: inheritance.It's Friday, October 10th at 10am in New York.Americans are living longer and they're passing on their wealth later. Longevity is one of Morgan Stanley Research's four key themes, and this is an interesting element of longevity. As baby boomers age, they're expected to transfer their wealth to Gen X, millennials and Gen Z to the tune of tens or even hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars.Estimates vary widely, but the amounts are unprecedented. And so, inheritance isn't just a family milestone; it's becoming an important cornerstone of financial planning and longevity. And understanding who's receiving, expecting, and using their inheritances is key to forecasting how Americans save, spend, and invest.According to our latest AlphaWise survey, 17 percent of U.S. consumers have received an inheritance, and another 14 percent expect to receive one in the future. Younger Americans are especially optimistic. Their expectations split evenly between those anticipating an inheritance within the next 10 years and those expecting it further out.But here's the kicker; income plays a huge role. Only 17 percent of lower income consumers report receiving or expecting an inheritance, but that number jumps to 43 percent among higher income households highlighting a clear wealth divide.What about the size of the inheritance? In our survey, those who received or expect to receive an inheritance fall broadly into three categories. About half reported amounts under $100,000 dollars. For about a third, that amount rose to under $500,000. And then meanwhile, 10 per cent reported an inheritance of half a million dollars or more.Younger consumers tend to report smaller amounts, while inheritance size rises with income. One important thing to remember about our survey though, is it looks more at the average person. We are missing some of those very high net worth demographics in there where I would expect inheritance to rise much higher than half a million.And so, when we think about this, how will recipients use this wealth? That's a really important question. The majority, about 60 percent, say they have or will put their inheritance towards savings, retirement, or investments. About a third say they'll use it for housing or paying down debt. Day-to-day consumption, travel, education and even starting a business or giving to charity also featured in the survey responses – but to a lesser extent.The financial impact of inheritance is significant: 46 percent of recipients say it makes them feel more financially secure; 40 percent cite improvements in savings; and 22 percent associate it with increased spending. Some even report retiring earlier or lightening their workloads.Inheritance trends are shaping consumer behavior and have the power to influence spending patterns across industries. To sum it up, inheritance isn't just a family matter, it's a market mover.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.

Diving into the history of Morgan Stanley’s first bond deal, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains the value of high-quality corporate bonds.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----    Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a look at the first bond that Morgan Stanley helped issue 90 years ago and what it might tell us about market uncertainty. It's Thursday, October 9th at 4pm in London. In times of uncertainty, it's common to turn to history. And this we think also applies to financial markets. The Great Depression began roughly 95 years ago. Of its many causes, one was that the same banks that were shepherding customer deposits were also involved in much riskier and more volatile financial market activity. And so, when the stock market crashed, falling over 40 percent in 1929, and ultimately 86 percent from a peak to a trough in 1932, unsuspecting depositors often found their banks overwhelmed by this market maelstrom. The Roosevelt administration took office in March of 1933 and set about trying to pick up the pieces. Many core aspects that we associate with modern financial life from FDIC insurance to social security to the somewhat unique American 30-year mortgage rose directly out of policies from this administration and the financial ashes of this period. There was also quite understandably, a desire to make banking safer. And so the Glass Steagall Act mandated that banks had a choice. They could either do the traditional deposit taking and lending, or they could be active in financial market trading and underwriting. In response to these new separations, Morgan Stanley was founded 90 years ago in 1935 to do the latter. It was a very uncertain time. The U.S. economy was starting to recover under President Roosevelt's New Deal policies, but unemployment was still over 17 percent. Europe's economy was struggling, and the start of the Second World War would be only four years away. The S&P Composite Equity Index, which currently sits at a level of around 6,700, was at 12. It was into this world that Morgan Stanley brought its first bond deal, a 30-year corporate bond for a AA rated U.S. utility. And so, listeners, what do you think that that sort of bond yielded all those years ago? Luckily for us, the good people at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis digitized a vast array of old financial newspapers. And so, we can see what the original bond yielded in the announcement. The first bond, Morgan Stanley helped issue with a 30-year maturity and a AA rating had a yield of just 3.55 percent. That was just 70 basis points over what a comparable U.S. treasury bond offered at the time. Anniversaries are nice to celebrate, but we think this example has some lessons for the modern day. Above anything, it's a clear data point that even in very uncertain economic times, high quality corporate bonds can trade at very low spreads – much lower than one might intuitively expect. Indeed, the extra spread over government bonds that investors required for a 30-year AA rated utility bond 90 years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the Great Depression is almost exactly the same as today. It's one more reason why we think we have to be quite judicious about turning too negative on corporate credit too early, even if the headline spreads look low. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also, please tell a friend or colleague about us today.

An extended U.S. government shutdown raises the risk for weaker growth potential. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas suggests key checkpoints that investors should keep in mind.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----   Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today: Three checkpoints we’re watching for as the U.S. government shutdown continues. It’s Wednesday, October 8th at 10:30am in New York. The federal government shutdown in the United States has crossed the one week mark. But if you’re watching the markets, you might be surprised at how calm everything seems. Stocks are steady. Bond yields haven’t moved much, and volatility’s low. It’s more or less the scenario my colleague Ariana and I had talked about in anticipation of the impasse in Washington. We’d noted the potential for uncertainty for investors and market reaction depending on how long the shutdown would last. So that raises a big question: what, if anything, about this government shutdown could shake investor confidence and start moving markets? The question is worth considering. Prediction markets now suggest the most likely outcome is that the government shutdown will not end for at least another week. And as we’ve seen in past shutdowns, the longer it drags on, the more likely it is to matter. That’s because risks to the economic outlook start to accumulate, and investors eventually have to start pricing in a weaker growth outlook. There’s a few checkpoints we’re watching for – for when investors might start feeling this way. First, the missed paycheck for furloughed federal workers. The first instance of this comes in a few days. Less pay naturally means less spending. Studies suggest that spending among affected workers can drop by two to four percent during a shutdown. That’s not huge for GDP at first; but it’s a sign the shutdown is having effects beyond Washington, DC. Second, this time might be different because of potential layoffs. The administration has hinted that agencies could move to permanently cut staff — something we haven’t seen before. Unions have already said they’d challenge that in court. But if those actions start, or even if legal uncertainty grows around them, it could raise the economic stakes. Third, we’re watching for real disruptions to economic activity resulting from the shutdown. The last shutdown ended when air traffic in New York was curtailed due to a shortage of air traffic controllers. We’re already seeing substantial air traffic delays across the country. More substantial delays or ground halts obviously impede economic activity related to travel. And if such actions don’t coincide with signals from DC of progress in negotiating a bill to reopen the government, investors’ concern could grow. So here’s the bottom line: markets may be right to stay calm — for now. But the longer this shutdown lasts, the more likely one of these pressure points pushes investors to rethink their optimism. 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 Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur explains how changes in the yield curve are affecting markets such as insurance, Treasury yields and mortgage rates.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----  Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today – How the shape of the yield curve has affected credit and housing markets, and the risk of changes to the curve and its implications. It’s Tuesday, October 7th at 1pm in New York. The shape of the yield curve plays a pivotal role in financial markets. It influences everything from credit conditions to housing and mortgage dynamics. And you’ve been hearing on this show for some time about more Fed rate cuts coming. Our economists expect 25 basis point rate cuts at the next three meetings – that is October, December and January. And then two more in April and July of next year. What does this mean to the shape of the curve? Our high conviction call has been that investors should position for a steeper yield curve. Why does the curve matter? It’s not just a macro signal. It’s a transmission mechanism that shapes pricing, risk appetite, and sector flows. Take life insurers, for example. A steeper curve has turbocharged demand for fixed annuity products, which in turn drives flows into spread assets like corporate and securitized credit. Insurance demand has become a powerful technical in credit markets. This year’s steepening has been led by falling front-end yields. For example, 2-year Treasuries are down about 60 basis points, significantly outpacing the 40 basis point drop in 10-year yields and just 5 basis point drop in 30-year yields. That front-end move reflects shifting rate expectations and offers relief to highly leveraged issuers who rely on short-term funding. But longer-dated yields remain sticky, keeping all-in borrowing costs elevated. That is good for insurers – and the sale of fixed annuity products – but acts as a brake on overall issuance, helping keep credit spreads tight despite macro uncertainty. That said, not all markets benefit. Mortgage rates, which track longer yields more closely than the fed funds rate, have actually risen 25 to 30 basis points since the easing cycle began in September of 2024. That’s a headwind for affordability. While a steeper curve may support lending and future housing supply, it’s not helping today’s buyers. A flatter curve with lower long-end yields would offer more meaningful relief—but that is clearly not our base case. Bottom line: Rate cuts matter, but the shape of the curve may matter more. A steeper curve is a tailwind for credit but a headwind for housing. And a reminder that not all markets move in sync. 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 strategists Daniel Blake and Tim Chan discuss how Asia is adapting to multipolar world dynamics, tech innovation and longevity trends to create new opportunities for global investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----   Daniel Blake: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake, Morgan Stanley's Asia Equity and Thematic Strategist. Tim Chan: And I'm Tim Chan, Morgan Stanley Head of Asia Sustainability Research and Thematic Strategist Daniel Blake: Today, how Asia is reshaping its development strategy, corporate governance, and capital markets to lead globally. It's Monday, October 6th at 8am in Singapore. Tim Chan: And it's also 8am in Hong Kong. Daniel Blake: Asia is experiencing a number of dramatic changes that are reshaping industries, even entire economies. Deglobalization, supply chain shifts, frenetic investment in AI and looming disruption from the adoption of the technology, rapid energy transformation, and the transition to super aged populations as longevity drives investment in innovative healthcare and better nutrition are just some of the overarching themes. Asia's transformation is a story every global investor needs to follow and look for opportunities in. Tim Chan: So, what are the overarching themes, when you look at Asia Pacific? For example, what are the key themes that you're seeing in terms of driving the equity return and the market trend that you're seeing? Daniel Blake: We're approaching the Asia thematic opportunity from the framework of a competitive reinvention. It's competitive because this is deeply rooted in the cultural and business norms across much of the region, which has had an export focus through the modernization process in Japan, and more broadly with the emergence of the Asia Tigers. But we're seeing this competition really stepping up another notch. As countries look at how they can take market share in emerging technologies, and also this overarching competition between the U.S. and China, which sits at the heart of the multipolar world theme we've been laying out in recent years. We're also seeing a reinvention of development strategies of corporate governance frameworks and of capital markets to try to better improve the financial supply chain, to see the capital raising the capital allocation process improved and ultimately drive better returns for an aging population. So, Tim, you've been very focused on the corporate governance improvements that were seen in much of the region. Take us through what you think is most compelling and most important for investors to note. Tim Chan: I think governance reforms is a really key thing for Asia Pacific. Take an example in Japan, in the past we have done some correlation analysis between the major governance factors and what are driving the return. What we have found is that, first of all, there is a significant alpha potential from online companies with leading governance metrics and also companies that may improve their governance metrics over time. So, if we look at the independence of board of directors as an example. There is a positive correlation between the total return and also the independence in Japan market. And overall, we are seeing a major government improvement. As Daniel you have mentioned, China, Korea, India, and Singapore, and Japan as well – all these markets together account for over 70 percent of the market cap in MS Asia Pacific in index. So that's why, we think the governance reform is really driving the return of Asia Pacific as a whole. Daniel, after talking about the governance reform and capital market reform, I know multipolar level is also a key theme for Asia Pacific. So, what you are seeing in terms of multipolar level in Asia Pacific? Daniel Blake: So, the multipolar world theme has come back to the foreground in 2025 as trade tensions have risen, as deal making has been struck or attempted. And we've seen the concept of weaponized interdependence really being proven out in the second quarter of 2025, as China has been in recent years, implementing frameworks for export controls and leverage these quite effectively. So economic security initiatives have come back to the focus for investors. Over recent years, we've seen a number being set up across the region, including Japan's Economic Security Promotion Act, the Self-Reliant India framework, and South Korea's Supply Chain Stabilization Act, as well as Australia's National Reconstruction Fund. So, we see a number of investment opportunities flowing from these reforms. Ultimately the critical mineral and permanent magnet supply chain is very much in focus, but we're also expecting to see semi localization. So, semiconductor localization efforts are continuing to drive investment and activity. Naturally, defense has been a key area of focus for investors in 2025, and overall we see defense spending rising in Asia from 600 U.S. billion dollars in 2024 to [$]1 trillion in 2030.So, Tim, the energy security theme fits as part of this overall future of energy theme that you've been exploring with the team. How do you see this intersection with the multipolar world and what are the key investment opportunities? Tim Chan: For the future of energy, I think the energy story is really at the core of Asia multipolar world positioning. Take an example, we are seeing for Southeast Asia, the region is importing gas from U.S., and then also Korea and Japan are also trying to export their nuclear technology to the Western world as well. I think all these have a part to play in the multipolar world; but at the same time, they are also crucial for these countries to meet their own energy target and strategy. In Asia Pacific, when we look at the future of energy, there are a few driving force[s]. One is the very strong growth of renewable energy. Take an example, in India, we are seeing a huge CapEx going into the renewable energy sector and solar sector as well. China is already the biggest market in solar panel. Then also Korea and Japan are developing their nuclear capacity as well. And as I have mentioned, they also export their nuclear technology to the Western world. So, I would say, these Asian countries are balancing the multipolar world priorities with their future of energy target as well. And then there were also lots of opportunities between these dynamics; I will highlight two examples. One is a nuclear renaissance thesis that we have written extensively in the past two years. We have highlighted Japan and Korea being the key beneficiaries under this multipolar world and future of energy dynamics. And then the other would be the gas globalization in Southeast Asia or ASEAN region, where we see opportunities in the gas distributor, gas infrastructure in Southeast Asia. And then gas is going to be much more important when it comes to the energy, security and transition agenda in Southeast Asia region. So we are seeing lots of development in the future of energy in Asia Pacific. But when it comes to the other big theme that is AI. Asia Pacific is also a leader in a global AI race. So, Danny, what are the most reputable trend that you're seeing on a national or regional level? On tech diffusion and AI in Asia Pacific? Daniel Blake: So, the concept of competitive reinvention also is useful in understanding Asia's response to AI and technology diffusion. So, we've seen China in particular, looking to strengthen its position in the development phase of new technologies. And we're also seeing on the export competition front, more incentives to compete for the next phase of supply chain diversification. We're also seeing the emerging class of China MNCs that are sitting at the heart of our China Emerging Frontiers research. And another key area of discussion and research for us is understanding China's unique AI path. Where we're seeing more of a focus on policy makers and corporates playing to strengths in terms of power, data and talent, given the shortages of compute, and at the same time wanting to pursue a localization strategy over the medium term. On the technology front, we think the India stack is also still underappreciated as a digital enabler of opportunities in the New India. And then more broadly, we are looking for companies that we see in Asia that will prove to be AI adoption leaders. So, this underpins a really another key work stream for us in identifying opportunities from AI and tech diffusion into the region. So, Tim, how about when we turn to the theme of longevity, what are the key investment opportunities you see in Asia Pacific? Tim Chan: First of all, let's look at China. So, China is entering a super age society and by 2030, China's elderly population will hit 260 million. So that is a big number, which accounts for 18 percent of the population. And Japan as well, and Korea as well. Korea is already entering the super aged society. And then there have been reform program on healthcare, financial system pension and labor market in order to support these, old aging population. And for Japan, the focus is really on not just living longer but also living more healthy. Take an example, we have done some reports on the healthy food industry in Japan. And how different companies are providing affordable, healthy food to consumer. And we think that will create opportunities for investor, if they would like to look into longevity as a theme. Overall, we are seeing new market in healthcare, pharmaceutical, and affordable healthy food, as well as the reform in the wealth management and pension system that will create opportunities in the financial market as well. And the longevity economy and or the silver economy is becoming a big theme for Asia Pacific for a long time to come. Daniel Blake: Tim, thanks for taking the time to talk. Tim Chan: Yeah, great speaking with you, Daniel. Daniel Blake: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen

Have you ever wondered -- How much do I really need to retire early and am I on track? How do I balance all of my financial goals? How can I help my children be financially secure? Tune into Season 3 of What Should I Do With My Money, hosted by Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Jamie Roô to hear real-life stories about these and other big financial questions.

Our China Healthcare Analyst Jack Lin discusses how China’s biotech surge is reshaping healthcare, investment and innovation worldwide.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Jack Lin: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jack Lin, from Morgan Stanley's China Healthcare Team. Today, the boom in China biotech – and how it's not just a headline for China-focused investors, but a story that touches all of us. It is Friday, October 3rd at 2pm in Hong Kong. Many people might not realize this but some of the next generation healthcare innovation is being developed far from Silicon Valley and Wall Street. The medicines you rely on, treatment plans that could shape your family's future, even investment opportunity that can grow your savings. They are all increasingly influenced by China's rapidly evolving biotech sector, which is transitioning from traditional generics manufacturing into the global innovation ecosystem. In fact, China's biotech industry is set to become a major player in the global innovation ecosystem. By 2040, we project China's originated assets could represent about a third of U.S. FDA approvals – up dramatically from just 5 percent today. And the question isn't if China's biotech will matter, but how global patients could benefit; and how consumers and investors worldwide might engage with its impact.What's driving this transformation? Three key components are driving the globalization of China originated drug innovations: cost, accessibility, and innovation quality. Lower cost in China's biotech sector enables more efficient development. Clinical trial quality is improving with regulatory pathways becoming more streamlined, promoting accessibility of China innovation for global markets. Finally, innovation in China's biotech sector is gaining momentum with more regionally developed medicines now eyeing market approval from leading overseas agencies like the U.S. FDA and EMA.This is all to say China is on track to become a key force on the global biotech stage. That said, right now we're also at a crossroads moment as geopolitical tensions between U.S. and China pose potential risks to the flow of innovation. Despite these uncertainties, we see a likely outcome of co-opetition, a blend of competition and collaboration, as global pharma grapples with the dual imperatives of innovation and resilience. Of course, this rapid evolution brings both opportunities and challenges. It's prompting stakeholders around the world to rethink their strategies and collaborations in this shifting landscape of global medical innovation. As the China biotech industry evolves, the choices made by investors, policy makers, and healthcare communities, both within China and globally, will determine the therapies of the future. It is truly a dynamic space, and we'll continue to bring you updates. Thanks for listening to our thoughts on the market. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review, wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleagues today.

Our Chief China Equity Strategist Laura Wang discusses how China’s new approach to economic development is transforming domestic industries and reshaping the global investment landscape.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief China Equity Strategist.Today – a consequential shift in China's economic policy is set to reshape domestic markets and send ripples across the global economy.It’s Thursday, October 2nd at 2pm in Hong Kong.If you’re an investor, it’s important to understand China’s new approach to economic development. The government's policies to drive a recovery from an economic slump are changing the rules of competition, profitability and growth. This affects Chinese companies, and in turn global supply chains and investment flows.Let’s start with the term involution – what is it? In China, involution describes a cycle of excessive competition—think companies fighting for market share by slashing prices, ramping up production, and eroding profits, often to the point where nobody wins. The government’s anti-involution campaign is a direct response to this problem.What factors prompted the launch of this anti-involution initiative? Since 2021, China has faced mounting deflationary pressures—falling prices, a housing market slump, and a surge in manufacturing investment that led to overcapacity. The September 2024 policy pivot began to address these issues, and in mid-2025 the government launched a more targeted anti-involution campaign. This phase focuses on reducing excessive competition and restoring pricing power through market-based consolidation.As we assess the potential effectiveness of China’s anti-involution policy, our base case projects China’s return on equity (ROE) to reach 13.3 percent by 2030, up from a cycle low of 10 percent in May 2024 and 11.6 percent by July 2025. In a bullish scenario, decisive reforms and demand-side stimulus could push ROE as high as 16.3 percent.We also expect earnings growth to accelerate, with our base case showing an annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.6 percent in 2025, rising to 11.1 percent by 2027. We forecast valuations to normalize towards 12–13x forward price-to-earnings, in line with emerging market peers, but this could re-rate higher if reforms succeed.In terms of investment opportunities, we believe the EV Batteries industry will benefit the most from the Chinese government’s anti-involution efforts. It’s got strong policy support, cutting-edge technology, and a market that’s consolidating fast—meaning the days of low-quality and excess capacity are fading. We’re seeing a shift toward long-term, sustainable growth. Steel and Cement are industries where the state has a strong hand and capacity controls are well established. These factors help stabilize the market and open the door for steady gains. Finally, Airlines. While the industry has faced persistent losses, there isn’t a[n] oversupply of seats, and regulatory coordination is strong. With the right reforms, Airlines could be poised for a significant turnaround.The sectors best positioned to benefit from China’s anti-involution strategy are more domestically oriented. But this policy is bound to have global implications. And the ripples will likely extend to global supply chains, especially in Materials, Chemicals and Autos.Looking ahead, the pace and success of anti-involution will depend on further structural reforms, demand-side support, and the ability to digest industrial credit risks gradually. The upcoming 15th Five-Year Plan could bring more clarity on tax, social welfare, and local government incentives.So, what should investors be paying attention to? China’s anti-involution campaign is more than a policy tweak—it’s a recalibration of how the country balances growth, innovation, and sustainability. The key is to track sector-level reforms, watch for signs of consolidation, and focus on companies with strong fundamentals and policy tailwinds.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

In the second of a two-part episode, Morgan Stanley’s chief economists talk about their near-term U.S. outlook based on tariffs, labor supply and the Fed’s response. They also discuss India’s path to strong economic growth.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Yesterday I sat down with my colleagues, Mike Gapen, Chetan Ahya and Jens Eisenschmidt, who cover the U.S., Asia, and Europe respectively. We talked about... Well, we didn't get to the U.S. We talked about Asia. We talked about Europe. Today, we are going to focus on the U.S. and maybe one or two more economies around the world. It's Wednesday, October 1st at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10 pm in Hong Kong. All right, gentlemen. So yesterday we talked a lot about China, the anti-involution policy, and what's going on with deflation there. Talked a little bit about Japan and what the Bank of Japan is doing. We shifted over to Europe and what the ECB is doing there – there were lots of questions about deflation, disinflation, whether or not inflation might actually pick up in Japan. So, [that] was all about soft inflation. Mike, let me put you on the spot here, because things are, well, things are a little bit different in the U.S. when it comes to inflation. A lot of attention on tariffs and whether or not tariffs are going to drive up inflation. Of course, inflation, the United States never got back to the Fed's target after the COVID surge of inflation. So, where do you see inflation going? Is the effect of tariffs – has that fully run its course, or is there still more entrained? How do you see the outlook for inflation in the U.S.? Michael Gapen: Yeah, certainly a key question for the outlook here. So, core PCE inflation is running around 2.9 percent. We think it can get towards 3, maybe a little above 3 by year end. We do not think that the economy has fully absorbed tariffs yet; we think more pass through is coming. The President just announced additional tariffs the other day. We had them factored into our baseline. I think it's fair to say companies are still figuring out exactly how much they can pass through to consumers and when. So, I think the year-on-year rate of inflation will continue to move higher into year end. Hit 3 percent, maybe a little bit above. The key question then is what happens in 2026. Is inflation driven by tariffs transitory – the famous T word; and the year-on-year rate of inflation will come back down? That's what the Fed's forecast thinks; we do as well. But as everyone knows, the Fed has started to ease policy to support the labor market. The economy has performed pretty well, so there's a risk maybe that inflation doesn't come down as much next year. Seth Carpenter: Alright, so tariffs are clearly a key policy variable that can affect inflation. There's also been immigration restriction, to say the least, and what we saw coming out of COVID – when people were reluctant to go back to work, and businesses were reporting lots of shortages of workers – is that in certain services industries, we saw some pressure on prices. So, tariffs mostly affect consumer goods prices. Is there a contribution from immigration restriction onto overall inflation through services? Michael Gapen: I think the answer is yes; and I hesitate there because it's hard to see it in real time. But it is fair to say the average immigrant in the U.S. is younger. They have higher rates of labor force participation. They tend to reside in lower income households. So, they're labor supply heavy in terms of their effect on the economy. And yes, they tend to have larger relative presence in construction and manufacturing. But in terms of numbers, a lot of immigrants work in the service sector, as you note. And services inflation has been to the upside lately, right? So, the surprise has been that goods inflation maybe hasn't been as strong. The pass through from tariffs has been weaker. But in terms of upside surprises in inflation, it's common services and in many cases, non-housing related services. So, I'd say there's maybe some nascent signs that immigration controls may be keeping services prices firmer than thought. But may be hard to tie that directly at the moment. So, it's easier to say I think immigration controls may prevent inflation from coming down as much next year. It's not altogether clear how much they're pushing services inflation up. I think there's some evidence to support that, and we'll have to see whether that continues. Seth Carpenter: Alright, so we're seeing higher costs and higher prices from tariffs. We're seeing less labor supply when it comes to immigration. Those seem like a recipe for a big slowdown in growth, and I think that's been your forecast for quite some time – is that the U.S. was going to slow down a lot. Are we seeing that in the data? Is the U.S. economy slowing down or is everything just fine?  How are you thinking about it? And what's the evidence that there's a slowdown and what are maybe the counterarguments that there's not that much of a slowdown? Michael Gapen: Well, I think that the data doesn't support much of a slowdown. So yes, the economy did moderate in the first half of the year. I think the smart thing to do is average through Q1 and Q2 outcomes [be]cause there was a lot of volatility in trade and inventories. If you do that, the economy grew at about a 1.8 percent annualized rate in the first half of the year, down from about 2.5 percent last year. So, some moderation there, but not a lot. We would argue that that probably isn't a tariff story. We would've expected tariffs and immigration policies to have greater downward pressure on growth in the second half of the year. But to your question, incoming data in the third quarter has been really strong, and we're tracking growth somewhere around 3 percent right now.So, there's not a lot of evidence in hand at present that tariffs are putting significant downward pressure on growth. Seth Carpenter: So those growth numbers that you cite are on spending, which is normally the way we calculate things like GDP, consumption spending. But the labor market, I mean, non-farm payroll reports really have been quite weak. How do you reconcile that intellectual tension on the one hand spending holding up? On the other hand, that job creation [is] pretty, pretty weak. Michael Gapen: Yeah. I think the way that we would reconcile it is when we look at the data for the non-financial corporate sector, what appears to be clear is that non-labor costs have risen and tariffs would reside in that. And the data does show that what would be called unit non-labor costs. So, the cost per unit of output attributable to everything other than labor that rose a lot. What corporates apparently did was they reduced labor costs. And they absorbed some of it in lower profitability. What they didn't do was push price a lot. We'll see how long this tension can go on. It may be that corporates are in the early stages of passing through inflation, so we will see more inflation further out in a slowdown in spending. Or it may be that corporates are deciding that they will bear most of the burden of the tariffs, and cost control and efficiencies will be the order of the day. And maybe the Fed is right to be worried about downside risk to employment. So, I reconcile it that way. I think corporates have absorbed most of the tariff shock to date, and we're still in the early stages of seeing whether or not they will be able to pass it along to consumers. Seth Carpenter: All right, so then let's think about the Fed, the central bank. Yesterday, I talked to Chetan about the Bank of Japan. There reflation is real. Talked to Jens yesterday about the ECB where inflation has come down. So, those other developed market economies, the prescriptions for monetary policy are pretty straightforward. The Fed, on the other hand, they're in a bit of a bind in that regard. What do you think the Fed is trying to achieve here? How would you describe their strategy? Michael Gapen: I would describe their strategy as a recalibration, which is, I think, you know, technical monetary policy jargon for – where their policy stance is now; is not correct to balance risks to the economy. Earlier this year, the Fed thought that the primary risk was to persistent inflation. Boy, the effective tariff rate was rising quickly and that should pass due to inflation. We should be worried about upside risk to inflation. And then employment decelerated rapidly and has stayed low now for four consecutive months. Yes, labor supply has come down, but there's also a lot of evidence that labor demand has come down. So, I think what the Fed is saying is the balance of risks have become more balanced. They need to worry about inflation, but now they also need to worry about the labor market. So having a restrictive policy stance in their mind doesn't make sense. The Fed's not arguing – we need to get below neutral. We need to get easy. They're just saying we probably need to move in the direction of neutral. That will allow us to respond better if inflation stays firm or the labor market weakens. So, a recalibration meaning, you know, we think two more rate cuts into year end get a little bit closer to neutral, and that puts them in a better spot to respond to the evolving economic conditions. Seth Carpenter: All right. That makes a lot of sense. We can't end a conversation this year about the Fed, though, without touching on the fact that the White House has been putting a lot of pressure on the Federal Reserve trying to get Chair Powell and his committee to push interest rates substantially lower than where they are now. Michael Gapen: You've noticed? Seth Carpenter: I've noticed. From my understanding, a lot of people in markets have noticed as well.

Morgan Stanley’s chief economists discuss how policymakers in China, Japan and the European Union are addressing slower growth, deflation or the return of inflationary pressures. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Well, a lot has changed since the second quarter and the last time we did one of these around the world economics roundtable. After an extended pause, the United States Federal Reserve started cutting rates again. Europe's recovery is showing, well, some mixed signals. And in Asia, there's once again increasing reliance on policy support to keep growth on track.Today for the first part of a two-part conversation, I'm going to engage with Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe economist, to really get into a conversation about what's going on in the economy around the world.It's Tuesday, September 30th at 10am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt.Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in HongSeth Carpenter: So, it's getting to be the end of the third quarter, and the narrative around the world is still quite murky from my perspective. The Fed has delivered on a rate cut. The ECB has decided that maybe disinflation is over. And in Asia, China's policymakers are trying to lean in and push policy to right the wrongs of deflation in that economy.I want to get into some of the real hard questions that investors around the world are asking in terms of what's going on in the economy, how it's working out, and what we should look for. So, Chetan, if I can actually start with you. One of the terms that we've heard a lot coming out of China is the anti-involution policy.Can you just lay out briefly for us, what do we mean when we say the anti-involution policy in China?Chetan Ahya: Well, the anti-evolution policy is a response to China's excess capacity and persistent deflation challenge. And in China's context, involution refers to the dynamic where producers compete excessively, resulting in aggressive price cuts and diminishing returns on capital employed. And look, at the heart of this deflation challenge is China's approach of maintaining high real GDP growth with more investment in manufacturing and infrastructure when aggregate demand slows. And in the past few years, policy makers push for investment in manufacturing and infrastructure to offset the sharp slow down in property sector.And as a result, a number of industry sectors now have large excess capacities, explaining this persistent deflationary environment. And after close to two and a half years of deflation, policy makers are recognizing that deflation is not good for the corporate sector, households and the government. And from the past experience, we know that when policymakers in China signal a clear intention, it will be followed up by an intensification of policy efforts to cut capacity in select sectors. However, we think moving economy out of deflation will be challenging. These supply reduction efforts may be helpful but will not be sufficient on their own. And this time for a sustainable solution to deflation problem, we think a pivot is needed – supporting consumption via systematic efforts to increase social welfare spending, particularly targeted towards migrant workers in urban China and rural poor. But we are not optimistic that this solution will be implemented in scale.Seth Carpenter: So that makes sense because in the past when we've been talking about the issue of deflation in China, it's essentially this mismatch between the amount of demand in the economy not being sufficient to match the supply. As you said, you and your team have been thinking that the best solution here would be to increase demand, and instead what the policymakers are doing is reducing supply.So, if you don't think this change in policy, this anti-evolution policy is sufficient to break this deflation cycle – what do you see as the most likely outcome for economic growth in China this year and next?Chetan Ahya: So, this year we expect GDP growth to be around 4.7 percent, which implies that in the back half of the year you'll see growth slowing down to around 4.5 percent because we already grew at 5.2 in the first half. And, going forward we think that, you know, you should be looking more at normal GDP growth set because as we just discussed deflation is a key challenge.So, while we have real GDP growth at 4.7 for 2025, normal GDP growth is going to be 4 percent. And next year, again, we think normal GDP growth will be in that range of 4 percent.Seth Carpenter: That whole spiral of deflation – it's sort of interesting, Japan as an economy has broken that sort of stagnation or disinflation spiral that it was in for 25 years. We've been writing for a long time about the reflation story going on in Japan. Let me ask you, our forecast has been that the reflationary dynamic is there. It's embedded, it's not going away anytime. But, on the other hand, we basically see the Bank of Japan as on hold, not just for the rest of this year, but for all of next year as well.Can you let us know a little bit about what's going on with Japan and why we don't think the Bank of Japan might raise interest rates anytime soon?Chetan Ahya: So, Seth, at the outset, we think BoJ needs still some more time to be sure that we are on that virtuous cycle of rising prices and wages. Yes, both prices and wages have gone up. But it is very clear from the data that a large part of this rise in prices can be attributed to currency depreciation and supply side factors, such as higher energy prices earlier, and food prices now. And similarly, currency depreciation has also played a role in lifting corporate profits, which then has allowed the corporate sector to increase wages.So, if you look at the drivers to rise in prices and wage growth as of now, we think that demand has not really played a big role. To just establish that point, if you look at Japan's GDP, it's just about 1 percent higher than pre-COVID on a real basis. And if you look at Japan's consumption, real consumption trend, it's still 1 percent below pre-COVID levels.So, we think BoJ still needs more time. And just to add one more point on this. BoJ is also conscious about what tariffs will do to Japan's exports, and economy; and therefore, they want to wait for some more time to see the evidence that demand also picks up before they take up a policy rate hike.Seth Carpenter: So, one economy in deflation and policy is probably not enough to prevent it. Another economy that's got reflation, but a very cautious central bank who wants to make sure it continues. Jens, let's pivot now to Europe because at the last policy meeting, President Lagarde of the ECB said pretty, pretty strongly that she thinks the disinflationary process in Europe has come to an end. And that the ECB is basically on hold at this point going forward.Do you agree with her assessment? Do you think she's got it right? You think she's got it wrong? How could she be wrong, if she’s wrong? And what's your outlook for the ECB?Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, there a ton of questions here. I think I was also struck by the statement as you were. I think there is probably – that's at least my interpretation – a reference here to – Okay, we have come down a long way in terms of inflation in the Euro area. Rather being at 10 percent at some point in the past and now basically at target. And we think; I mean, we just got the data actually, for September in. It's more or less in line with what we had expected up again to 2.3. But that's really it. And then from here it's really down.Very good reasons to believe this will be the case. We have actually inflation below target next year, and the ECB agrees. So that's why I think she can't have made reference to what Liza had because the ECB itself is predicting that inflation from here will fall. So, I think it's really probably rather description of the way traveled. And then there may be some nuances here in the policy prescription forward.So, for now we think inflation will undershoot the target. And we think this undershoot has good chances to extend well into the medium term. So that's the famous 2027 forecast. The ECB in its last installment of the forecast in September doesn't disagree. Or it's actually, in theory at least, in agreement because it has a 1.9 here for 2027. So, it's also below target.But when asked about that at the press conference, the President said, yes, it's actually, very close to 2. So, it really cannot be really distinguished here. So, from that perspective, policy makers probably want to wait it out. In particular for the October meeting, which is not a forecast meeting, we don't expect any change.And then the focus of attention is really on the December meeting with the new forecast. What will 2028 show in their forecast for inflation? And will the 1.9 in [20]27 actually be rather 1.8? In which case I think the discussion on further cuts will heat up. We have a cut for December, and we have another one for March.Seth Carpenter: Of course, very often one of the things that drives inflation is overall economic growth and a key determinant of economic growth tends to be fiscal policy. And there we've got two big economies very much in the headlines right now. Germany, on the one hand, with plans to increase spending both on infrastructure and on defense spending. And then France, who's seen lots of instability, shall we say, with the government as they try to come up with a plan for fiscal consolidation.So, with those two economies in mind, can you walk us through what is the fiscal outlook for Germany, in particular? Is it going to be enough to stimulate overall growth in Europe? And then for France, are they going to be able to get the fiscal consolidation that they're looking for? How do you see those two economies evolving

Despite large deficits, booming capital expenditures and a looser regulatory environment, the Fed appears poised to cut rates further to support the slowing labor market. This could set the stage for a level of corporate risk-taking not seen since the 1990s.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a look at the forces that could heat up corporate activity in 2026 – if the labor market can hold up.It's Monday, September 29th at 2pm in London.Bill Martin, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve in the 50’s and 60’s, famously joked that “it was the Fed's job to take away the punch bowl just when the party is getting good.” That quote seems relevant because a host of trends are pointing to a pretty lively scene over the next 12 months. First, the U.S. government is spending significantly more than it's taking in. This deficit running at about 6.5 percent of the size of the whole economy is providing stimulus. It's only been larger during the great financial crisis, COVID and World War II. It's punch. Next to the corporate sector. As you've heard us discuss on this podcast, we here at Morgan Stanley think that AI related spending could amount to one of the largest waves of investment ever recorded – dwarfing the shale boom of the 2010s and the telecommunication spending of the late 1990s. Importantly, we think this spending is ramping up right now. Morgan Stanley estimates that investments by large tech companies will increase by 70 percent this year, and between 2024 and 2027, we think this spending is going to go up by two and a half times. Note that this doesn't even account for the enormous amount of power and electricity infrastructure that's going to be need to be built to support all this. Hence more economic punch. Finally, there's a deregulatory push. My bank research colleagues believe that lower capital requirements for U.S. banks could boost their balance sheet capacity by an additional $1 trillion in risk weighted terms. And a more supportive regulatory environment for mergers should help activity there continue to grow. Again, more punch.Heavy government spending, heavy corporate spending, more bank lending and risk taking capacity. And what's next from the Federal Reserve? Well, they're not exactly taking the punch away. We think that the Fed is set to cut rates five more times to a midpoint of two and 7/8ths. The Fed's supportive efforts are based on a real fear that labor markets are already starting to slow, despite the other supportive factors mentioned previously. And a broad weakening of the economy would absolutely warrant such support from the Fed. But if growth doesn't slow – large deficits, booming capital expenditure, a looser regulatory environment, and now Fed rate cuts – would all support even more corporate risk taking possibly in a way that we haven't seen since the 1990s. For credit, that boom would be preferable to a sharp slowing of the economy, but it comes with its own risks.Expect talk of this scenario next year to grow if economic data does hold up.Thanks as always for listening. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Fixed Income Research Michael Zezas and our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore unpack the market and economic implications of a looming government shutdown.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----  Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Michael Zezas: Today, our focus is once again on Washington – as the U.S. government fiscal year draws to a close and a potential government shutdown hangs in the balance.It's Friday, September 26th at noon in New York. Ariana we're just four days away from the end of the month. By October 1st, Congress needs to have a funding agreement in place, or we risk a potential shutdown. To that point, Democrats and Republicans seem far apart on the deal to avoid a shutdown. What's the state of play? Ariana Salvatore: Right now, Republicans are pushing for what's called a clean continuing resolution. That's a bill that would keep funding levels flat while putting more time on the clock for negotiators to hammer out full fiscal year appropriations. And the CR they're proposing lasts until November 21st. Democrats, conversely, are seeking to tie government funding to legislative compromise in other areas, including the enhanced Obamacare or ACA subsidies, and potential spending cuts to Medicaid from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Republicans signed earlier this year. Remember, even though Republicans hold a majority in both chambers, this has to be a bipartisan agreement because of exactly how thin those margins of control are. But Mike, it seems as we get closer, investors are asking more infrequently whether or not a shutdown is happening – and are more interested in how long it could potentially last. What are we thinking there? Michael Zezas: So, it's hard to know. Shutdowns typically last a few days, but sometimes there are short as a few hours, sometimes as long as a few weeks. Historically, shutdowns tend to end when the economic risk, and therefore the attached political risk gets real. So, consider the 35-day shutdown under President Trump in this first term. The compromise that ended it came quickly after there was an air traffic stoppage at New York's LaGuardia Airport – when 10 air traffic controllers who weren't being paid failed to show up for work. So, we think the more relevant question for investors is what it all means for economic activity. Our economists have historically argued that a government shutdown takes something like 0.1 percent off of GDP every single week it's happening. However, once employees go back to work, a lot of times that effect fades pretty quickly. Now it's important to understand that this time around there could be a wrinkle. The Trump administration is talking about laying employees off on a durable basis during the shutdown. And that's something that maybe would have more of a lasting economic impact. It's hard to know how credible that potential is. There would almost certainly be court challenges, but it's something we have to keep our eye on that could create a more meaningful economic consequence. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And there are also some really important indirect macroeconomic effects here. Like delayed data releases. Much of the federal workforce, to your point, will not be working through a shutdown – which could impede the collection and the release of some key data points that matter for markets like labor and inflation data, which come from BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So, assuming we're in this scenario with a longer-term shutdown. Obviously, we're going to see an increase in uncertainty, especially as investors are looking toward each data print for guidance on what the Fed's next move might be. What do we expect the market reaction to all of this to be? Michael Zezas: Well, the obvious risk here is that markets might have to price in some weaker growth potential. So, you could see treasury yields fall. You could see equity markets wobble; be a bit more volatile. It could be that those effects are temporary, though. And that volatility could easily be amplified by having to price risk in the market without the data you were talking about, Ariana. So, investors could overreact to anecdotal signals about the economy or underweight some real risks that they're not seeing. So, that's why even a short shutdown can have outsized market effects. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you get this podcast and tell your friends about it. We want everyone to listen.

Our Co-Head of Securitized Products Research James Egan joins our Chief Economic Strategist Ellen Zentner to discuss the recent challenges facing the U.S. housing market, and the path forward for home buyers and investors. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Egan, U.S. Housing Strategist and Co-Head of Securitized Products Research for Morgan Stanley. Ellen Zentner: And I'm Ellen Zentner, Chief Economic Strategist and Global Head of Thematic and Macro Investing at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. James Egan: And today we dive into a topic that touches nearly every American household, quite literally. The future of the U.S. housing market. It's Thursday, September 25th at 10am in New York. So, Ellen, this conversation couldn't be timelier. Last week, the Fed cut interest rates by 25 basis points, and our chief U.S. Economist, Mike Gapen expects three more consecutive 25 basis point cuts through January of next year. And that's going to be followed by two more 25 basis point cuts in April and July. But mortgage rates, they're not tied to fed funds. So even if we do get 6.25 bps cuts by the end of 2026, that in and of itself we don't think is going to be sufficient to bring down mortgage rates, though other factors could get us there.Taking all that into account, the U.S. housing market appears to be a little stuck. The big question on investors' minds is – what's next for housing and what does that mean for the broader economy? Ellen Zentner: Well, I don't like the word stuck. There's no churn in the housing market. We want to see things moving and shaking. We want to see sellers out there. We want to see buyers out there. And we've got a lot of buyers – or would be buyers, right? But not a lot of sellers.  And, you know, the economy does well when things are moving and shaking because there's a lot of home related spending that goes on when we're selling and buying homes. And so that helps boost consumer spending. Housing is also a really interest rate sensitive sector, so you know, I like to say as goes housing, so goes the business cycle. And so, you don't want to think that housing is sort of on the downhill slide or  heading toward a downturn [be]cause it would mean that the entire economy is headed toward a downturn. So, we want to see housing improve here. We want to see it thaw out. I don't like, again, the word stuck, you know. I want to see some more churn. James Egan: As do we, and one of the reasons that I wanted to talk to you today is that you are observing all of these pressures on the U.S. housing market from your perspective in wealth management. And that means your job is to advise retail clients who sometimes can have a longer investment time horizon. So, Ellen, when you look at the next decade, how do you estimate the need for new housing units in the United States and what happens if we fall short of these estimated targets? Ellen Zentner: Yeah, so we always like to say demographics makes the world go round and especially it makes the housing market go round. And we know that if you just look at demographic drivers in the U.S. Of those young millennials and Gen Z that are aging into their first time home buying years – whether they're able to immediately or at some point purchase a home – they will want to buy homes. And if they can't afford the homes, then they will want to maybe rent those single-family homes. But either way, if you're just looking at the sheer need for housing in any way, shape, or form that it comes, we're going to need about 18 million units to meet all of that demand through 2030. And so, when I'm talking with our clients on the wealth management side, it's – Okay, short term here or over the next couple of years, there is a housing cycle. And affordability is creating pressures there. But if we look out beyond that, there are opportunities because of the demographic drivers – single family rentals, multi-family. We think modular housing can be something big here, as well. All of those solutions that can help everyone get into a home that wants to be. James Egan: Now, you hit on something there that I think is really important, kind of the implications of affordability challenges. One of the things that we've been seeing is it's been driving a shift toward rentership over ownership. How does that specific trend affect economic multipliers and long-term wealth creation? Ellen Zentner: In terms of whether you're going to buy a single-family home or you're going to rent a single-family home, it tends to be more square footage and there's more spending that goes on with it. But, of course, then relatively speaking, if you're buying that single family home versus renting, you're also going to probably spend a lot more time and care on that home while you're there, which means more money into the economy. In terms of wealth creation, we'd love to get the single-family home ownership rate as high as possible. It's the key way that households build intergenerational wealth. And the average American, or the average household has four times the wealth in their home than they do in the stock market. And so that's why it's very important that we've always created wealth that way through housing; and we want people to own, and they want to own. And that's good news. James Egan: These affordability challenges. Another thing that you've been highlighting is that they've led to an internal migration trend. People moving from high cost to lower cost metro areas. How is this playing out and what are the economic consequences of this migration? Ellen Zentner: Well, I think, first of all, I think to the wonderful work that Mark Schmidt does on the Munis team at MS and Co. It matters a great deal, ownership rates in various regions because it can tell you something about the health of the metropolitan area where they are. Buying those homes and paying those property taxes. It can create imbalances across the U.S. where you've got excess supply maybe in some areas, but very tight housing supply in others. And eventually to balance that out, you might even have some people that, say, post-COVID or during COVID moved to some parts of the country that have now become very expensive. And so, they leave those places and then go back to either try another locale or back to the locale they had moved from. So, understanding those flows within the U.S. can help communities understand the needs of their community, the costs associated with filling those needs, and also associated revenues that might be coming in. So, Jim, I mentioned a couple of times here about single family renting, and so from your perch, given that growing number of single-family rentals, how is that going to influence housing strategy and pricing? James Egan: It is certainly another piece of the puzzle when we look at like single family home ownership, multi-unit rentership, multi-unit home ownership, and then single family rentership. Over the past 15 years, this has been the fastest growing way in which kind of U.S. households exist. And when we take a step back looking at the housing market more holistically – something you hit on earlier – supply has been low, and that's played a key role in keeping prices high and affordability under pressure. On top of that, credit availability has been constrained. It's one of the pillars that we use when evaluating home prices and housing activity that we do think gets overlooked. And so even if you can find a home to buy in these tight inventory environments, it's pretty difficult to qualify for a mortgage. Those lending standards have been tight, that's pushed the home ownership rate down to 65 percent. Now, it was a little bit lower than this, after the Great Financial Crisis, but prior to that point, this is the lowest that home ownership rates have been since 1995. And so, we do think that single family rentership, it becomes another outlet and will continue to be an important pillar for the U.S. housing market on a go forward basis. So, the economic implications of that, that you highlighted earlier, we think that's going to continue to be something that we're living with – pun only half intended – in the U.S. housing market. Ellen Zentner: Only half intended. But let me take you back to something that you said at the beginning of the podcast. And you talked about Gapen’s expectation for rate cuts and that that's going to bring fed funds rate down. Those are interest rates, though that don't impact mortgage rates. So how do mortgage rates price? And then, how do you see those persistently higher mortgage rates continuing to weigh on affordability. Or, I guess, really, what we all want to know is – when are mortgage rates going to get to a point where housing does become affordable again? James Egan: In our prior podcast, my Co-Head of Securitized Products Research, Jay Bacow and myself talked about how cutting fed funds wasn't necessarily sufficient to bring down mortgage rates. But the other piece of this is going to be how much lower do mortgage rates need to go? And one of the things we highlighted there, a data point that we do think is important. Mortgage rates have come down recently, right? Like we're at our lowest point of the year, but the effective rate on the outstanding market is still below 4.25 percent. Mortgage rates are still above 6.25 percent, so the market's 200 basis points out of the money. One of the things that we've been trying to do, looking at changes to affordability historically. What we think you really need to see a sustainable growth in housing activity is about a 10 percent improvement in affordability. How do we get there? It's about a 5.5 percent mortgage rate as opposed to the 6 1/8th to 6.25 where we were when we walked into this recording studio today.  We think there will be a little bit response to the move in mortgage rates we've already seen. Again, it's the

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy, Michael Zezas, examines growth in IPOs and M&A amid greater certainty around trade, immigration and regulation.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today, let’s talk about how changes in U.S. policy are shaping the markets in 2025—and why we’re seeing a pickup in capital markets activity. It’s Wednesday, September 24th at 10:30am in New York. At the start of this year, one thing investors agreed on was that with President Trump back in office, U.S. policy would shift in big ways. But there was less agreement about what those changes would mean for the economy and markets. Our team built a framework to help investors track changes in trade, fiscal, immigration, and regulatory policy – focusing on the sequencing and severity of these choices. That lens remains useful. But now, 250 days into the administration, we think it’s more valuable to look at the impacts of those shifts, the durable policy signals, and how markets are pricing it all. Let’s start with policy uncertainty. It is still high, but it’s come down from the peaks we saw earlier this year. For example, the White House has made deals with key trading partners, which means tariff escalation is on pause for now. Of course, things could change if those partners don’t meet their commitments, but any fallout may take a while to show up. Even if courts challenge new tariffs, the administration has ways to bring them back. And with Congress divided, most big policy moves are coming from the executive branch, not lawmakers. With policy changes slowing down, it’s worth reflecting on a new durable consensus in Washington. For years, both parties mostly agreed on lowering trade barriers and keeping the government out of private business. But it seems that’s changed. Industrial policy—where the government takes a more active role in shaping industries—is now a key part of U.S. strategy. Tariffs that started under Trump stayed under Biden, and even current critics focus more on how tariffs are applied than whether they should exist at all. You see this shift in areas like healthcare, energy, and especially technology. Take semiconductors. The CHIPS act under Biden aimed to build a secure domestic supply chain while Trump's approach includes licensing fees on exports to China and considering more government stakes in companies.So, why is capital markets activity picking up then? There are several drivers. First, less uncertainty about policy means companies feel more confident making big decisions. Earlier this year, activity like IPOs and mergers was unusually low compared to the size of the economy. But corporate balance sheets are strong—companies have plenty of cash, and private investors are looking to put money to work. Add in new needs for investment driven by artificial intelligence and technology upgrades, and you get a recipe for more deals. Our corporate clients have told us that having a smaller range of possible policy outcomes helped them move forward with strategic plans. Now, we’re seeing the results: IPOs are up 68 percent year-on-year, and M&A is up 35 percent. Those numbers are coming off low levels, so the pace may slow, but we expect growth to continue for a while. This all syncs up with other trends in the market. For example, we continue to see steeper yield curves and a weaker dollar. Why? Well, trade policy is likely to stay restrictive. The fiscal policy trajectory appears locked in as the President and Congress have already made the fiscal choices that they prefer. And the Federal Reserve appears willing to tolerate more inflation risk in order to support growth. That means the dollar could keep falling and longer maturity bond yields could be sticky, even as shorter maturity yields decline to reflect the more dovish Fed. As always, it's important to watch how these trends interact with the broader economy, and that will be important to how we start deliberating on our outlook for 2026. We'll keep analyzing and share more with you as we go. 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 India Research Ridham Desai and leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management Arjun Saigal and Jitania Kandhari discuss how India’s promising macroeconomic trajectory and robust capital markets are attracting more interest from global investors.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Ridham Desai: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley’s Head of India Equity Research and Chief India Equity Strategist. Today, the once in a generation investment opportunities Morgan Stanley sees in India. Joining me in the studio, Arjun Saigal, Co-Head of Morgan Stanley Investment Management at India Private Equity, and Jitania Khandari, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Head of Macros and Thematic Research for EM Public Equity. It’s Tuesday, September 23rd at 4pm in Mumbai. Jitania Kandhari: And 6:30am in New York. Ridham Desai: Right now, India is already the world's fourth largest economy, and we believe it's on track to becoming the third largest by the end of this decade. If you've been following our coverage, you know, Morgan Stanley has been optimistic about India's future for quite some time. It's really a perfect storm – in a good way. India has got a growing young workforce, steady inflation, and is benefiting from some big shifts in the global landscape. When you put all of that together, you get a country that's set up for long-term growth. Of course, India is also facing pressure from escalating tariffs with the U.S., which makes this conversation even more timely. Jitania, Arjun, what are the biggest public and private investment opportunities in India that you'd highlight. Jitania Kandhari: I'd say in public equities there are five broad thematic opportunities in India. Financialization of savings and structurally lower credit costs; consumption with an aspirational consumer and a growing middle-class; localization and supply chain benefits as a China +1 destination; digitization with the India stack that is helping to revolutionize digital services across industries; and CapEx revivals in real estate and industrials, especially defense and electrification. Arjun Saigal: I will just break down the private markets into three segments. The first being the venture capital segment. Here, it's generally been a bit of hit or miss; some great success stories, but there've also been a lot of challenges with scale and liquidity. Coming to the large cap segment, this is the hundred million dollars plus ticket size, which attracts the large U.S. buyout funds and sovereign wealth funds. Here target companies tend to be market leaders with scale, deep management strength, and can be pretty easily IPO-ed. And we have seen a host of successful PE-backed IPOs in the space. However, it has become extremely crowded given the number of new entrants into the space and the fact that regional Asia funds are allocating more of their dollars towards India as they shift away from China. The third space, which is the mid-market segment, the $50- to $100 million ticket size is where we believe lies the best risk reward. Here you're able to find mid-size assets that are profitable and have achieved market leadership in a region or product. These companies have obvious growth drivers, so it's pretty clear that your capital's able to help accelerate a company's growth path. In addition, the sourcing for these deals tends to be less process driven, creating the ability to have extended engagement periods, and not having to compete only on price. In general, it's not overly competitive, especially when it comes to control transactions. Overall, valuations are more reasonable versus the public markets and the large cap segment. There are multiple exit routes available through IPO or sale to large cap funds. We're obviously a bit biased given our mid-market strategy, but this is where we feel you find the best risk reward. Ridham Desai: Jitania, how do these India specific opportunities compare to other Emerging Markets and the developed world? Jitania Kandhari: I will answer this question from two perspectives. The macro and the markets. From a macro perspective, India, as you said, has better demographics, low GDP per capita with catchup potential, low external vulnerability, and relatively better fiscal dynamics than many other parts of the world.It is a domestic driven story with a domestic liquidity cycle to support that growth story. India has less export dependency compared to many other parts of the emerging and developed world, and is a net oil importer, which has been under pressure actually positively impacting commodity importers. Reforms beginning in 2017 from demonetization, GST, RERA and other measures to formalize the economy is another big difference. From a market standpoint, it is a sectorally diversified market. The top three sectors constitute 50 percent in India versus around 90 percent in Taiwan, 66 percent in Brazil, and 57 percent overall in EM. Aided by a long tail of sectors, India screens as a less concentrated market when compared to many emerging and developed markets. Ridham Desai: And how do tariffs play into all this? Jitania Kandhari: About 50 percent of exports to the U.S. are under the 50 percent tariff rate. Net-net, this could impact 30 to 80 basis points of GDP growth.Most impacted are labor intensive sectors like apparel, leather, gems and jewelry. And through tax cuts like GST and monetary policy, government is going to be able to counter the first order impacts. But having said that, India and U.S. are natural partners, and hence this could drag on and have second order impacts. So can't see how this really eases in the short term because neither party is too impacted by the first order impacts. U.S. can easily replace Indian imports, and India can take that 30 basis point to 50 basis points GDP impact. So, this is very unlike other trade deals where one party would have been severely impacted and thus parts were created for reversals. Ridham Desai: What other global themes are resonating strongly for India? And conversely, are there themes that are not relevant for investing in India? Jitania Kandhari: I think broadly three themes globally are resonating in India. One is demographics with the growing cohort of millennials and Gen Z, leading to their aspirations and consumption patterns. India is a large, young urbanizing population with a large share in these demographic cohorts. Supply chain diversification, friend-shoring, especially in areas like electronics, technology, defense, India is an integral part of that ecosystem. And industrials globally are seeing a revival, especially in areas like electrification with the increased usage of renewables. And India is also part of that story given its own energy demands. What are the themes not relevant for investing in India is the aging population, which is one of the key themes in markets like North Asia and Eastern Europe, where a lot of the aging population drivers are leading to investment and consumption patterns. And with the AI tech revolution, India has not really been part of the AI picks and shovels theme like other markets in North Asia, like Korea, Taiwan, and even the Chinese hardware and internet names. Globally, in selected markets, utilities are doing well, especially those that are linked to the AI data center energy demand; whereas in India, this sector is overregulated and under-indexed to growth. Ridham Desai: Arjun, how does India's macro backdrop impact the private equity market in particular? Arjun Saigal: So, today India has scale, growth, attractive return on capital and robust capital markets. And frankly, all of these are required for a conducive investment environment. I also note that from a risk lens, given India being a large, stable democracy with a reform-oriented government, this provides extra comfort of the country being an attractive place to invest. You know, we have about $3 billion of domestic money coming into the stock market each month through systematic investment plans. This tends to be very stable money, versus previously where we relied on foreign flows, which were a lot more volatile in nature. This, in turn, makes for some very attractive PE exits into the public markets. Ridham Desai: Are there some significant intersections between the public and private equity markets? Arjun Saigal: You know, it tends to be quite limited, but we do see two areas. The first being pre-IPO rounds, which have been taking place recently in India, where we do see listed public funds coming into these pre-IPO rounds in order to ensure a certain minimum allocation in a company. And secondly, we do see that in certain cases, PE investors have been selectively making pipe investments in sectors like financial services, which have multiple decade tailwinds and require regular capital for growth. Unlike developed markets, we've not seen too many take private deals being executed in India due to the complex regulatory framework. This is perhaps an area which can open up more in the future if the process is simplified. Ridham Desai: Finally, as a wrap up, what do you both think are the key developments and catalysts in India that investors should watch closely? Arjun Saigal: We believe there are a couple of factors, one being repeat depreciation. Historically this has been at 2.5 to 3 percent, and unfortunately, it's been quite expensive to hedge the repeat. So, the way to address this is to sort of price it in. The second is full valuations. India has never been a cheap market, but in certain pockets, valuations of listed players are becoming quite concerning and those valuations in turn immediately push up prices in the large ticket private market space. And lastly, I would just mention tariffs, which is an evolving situation. Jitania Kandhari: I would add a couple more things. Macro equilibrium in India should be sustained – as India has been in one of the bes

Our CIO Mike Wilson joins U.S. Equity strategist Andrew Pauker to answer frequently asked questions about their latest economic outlook, including how U.S. equities are transitioning to a new bull market. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson. Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today we're going to try something a little different. I have my colleague, Andrew Pauker from the U.S. Equity Strategy Team here to discuss some of the client questions and feedback to our views. It's Monday, September 22nd at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it. Andrew, we constantly deal with client questions on our views. More recently, the questions have been focused on our view that we've transitioned from a rolling recession to a rolling recovery in a new bull market. Secondarily, it's about the tension between the equity market's need for speed and how fast the Fed will actually cut rates. Finally, why is accelerating inflation potentially good for equities? Where do you want to start? Andrew Pauker: Mike, in my conversations with clients, the main debate seems to be around whether the labor cycle and earnings recession are behind us or in front of us. Walk us through our take here and why we think the rolling recession ended with Liberation Day and that we're now transitioning to an early cycle backdrop. Mike Wilson:  So, just to kind of level set, you know, we've had this view that – and starting in 2022 with the payback and the COVID demand. And from the pull forward – that began, what we call, a rolling recession. It started with the technology sector and consumer goods, where the demand was most extreme during the lockdowns. And then of course we've had recessions in housing, manufacturing, and other areas in commodities. Transportation. It's been very anemic growth, if any growth at all, as the economy has been sort of languishing. And what's been strong has been AI CapEx, consumer services, and government. And what we noticed in the first quarter, and we actually called for this almost a year ago. We said now what we need is a government recession as part of the finishing move. And in fact, Doge was the catalyst for that. We highlighted that back in January, but we didn't know exactly how many jobs were lost from Doge's efforts in the first quarter. But we got that data recently. And we  saw  an extreme spike, and it actually sort of finished the rolling recession.  Even AI CapEx had a deceleration starting in the summer of 2024. Something else that we've been highlighting and now we're seeing pockets of weakness even in consumer services. So, we feel like the rolling recession has rolled through effectively the entire economy. In addition to the labor data that now is confirming – that we've had a pretty extreme reduction in jobs, and of course the revisions are furthering that. But what we saw in the private sector is also confirming our suspicions that the rolling recession’s over. The number one being earnings revision breath, something we've written about extensively. And we've rarely seen this kind of a V-shaped recovery coming out of Liberation Day, which of course was the final blow to the earnings revisions lower because that made companies very negative and that fed through to earnings revisions. The other things that have happened, of course, is that Doge, you know, did not continue laying people off. And also, we saw the weaker dollar and the AI CapEx cycle bottom in April. And those have also affected kind of a more positive backdrop for earnings growth. And like I said before, this is a very rare occurrence to see this kind of a V-shape recovery and earnings revision breaths. The private economy, in fact, is finally coming out of its earnings recession, which has been in now for three years. Andrew Pauker: And I would just add a couple of other variables as well in terms of evidence that we're seeing the rolling recovery take hold, and that Liberation Day was kind of the punctuation or the culmination of the rolling recession, and we're now transitioning to an early cycle backdrop. So, number one, positive operating leverage is causing our earnings models to inflect sharply higher here. Median stock EPS growth, which had been negative for a lot of the 2022 to 2024 period is now actually turning positive. It's currently positive 6 percent now. The rolling correlation between equity returns and inflation break evens is also now significantly positive. That's classic early cycle. That's something we saw, you know, post COVID, post GFC And then lastly, just in terms of the market internals and kind of what, you know, under the surface, the equity market is telling us. So, the cyclical defensive ratio was down about 50 percent into the April lows. That's now up 50 percent from Liberation Day and is kind of breaking the downtrend that began in April of 2024. So, in addition to the earnings revisions V-shaped recovery that you mentioned, Mike. Those are a couple of other variables as well that are confirming that we're moving towards an early cycle backdrop and that the ruling recovery is commencing. Okay. So, we had the FOMC meeting.  As expected the Fed delivered a 25 basis point cut. Mike, what's your read on the meeting as it relates to equities and the reaction function? Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean this is really what we expected along with the consensus. We didn't have a different view that the Fed would give us 50. They gave us 25, and some people have characterized this as sort of a hawkish cut and very different than what we saw a year ago when the Fed kicked off that part of the rate cutting cycle with 50 basis points because they probably were worried a bit more about the labor market than they were about inflation. But you know, ultimately we think the labor data is going to get worse or the payroll data will prove to be worse because of the delay between the Doge layoffs and when those folks can file for unemployment insurance, which should be in October. And it's that delayed data that will then get the Fed cutting in earnest, which is what's necessary for the full rotation to kind of the lower quality parts of the market. So, while you're right that we've seen cyclicals perform, they haven't performed in the same way that we've seen prior cycles, like in 2020 or [20]08-[20]09, because the Fed hasn't cut. They're very far behind the curve. If you buy into our thesis that, you know, we had a rolling recession, we had an employment cycle, and they should be much more generous here. So that tension between the Fed's delay to get ahead of the curve and the market's need for speed to get there sooner and more deliberately – is where we think that, you know, we have to wait for that to occur to get the full rotation to the lower quality, kind of really cyclical parts of the market. Andrew Pauker: Okay, so let's talk about the back end of the yield curve a little bit and why that's important for stocks. In my dialogue with investors, there's a lot of focus here, just given what happened last fall when the Fed cut at the front end and the back end of the yield curve move higher. How should market participants think about this dynamic? Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, I think this is an unknown known, if you will, because we saw this last fall. Where the Fed cut 100 basis points and the back end of the 10-year and 30-year Treasury market sold off. That’s the first time we've ever seen that in history, where the Fed cuts that aggressively and the backend moves out. And this is a function of just all the fiscal imbalances and the debt issues that we face. And this is not a new issue. So, I think it remains to be seen if the bond market is going to be comfortable with the Fed not ignoring the 2 percent target – but you know, letting it run hot. As we've said, we think ultimately, they will have to let it run hot and they will, because that's what we need to have a chance at getting out of the debt problem. And so that sort of risk is still out in the future. I have less concern about that more recently because of the way the backend of the bond market has traded. But it's something that we need to keep in the back of our mind. If yields were to go back to 4.50, which is our key level, then that would be a problem as long as we're below, you know, sort of 4.50 and we're well below that now we're close to 4, I don't think this is a problem at all. Andrew Pauker: Yeah. One of the points that our colleague in rate strategy Matt Hornbach has highlighted is that the difference between now and the fourth quarter of last year when we saw that dynamic play out was that, you know, the bond market was very focused on the uncertainty around the fiscal situation. You know, we were going into an election, there was a fair amount of uncertainty around what Trump would do from a fiscal standpoint.And now, that is a known known, you know. We have the One Big Beautiful Bill signed into law. We know what the deficit impact is, so there is more clarity for the bond market on that front. So that is one key difference now versus last fall and why we may not see the same kind of reaction in the rates market. Mike, you brought up, kind of, run it hot, which was the title of our note from a couple of weeks ago. I just wanted to get your take on why some inflation coming back is actually a positive for equities and why actually the deceleration that we've seen in inflation over the last couple years is one reason why earnings for small cap indices, for instance, have deteriorated so much. And so, for in this environment where the Fed is perhaps a bit more tolerant of inflation in 2026, why that's actually a positive for equities. Mike Wilson: This is just an underappreciated sort of factoid that we actually identified back in 2020 and [20]21 as well. That when inflation is accelerating, that's a sign that pricing power is pretty go

With this week’s announcement of a rate cut and further cuts in the offing, the Fed seems willing to let the U.S. economy run a little hot. Our Head of Corporate Credit Andrew Sheets explains why this could give an unexpected boost to the European bond market. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----  Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – a Fed that looks willing to let the economy run hot, and why this could help the case for credit overseas. It's Friday, September 19th at 2pm in London. Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve lowered its target rate by a quarter of a percent, and signaled more cuts are on the way. Yet as my colleagues Michael Gapen and Matt Hornbach discussed on this program yesterday, this story is far from straightforward. The Fed is lowering interest rates to support the economy despite currently low unemployment and elevated inflation. The justification for this in the Fed's view is a risk that the job market may be set to weaken going forward. And so, it's better to err on the side of providing more support now; even if that support raises the chances that inflation could stay somewhat higher for somewhat longer. Indeed, the Fed's own economic projections bear out this willingness to err on the side of letting the economy run a bit hot. Relative to where they were previously, the Fed's latest assessment sees future economic growth higher, inflation higher, and unemployment lower. And yet, in spite of all this, they also see themselves lowering interest rates faster. If the labor market is really set to weaken – and soon – the Fed's shift to provide more near-term support is going to be more than justified. But if growth holds up, well, just think of the backdrop. At present, we have bank loan growth accelerating, inflation that's elevated, government borrowing that's large, stock valuations near 30-year highs, and credit spreads near 30-year lows. And now the Fed's going to lower interest rates in quick succession? That seems like a recipe for things to heat up pretty quickly. It's also notable that the Fed's strategy is not necessarily shared by its cross-Atlantic peers. Both the United Kingdom and the Euro area also face slowing labor markets and above target inflation. But their central banks are proceeding a lot more cautiously and are keeping rates on hold, at least for the time being. A Fed that's more tolerant of inflation is bad for the U.S. dollar in our view, and my colleagues expect it to weaken substantially against the euro, the pound, and the yen over the next 12 months. And for credit, an asset that likes moderation, a U.S. economy increasingly poised between scenarios that look either too hot or too cold is problematic. So, just maybe we can put the two together. What if a U.S. investor simply buys a European bond? The European market would seem less inclined to these greater risks of conditions being too hot or too cold. It gives exposure to currencies backed by central banks that are proceeding more cautiously when faced with inflation. With roughly 3 percent yields on European investment grade bonds, and Morgan Stanley's forecast that the euro will rise about 7 percent versus the dollar over the next year, this seemingly sleeping market has a chance to produce dollar equivalent returns of close to 10 percent. For U.S. investors, just make sure to keep the currency exposure unhedged. Thank you as always for listening. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

On Wednesday, the Fed announced its first rate cut in nine months. While the reduction was widely expected, our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen explain the data that markets and the Fed are watching.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: Our topic today is the Fed's first quarter percent rate cut in 2025. We're here to discuss the implications and the path forward. It's Thursday, September 18th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, the Fed concluded its meeting on Wednesday. What was the high-level takeaway from your perspective?Michael Gapen: So, I think there's two main points here. There's certainly more that we can discuss, but two main takeaways for me are obviously the Fed is moving because it sees downside risk in the labor market.So, the August employment data revealed that the hiring rate took a large step down and stayed down, right. And the Fed is saying – it's a curious balance in the labor market. We're not quite sure how to assess it, but when employment growth slows this much, we think we need to take notice.So, they're adjusting their view. We'll call it risk management 'cause that's what Powell said. And saying there's more risk of worse outcomes in the labor market, keeping a restricted policy stance is inappropriate, we should cut. So that's part one. I think he previewed all of that in Jackson Hole. So, it was largely the same, but it's important to know why the Fed's cutting. The second thing that was interesting to me is as much as he, Powell in this case, tried to avoid the idea that we're on a preset path. That, you know, policy is always data dependent and it's always the meeting-to-meeting decision – we know that. But it does feel like if you're recalibrating your policy stance because you see more downside risk to the labor market, they're not prepared to just do once and go, ‘Well, maybe; maybe we'll go again; maybe we won't.’ The dot plots clearly indicate a series of moves here. And when pressed on, well, what's a 25 basis point rate cut going to do to help the labor market, Powell responded by, well, nothing. 25 basis points won't really affect the macro outcome, but it's the path that that matters. So, I do think; and I use the word recalibration; Powell didn't want to use that. I do think we're in for a series of cuts here. The median dot would say three, but maybe two; two to three, 75 basis points by year end. And then we'll see how the world evolves. Matthew Hornbach: So, speaking of the summary of economic projections, what struck you as being interesting about the set of projections that we got on Wednesday? And how does the Fed's idea of the path into 2026 differ from yours?Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, it was a lot about downside risk to the labor market. But what did they do? They revised up growth. They have the unemployment rate path lower in the outer years of their forecast than they did before, so they didn't revise down this year. But they revised down subsequent years, and they revised inflation higher in 2026. That may seem at odds with what they're doing with the policy rate currently.But my interpretation of that is, you know, the main point to your question is – they're more tolerant of inflation as the cost or the byproduct of needing to lower rates to support the labor market. So, if this all works, the outlook is a little stronger from the Fed's perspective. And so, what's key to me is that they are… You know, the median of the forecast, to the extent that they align in a coherent message, are saying, we're going to have to pay a price for this in the form of stronger inflation next year to support the labor market this year. So that means in their forecast – cuts this year, but fewer cuts in 2026 and [20]27. And how that differs from our forecast is we're not quite as optimistic on the Fed, as the Fed is on the economy. We do think the labor market weakens a little bit further into 2026. So, you get four consecutive rate cuts upfront, again, inclusive of the one we got on Wednesday. And then you get two additional cuts by the middle of 2026. So, we're not quite as optimistic. We think the labor market's a little softer. And we think the Fed will have to get closer to neutral, right? Powell said we're moving “in the direction of neutral.” So, he's not committing to go all the way to neutral. And we're just saying we think the Fed ultimately will have to do that, although they're not prepared to communicate that now.Matthew Hornbach: One of the things that struck me as interesting about the summary of economic projections was the unemployment rate projection for the end of this year. So, the way that the Fed delivers these projections is they give you a number on the unemployment rate that represents the average unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of the specified year. And in this case, the median FOMC participant is projecting that the unemployment rate will average 4.5 percent. And that's what we're forecasting as well, I believe. And so, what struck me as interesting is that with an average unemployment rate of 4.5 percent in the fourth quarter of the year, which is up about 0.2 percent from today's unemployment rate of 4.3 – the Fed is only projecting one additional rate cut in 2026. And I'm curious, do you think that if we in fact get to the end of this year, and it looks like the unemployment rate has averaged about 4.5 percent – do you expect the Fed to continue to forecast only one rate cut in 2026?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's… Um. The short answer is no. I think that's a challenging position to be in. And by that, I mean, in addition to that unemployment rate forecast where it's 4.5 percent for the average of the fourth quarter, which could mean December's as high as 4.6; we don't know what their monthly forecast is.But that would mean the unemployment rate's risen about a half a percentage point from its lows a few months ago. And they have inflation rising to 3 percent. Core PCE is already 2.9. So, inflation is about where it is today; [it’s] a touch firmer. But the unemployment rate has moved higher. And so, what I would say is they haven't seen a lot of evidence by December that inflation's coming back down, and the labor market has stabilized.So, this is why we think they will be more likely to get to a neutral-ish or something closer to neutral in 2026 than they're prepared to communicate now. So, I think that's a good point. So, Matt, if I could turn it back to you, I would just like first to ask you about the general market reaction. The 25 basis point cut was universally expected. So really all the potentially new news was then about the forward path from here. So how did markets reply to this? Yields did initially sell off a bit, but they generally came back. What’s your assessment of how the market took the decision?Matthew Hornbach: Yeah, so the initial five, 10 minutes after the statement and summary of economic projections is released, everybody's digesting all of the new information. And generally speaking, investors tend to see what they want to see initially in all of the materials. So initially we had yields coming down a bit, the yield curve steepened a bit. But then about half an hour later, it became clear – just right before the press conference had started; it became clear to people that actually this delivery in the documentation was a bit more moderate in terms of the forward look. That it was a fairly balanced assessment of where things are and where things may be heading.And that in the end, the Fed, while it does want to bring interest rates lower, at least in the modal case, that it is still not particularly concerned about downside risks to activity, I should say, than it is concerned about upside risks to inflation. It very much seems a balanced assessment of the risks. And I think as a result, the market balanced out its initial euphoria about lower rates with a moderation of that view. So, interest rates ended up moving slightly higher towards the end of the day. But then, the next day they came back a bit. So, I think, it was a bit more of a steady as they go assessment from markets in the end.Michael Gapen: And do you see markets as maybe changing their views on whether you know, it is a recalibration in the stance, therefore we should expect consecutive cuts? Or is the market now thinking, ‘Hey, maybe it is meeting by meeting.’ And what about the Fed’s forecast of its terminal rate versus the market's forecast of the terminal rate. So, what happened there?Matthew Hornbach: Indeed. Yeah. So, in terms of how market prices are incorporating the idea that the Fed may cut at consecutive meetings through the end of the year, I think markets are generally priced for an outcome about in line with that idea. But of course, markets, and investors who trade markets, have to take into consideration the upcoming dataset and with the Fed so data dependent; so, meeting by meeting in terms of their decisions – it could certainly be the case that the next employment report and/or the next inflation report could dissuade the committee from lowering rates again, at the end of October when the Fed next meets. So, I think the markets are, as you can expect, not going to fully price in everything that the Fed is suggesting. Both because the Fed may not end up delivering what it is suggesting; it might, or it may deliver more. So, the markets are clearly going to be data dependent as well.  In terms of how the market is pricing the trough policy rate for the Fed – it does expect that the Fed will take its policy rate below where the summary of economic projections is suggesting. But that market pricing is more representative I think of a risk premium to the exp

Original Release Date: August 21, 2025From China’s rapid electric vehicle adoption to the rise of robotaxis, humanoids, and flying vehicles, our analysts Adam Jonas and Tim Hsiao discuss how AI is revolutionizing the global auto industry.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas. I lead Morgan Stanley's Research Department's efforts on embodied AI and humanoid robots. Tim Hsiao: And I'm Tim Hsiao, Greater China Auto Analyst. Adam Jonas: Today – how the global auto industry is evolving from horsepower to brainpower with the help of AI. It's Thursday, August 21st at 9am in New York. Tim Hsiao: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Adam Jonas: From Detroit to Stuttgart to Shanghai, automakers are making big investments in AI. In fact, AI is the engine behind what we think will be a $200 billion self-driving vehicle market by 2030. Tim, you believe that nearly 30 percent of vehicles sold globally by 2030 will be equipped with Level 2+ smart driving features that can control steering, acceleration, braking, and even some hands-off driving. We expect China to account for 60 percent of these vehicles by 2030. What's driving this rapid adoption in China and how does it compare to the rest of the world? Tim Hsiao: China has the largest EV market globally, and the country’s EV sales are not only making up over 50 percent of the new car sales locally in China but also accounting for over 50 percent of the global EV sales. As a result, the market is experiencing intense competition. And the car makers are keen to differentiate with the technological innovation, to which smart driving serve[s] as the most effective means. This together with the AI breakthrough enables China to aggressively roll out Level 2+ urban navigation on autopilot. In the meantime, Chinese government support, and cost competitive supply chains also helps. So, we are looking for China's the adoption of Level 2+ smart driving on passenger vehicle to reach 25 percent by end of this year, and 60 percent by 2030 versus 6 percent and 17 percent for the rest of the world during the same period. Adam Jonas: How is China balancing an aggressive rollout with safety and compliance, especially as it moves towards even greater vehicle automation going forward? Tim Hsiao: Right. That's a great and a relevant question because over the years, China has made significant strides in developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. For example, China was already implementing its strategies for innovation and the development of autonomous vehicles in 2022 and had proved several auto OEM to roll out Level 3 pilot programs in 2023. Although China has been implementing stricter requirements since early this year; for example, banning terms like autonomous driving in advertisement and requiring stricter testing, we still believe more detailed industry standard and regulatory measures will facilitate development and adoption of Level 2+ Smart driving. And this is important to prevent, you know, the bad money from driving out goods. Adam Jonas: One way people might encounter this technology is through robotaxis. Now, robotaxis are gaining traction in China's major cities, as you've been reporting. What's the outlook for Level 4 adoption and how would this reshape urban mobility? Tim Hsiao: The size of Level 4+ robotaxi fleet stays small at the moment in China, with less than 1 percent penetration rate. But we've started seeing accelerating roll out of robotaxi operation in major cities since early this year. So, by 2030, we are looking for Level 4+ robotaxis to account for 8 percent of China's total taxi and ride sharing fleet size by 2030. So, this adoption is facilitated by robust regulatory frameworks, including designated test zones and the clear safety guidance. We believe the proliferation of a Level 4 robotaxi will eventually reshape the urban mobility by meaningfully reducing transportation costs, alleviating traffic congestion through optimized routing and potentially reducing accidents. So, Adam, that's the outlook for China. But looking at the global trends beyond China, what are the biggest global revenue opportunities in your view? Is that going to be hardware, software, or something else? Adam Jonas: We are entering a new scientific era where the AI world, the software world is coming into far greater mental contact, and physical contact, with the hardware world and the physical world of manufacturing. And it's being driven by corporate rivalry amongst not just the terra cap, you know, super large cap companies, but also between public and private companies and competition. And then it's being also fueled by geopolitical rivalry and social issues as well, on a global scale. So, we're actually creating an entirely new species. This robotic species that yes, is expressed in many ways on our roads in China and globally – but it's just the beginning. In terms of whether it's hardware, software, or something else – it’s all the above. What we've done with a across 40 sectors at Morgan Stanley is to divide the robot, whether it flies, drives, walks, crawls, whatever – we divide it into the brain and the body. And the brain can be divided into sensors and memory and compute and foundational models and simulation. The body can be broken up into actuators, the kind of motor neuron capability, the connective tissue, the batteries. And then there's integrators, that kind of do it all – the hardware, the software, the integration, the training, the data, the compute, the energy, the infrastructure. And so, what's so exciting about this opportunity for our clients is there's no one way to do it. There's no one region to do it. So, stick with us folks. There's a lot of – not just revenue opportunities – but alpha-generating opportunities as well. Tim Hsiao: We are seeing OEMs pivot from cars to humanoids and the electric vertical takeoff in the landing vehicles or EVOTL. Our listeners may have seen videos of these vehicles, which are like helicopters and are designed for urban air mobility. How realistic is this transition and what's the timeline for commercialization in your view? Adam Jonas: Anything that can be electrified will be electrified. Anything that can be automated will be automated. And the advancement of the state of the art in robotaxis and Level 2, Level 3, Level 4+ autonomy is directly transferrable to aviation.  There's obviously different regulatory and safety aspects of aviation, the air traffic control and the FAA and the equivalent regulatory bodies in Europe and in China that we will have to navigate, pun intended. But we will get there. We will get there ultimately because taking these technologies of automation and electronic and software defined technology into the low altitude economy will be a superior experience and a vastly cheaper experience. Point to point, on a per person, per passenger, per ton, per mile basis. So the Wright brothers can finally get excited that their invention from 1903, quite a long time ago, could finally, really change how humans live and move around the surface of the earth; even beyond, few tens of thousands of commercial and private aircraft that exist today. Tim Hsiao: The other key questions or key focus for investors is about the business model. So, until now, the auto industry has centered on the car ownership model. But with this new technology, we've been hearing a new model, as you just mentioned, the shared mobility and the autonomous driving fleet. Experts say it could be major disruptor in this sector. So, what's your take on how this will evolve in developed and emerging markets? Adam Jonas: Well, we think when you take autonomous and shared and electric mobility all the way – that transportation starts to resemble a utility like electricity or water or telecom; where the incremental mile traveled is maybe not quite free, but very, very, very low cost. Maybe only; the marginal cost of the mile traveled may only just be the energy required to deliver that mile, whether it's a renewable or non-renewable energy source. And the relationship with a car will change a lot. Individual vehicle ownership may go the way of horse ownership. There will be some, but it'll be seen as a nostalgic privilege, if you will, to own our own car. Others would say, I don't want to own my own car. This is crazy. Why would anyone want to do that? So, it's going to really transform the business model. It will, I think, change the structure of the industry in terms of the number of participants and what they do. Not everybody will win. Some of the existing players can win. But they might have to make some uncomfortable trade-offs for survival. And for others, the car – let’s say terrestrial vehicle modality may just be a small part of a broader robotics and then physical embodiment of AI that they're propagating; where auto will just be a really, really just one tendril of many, many dozens of different tendrils. So again, it's beginning now. This process will take decades to play out. But investors with even, you know, two-to-three or three-to-five-year view can take steps today to adjust their portfolios and position themselves. Tim Hsiao: The other key focus of the investor over the market would definitely be the geopolitical dynamics. So, Morgan Stanley expects to see a lot of what you call coopetition between global OEMs and the Chinese suppliers. What do you mean by coopetition and how do you see this dynamic playing out, especially in terms of the tech deflation? Adam Jonas: In order to reduce the United States dependency on China, we need to work with China. So, there's the irony here. Look, in my former life of being an auto analyst, every auto CEO I speak to does not believe that tariffs will limit Chinese involvement in the global auto industry, including onshore in the United States. Many are actively seeking to work with the Chinese t

Our strategists Michelle Weaver and Adam Jonas join analyst Christopher Snyder to discuss the most important themes that emerged from the Morgan Stanley Annual Industrials Conference in Laguna Beach.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----  Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic Strategist.Christopher Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst.Adam Jonas: And I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Embodied AI Strategist.Michelle Weaver: We recently concluded Morgan Stanley's annual industrials conference in Laguna Beach, California, and wanted to share some of the biggest takeaways.It's Tuesday, September 16th at 10am in New York.I want to set the stage for our conversation. The overall tone at the conference was fairly similar to last year with many companies waiting for a broader pickup. And I'd flag three different themes that really emerged from the conference.So first, AI. AI is incredibly important. It appeared in the vast majority of fireside conversations. And companies were talking about AI from both the adopter and the enabler angle.Second theme on the macro, overall companies remain in search of a reacceleration. They pointed to consistently expansionary PMIs or a PMI above 50, a more favorable interest rate environment and greater clarity on tariffs as the key macro conditions for renewed momentum.And then the last thing that came up repeatedly was how are companies going to react to tariffs? And I would say companies overall were fairly constructive on their ability to mitigate the margin impact of tariffs with many talking about both leveraging pricing power and supply chain shifts to offset those impacts. So, Chris, considering all this, the wait for an inflection came up across a number of companies. What were some of your key takeaways on multis, on the macro front?Christopher Snyder: The commentary was stable to modestly improving, and that was really consistent across all of these companies. There are, you know, specific verticals where things are getting better. I would call out data center as one. Non-res construction, as another one, implant manufacturing as one. And there were certain categories where we are seeing deterioration – residential HVAC, energy markets, and agriculture.But we came away more constructive on the cycle because things are stable, if not modestly improving into a rate cut cycle. The concern going in was that we would hear about deteriorating trends and a rate cut would be needed just to stabilize the market. So, we do think that this backdrop is supportive for better industrial growth into 2026.We have been positive on the project or CapEx side of the house. It feels like strength there is improving. We've been more cautious on the short cycle production side of the house. But we are starting to see signs of rate of change. So, when we look into [20]26 and [20]27, we think U.S. industrials are poised for decade high growth.Michelle Weaver: You've had a thesis for a while now that U.S. reshoring is going to be incredibly important and that it's a $10 trillion opportunity. Can you unpack that number? What are some recent data points supporting that and what did you learn at the conference? Christopher Snyder: Some of the recent data points that support this view is U.S. manufacturing construction starts are up 3x post Liberation Day. So, we're seeing companies invest. This is also coming through in commercial industrial lending data, which continues to push higher almost every week and is currently at now record high levels. So, there's a lot of reasons for companies not to invest right now. There's a lot of uncertainty around policy. But seeing that willingness to invest through all of the uncertainty is a big positive because as that uncertainty lifts, we think more projects will come off the sidelines and be unlocked. So, we see positive rate of change on that. What I think is often lost in the reassuring conversation is that this has been happening for the last five years. The U.S. lost share of global CapEx from 2000 when China entered the World Trade Organization almost every year till 2019 when Trump implemented his first wave of tariffs. Since then, the U.S. has taken about 300 basis points of global CapEx share over the last five years, and that's a lot on a $30 trillion CapEx base. So, I think the debate here should be: Can this continue? And when I look at Trump policy, both the tariffs making imports more expensive, but also the incentives lowering the cost of domestic production – we do think these trends are stable.And I always want to stress that this is a game of increments. It's not that the U.S. is going to get every factory. But we simply believe the U.S. is better positioned to get the incremental factory over the next 20 years relative to the prior 20. And the best point is that the baseline growth here is effectively zero.Michelle Weaver: And how does power play into the reshoring story? AI and data centers are generating huge demand for power that well outstrip supply. Is there a risk that companies that want to reshore are not able to do so because of the power constraints?Christopher Snyder: It's a great question. I think it's part of the reason that this is moving more slowly. The companies that sell this power equipment tend to prioritize the data center customers given their scale in magnitude of buying. But ultimately, we think this is coming and it's a big opportunity for U.S. power to extend the upcycle.Manufacturing accounts for 26 percent of the electricity in the country. Data center accounts for about 5 percent. So, if the industrial economy returns to growth, there will be a huge pull on the grid; and I view it as a competitive advantage. If you think about the future of U.S. manufacturing, we're simply taking labor out and replacing it with electricity. That is a phenomenal trade off for the U.S. And a not as positive trade off for a lot of low-cost regions who essentially export labor to the world.I'm sure Adam will have more to say about that.Michelle Weaver: And Adam, I want to bring robotics and humanoid specifically into this conversation as the U.S.' technological edge is a big part of the reshoring story. So how do humanoids fit into reshoring? How much would they cost to use and how could they make American manufacturing more attractive?Adam Jonas: Humanoid robots – we're talking age agentic robots that make decisions from themselves autonomously due to the dual purpose in the military. You know, dual purpose aspect of it makes it absolutely necessary to onshore the technologies.At the same time, humanoid robots actually make it possible to onshore those technologies. Meaning you need; we're not going to be able to replicate manufacturing and onshore manufacturing the way it's currently done in China with their environmental practices and their labor – availability of affordable cheap human labor.Autonomous robots are both the cause of onshoring. And the effect of onshoring at the same time, and it's going to transform every industry. The question isn't so much as which industry will autonomous robots, including humanoids impact? It's what will it not.And we have not yet been able to find anything that it would. When you think about cost to use – we think by 2040 we get to a point where to Chris's point, the marginal cost of work will be some factor of electricity, energy, and some depreciation of that physical plant, or the physical robot itself.And we come up with a, a range of scenarios where centered on around $5 per hour. If that can replace two human workers at $25 an hour, that can NPV to around $200,000 of NPV per humanoid. That's discounting back 15 years from 2040.Michelle, there's 160 million people in the U.S. labor market, so if you just substituted 1 percent of that or 1.6 million people out of the U.S. Labor pool. 1.6 million times $200,000 NPV; that's $320 billion of value, which is worth, well, quite a lot. Quite a lot of money to a lot of companies that are working on this.So, when we get asked, what are we watching, well, in terms of the bleeding edge of the robot revolution, we're watching the Sino-U.S. competition. And I prefer to call it competition. And we're also watching the terra cap companies, the Mag 7 type companies that are quite suddenly and recently and very, very significantly going after physical AI and robotics talent. And increasingly even manufacturing talent.So again, to circle back to Chris's point, if you want evidence of reshoring and manufacturing and advanced manufacturing in this country, look at some of these TMT and tech and AI companies in California. And look at, go on their hiring website and watch all the manufacturing and robotics people that they're trying to hire; and pay a lot of money to do so. And that might be an interesting indicator of where we're going.Michelle Weaver: I want to dig in a little bit more there. We're seeing a lot of the cutting-edge tech coming out of China. Is the U.S. going to be able to catch up?Adam Jonas: Uh, I don't know. I don't know. But I would say what's our alternative. We either catch up enough to compete or we're up for grabs. OK?I would say from our reading and working closely with our team in China, that in many aspects of supply chain, manufacturing, physical AI, China is ahead. And with the passage of time, they are increasingly ahead. We estimate, and we can't be precise here, that China's lead on the U.S. would not only last three to five years, but might even widen three to five years from now. May even widen at an accelerating rate three to five years from now.And so, it brings into play is what kind of environment and what kind of regulatory, and policy decisions we made to help kind of level the playing field and encourage the right kind of manufacturing. We don't want to encourage trailing edge, Victorian era manufac