Thoughts on the Market

Michael Zezas, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy, highlights what investors need to watch out for ahead of next year’s U.S. congressional elections.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today, we’re tackling a question that’s top of mind after last week’s off-cycle elections in New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and California: What could next year’s midterm elections mean for investors, especially if Democrats take control of Congress?It’s Friday, Nov 14th at 10:30am in New York.In last week's elections, Democrats outperformed expectations. In California, a new redistricting measure could flip several house seats; and in New Jersey and Virginia Democrat candidates, won with meaningfully higher margins than polls suggested was likely. As such prediction markets now give Democrats a roughly 70 percent chance of winning the House next year.But before we jump to conclusions, let’s pump the brakes. It might not be too early to think about the midterms as a market catalyst. We’ll be doing plenty of that. But we think it's too early to strategize around it. Why? First, a lot can change—both in terms of likely outcomes and the issues driving the electorate. While Democrats are favored today, redistricting, turnout, and evolving voter concerns could reshape the landscape in the months to come. Second, even if Democrats take control of the House, it may not change the trajectory of the policies that matter most to market pricing. In our view, Republicans already achieved their main legislative goals through the tax and fiscal bill earlier this year. The other market-moving policy shifts this year—think tariffs and regulatory changes—have come through executive action, not legislation. The administration has leaned heavily on executive powers to set trade policy, including the so-called Liberation Day tariffs, and to push regulatory changes. Future potential moves investors are watching, like additional regulation or targeted stimulus, would likely come the same way. Meanwhile, the plausible Republican legislative agenda—like further tax cuts—would face steep hurdles. Any majority would be slim, and fiscal hawks in the party nearly blocked the last round of cuts due to concerns over spending offsets. Moderates, for their part, are unlikely to tolerate deeper cuts, especially after the contentious debate over Medicaid in the OBBBA (One Big Beautiful Bill Act). So, what could change this view? If we’re wrong, it’s likely because the economy slows and tips into recession, making fiscal stimulus more politically appealing—consistent with historical patterns. Or, Democrats could win so decisively on economic and affordability issues that the White House considers standalone stimulus measures, like reducing some tariffs. How does this all connect to markets? For U.S. equities, the current policy mix—industrial incentives, tax cuts, and AI-driven capex—has supported risk assets and driven opportunities in sectors like technology and manufacturing. But it also means that, looking deeper into next year, if growth disappoints, fiscal concerns could emerge as a risk factor challenging the market. There doesn’t appear an obvious political setup to shift policies to deal with elevated U.S. deficits, meaning the burden is on better growth to deal with this issue. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and share the podcast. We’ll keep you updated as the story unfolds.

Live from Morgan Stanley’s European Tech, Media and Telecom Conference in Barcelona, our roundtable of analysts discusses tech disruptions and datacenter growth, and how Europe factors in.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product. Today we return to my conversation with Adam Wood. Head of European Technology and Payments, Emmet Kelly, Head of European Telco and Data Centers, and Lee Simpson, Head of European Technology. We were live on stage at Morgan Stanley's 25th TMT Europe conference. We had so much to discuss around the themes of AI enablers, semiconductors, and telcos. So, we are back with a concluding episode on tech disruption and data center investments. It's Thursday the 13th of November at 8am in Barcelona. After speaking with the panel about the U.S. being overweight AI enablers, and the pockets of opportunity in Europe, I wanted to ask them about AI disruption, which has been a key theme here in Europe. I started by asking Adam how he was thinking about this theme. Adam Wood: It’s fascinating to see this year how we've gone in most of those sectors to how positive can GenAI be for these companies? How well are they going to monetize the opportunities? How much are they going to take advantage internally to take their own margins up? To flipping in the second half of the year, mainly to, how disruptive are they going to be? And how on earth are they going to fend off these challenges? Paul Walsh: And I think that speaks to the extent to which, as a theme, this has really, you know, built momentum. Adam Wood: Absolutely. And I mean, look, I think the first point, you know, that you made is absolutely correct – that it's very difficult to disprove this. It's going to take time for that to happen. It's impossible to do in the short term. I think the other issue is that what we've seen is – if we look at the revenues of some of the companies, you know,  and huge investments going in there. And investors can clearly see the benefit of GenAI.  And so investors are right to ask the question, well, where's the revenue for these businesses? You know, where are we seeing it in info services or in IT services, or in enterprise software. And the reality is today, you know, we're not seeing it. And it's hard for analysts to point to evidence that – well, no, here's the revenue base, here's the benefit that's coming through. And so, investors naturally flip to, well, if there's no benefit, then surely, we should focus on the risk. So, I think we totally understand, you know, why people are focused on the negative side of things today. I think there are differences between the sub-sectors. I mean, I think if we look, you know, at IT services, first of all, from an investor point of view, I think that's been pretty well placed in the losers’ buckets and people are most concerned about that sub-sector… Paul Walsh: Something you and the global team have written a lot about. Adam Wood: Yeah, we've written about, you know, the risk of disruption in that space, the need for those companies to invest, and then the challenges they face. But I mean, if we just keep it very, very simplistic. If Gen AI is a technology that, you know, displaces labor to any extent – companies that have played labor arbitrage and provide labor for the last 20 - 25 years, you know, they're going to have to make changes to their business model. So, I think that's understandable. And they're going to have to demonstrate how they can change and invest and produce a business model that addresses those concerns. I'd probably put info services in the middle. But the challenge in that space is you have real identifiable companies that have emerged, that have a revenue base and that are challenging a subset of the products of those businesses. So again, it's perfectly understandable that investors would worry.  In that context, it's not a potential threat on the horizon. It's a real threat that exists today against certainly their businesses. I think software is probably the most interesting. I'd put it in the kind of final bucket where I actually believe… Well, I think first of all, we certainly wouldn't take the view that there's  no risk of disruption and things aren't going to change. Clearly that is going to be the case. I think what we'd want to do though is we'd want to continue to use frameworks that we've used historically to think about how software companies differentiate themselves, what the barriers to entry are. We don't think we need to throw all of those things away just because we have GenAI, this new set of capabilities. And I think investors will come back most easily to that space. Paul Walsh: Emett, you talked a little bit there before about the fact that you haven't seen a huge amount of progress or additional insight from the telco space around AI; how AI is diffusing across the space. Do you get any discussions around disruption as it relates to telco space? Emmet Kelly: Very, very little. I think the biggest threat that telcos do see is – it is from the hyperscalers. So, if I look at and separate the B2C market out from the B2B, the telcos are still extremely dominant in the B2C space, clearly. But on the B2B space, the hyperscalers have come in on the cloud side, and if you look at their market share, they're very, very dominant in cloud – certainly from a wholesale perspective. So, if you look at the cloud market shares of the big three hyperscalers in Europe, this number is courtesy of my colleague George Webb. He said it's roughly 85 percent; that's how much they have of the cloud space today. The telcos, what they're doing is they're actually reselling the hyperscale service under the telco brand name. But we don't see much really in terms of the pure kind of AI disruption, but there are concerns definitely within the telco space that the hyperscalers might try and move from the B2B space into the B2C space at some stage. And whether it's through virtual networks, cloudified networks, to try and get into the B2C space that way. Paul Walsh: Understood. And Lee maybe less about disruption, but certainly adoption, some insights from your side around adoption across the tech hardware space? Lee Simpson: Sure. I think, you know, it's always seen that are enabling the AI move, but, but there is adoption inside semis companies as well, and I think I'd point to design flow. So, if you look at the design guys,  they're embracing the agentic system thing really quickly and they're putting forward this capability of an agent engineer, so like a digital engineer. And it – I guess we've got to get this right. It is going to enable a faster time to market for the design flow on a chip. So, if you have that design flow time, that time to market. So, you're creating double the value there for the client. Do you share that 50-50 with them? So, the challenge is going to be exactly as Adam was saying, how do you monetize this stuff? So, this is kind of the struggle that we're seeing in adoption. Paul Walsh:   And Emmett, let's move to you on data centers. I mean, there are just some incredible numbers that we've seen emerging, as it relates to the hyperscaler investment that we're seeing in building out the infrastructure. I know data centers is something that you have focused tremendously on in your research, bringing our global perspectives together. Obviously, Europe sits within that. And there is a market here in Europe that might be more challenged. But I'm interested to understand how you're thinking about framing the whole data center story? Implications for Europe. Do European companies feed off some of that U.S. hyperscaler CapEx? How should we be thinking about that through the European lens? Emmet Kelly: Yeah, absolutely. So, big question, Paul. What… Paul Walsh: We've got a few minutes! Emmet Kelly: We've got a few minutes. What I would say is there was a great paper that came out from Harvard just two weeks ago, and they were looking at the scale of data center investments in the United States. And clearly the U.S. economy is ticking along very, very nicely at the moment. But this Harvard paper concluded that if you take out data center investments, U.S. economic growth today is actually zero. Paul Walsh: Wow. Emmet Kelly: That is how big the data center investments are.  And what we've said in our research very clearly is if you want to build a megawatt of data center capacity that's going to cost you roughly $35 million today. Let's put that number out there. 35 million. Roughly, I'd say 25… Well, 20 to 25 million of that goes into the  chips. But what's really interesting is the other remaining $10 million per megawatt, and I like to call that the picks and shovels of data centers; and I'm very convinced there is no bubble in that area whatsoever.So, what's in that area? Firstly, the first building block of a data center is finding a powered land bank. And this is a big thing that private equity is doing at the moment. So, find some real estate that's close to a mass population that's got a good fiber connection. Probably needs a little bit of water, but most importantly needs some power. And the demand for that is still infinite at the moment. Then beyond that, you've got the construction angle and there's a very big shortage of labor today to build the shells of these data centers. Then the third layer is the likes of capital goods,  and there are serious supply bottlenecks there as well.And I could go on and on, but roughly that first $10 million, there's no bubble there. I'm very, very sure of that. Paul Walsh: And we conducted some extensive survey work recently as part of your analysis into the global data center market. You've sort of touched on a few of the gating factors that the industry has to contend with. That survey work was done on the operators and the supply chain, as it relat

Live from Morgan Stanley’s European Tech, Media and Telecom conference in Barcelona, our roundtable of analysts discuss artificial intelligence in Europe, and how the region could enable the Agentic AI wave.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European head of research product. We are bringing you a special episode today live from Morgan Stanley's, 25th European TMT Conference, currently underway. The central theme we're focused on: Can Europe keep up from a technology development perspective?It's Wednesday, November the 12th at 8:00 AM in Barcelona. Earlier this morning I was live on stage with my colleagues, Adam Wood, Head of European Technology and Payments, Emmet Kelly, Head of European Telco and Data Centers, and Lee Simpson, Head of European Technology Hardware. The larger context of our conversation was tech diffusion, one of our four key themes that we've identified at Morgan Stanley Research for 2025. For the panel, we wanted to focus further on agentic AI in Europe, AI disruption as well as adoption, and data centers. We started off with my question to Adam. I asked him to frame our conversation around how Europe is enabling the Agentic AI wave.  Adam Wood: I mean, I think obviously the debate around GenAI, and particularly enterprise software, my space has changed quite a lot over the last three to four months. Maybe it's good if we do go back a little bit to the period before that – when everything was more positive in the world. And I think it is important to think about, you know, why we were excited, before we started to debate the outcomes. And the reason we were excited was we've obviously done a lot of work with enterprise software to automate business processes. That's what; that's ultimately what software is about. It's about automating and standardizing business processes. They can be done more efficiently and more repeatably. We'd done work in the past on RPA vendors who tried to take the automation further. And we were getting numbers that, you know, 30 – 40 percent of enterprise processes have been automated in this way. But I think the feeling was it was still the minority. And the reason for that was it was quite difficult with traditional coding techniques to go a lot further. You know, if you take the call center as a classic example, it's very difficult to code what every response is going to be to human interaction with a call center worker. It's practically impossible. And so, you know, what we did for a long time was more – where we got into those situations where it was difficult to code every outcome, we'd leave it with labor. And we'd do the labor arbitrage often, where we'd move from onshore workers to offshore workers, but we'd still leave it as a relatively manual process with human intervention in it. I think the really exciting thing about GenAI is it completely transforms that equation because if the computers can understand natural human language, again to our call center example, we can train the models on every call center interaction. And then first of all, we can help the call center worker predict what the responses are going to be to incoming queries. And then maybe over time we can even automate that role. I think it goes a lot further than, you know, call center workers. We can go into finance where a lot of work is still either manual data re-entry or a remediation of errors. And again, we can automate a lot more of those tasks. That's obviously where, where SAP's involved. But basically what I'm trying to say is if we expand massively the capabilities of what software can automate, surely that has to be good for the software sector that has to expand the addressable markets of what software companies are going to be able to do. Now we can have a secondary debate around: Is it going to be the incumbents, is it going to be corporates that do more themselves? Is it going to be new entrants that that benefit from this? But I think it's very hard to argue that if you expand dramatically the capabilities of what software can do, you don't get a benefit from that in the sector. Now we're a little bit more consumer today in terms of spending, and the enterprises are lagging a little bit. But I think for us, that's just a question of timing. And we think we'll see that come through.I'll leave it there. But I think there's lots of opportunities in software. We're probably yet to see them come through in numbers, but that shouldn't mean we get, you know, kind of, we don't think they're going to happen. Paul Walsh: Yeah. We’re going to talk separately about AI disruption as we go through this morning's discussion. But what's the pushback you get, Adam, to this notion of, you know, the addressable market expanding? Adam Wood: It's one of a number of things. It's that… And we get onto the kind of the multiple bear cases that come up on enterprise software. It would be some combination of, well, if coding becomes dramatically cheaper and we can set up, you know, user interfaces on the fly in the morning, that can query data sets; and we can access those data sets almost in an automated way. Well, maybe companies just do this themselves and we move from a world where we've been outsourcing software to third party software vendors; we do more of it in-house. That would be one. The other one would be the barriers to entry of software have just come down dramatically. It's so much easier to write the code, to build a software company and to get out into the market. That it's going to be new entrants that challenge the incumbents. And that will just bring price pressure on the whole market and bring… So, although what we automate gets bigger, the price we charge to do it comes down. The third one would be the seat-based pricing issue that a lot of software vendors to date have expressed the value they deliver to customers through. How many seats of the software you have in house. Well, if we take out 10 – 20 percent of your HR department because we make them 10, 20, 30 percent more efficient. Does that mean we pay the software vendor 10, 20, 30 percent less? And so again, we're delivering more value, we're automating more and making companies more efficient. But the value doesn't accrue to the software vendors. It's some combination of those themes I think that people would worry about. Paul Walsh: And Lee, let’s bring you into the conversation here as well, because around this theme of enabling the agentic AI way, we sort of identified three main enabler sectors. Obviously, Adam’s with the software side. Cap goods being the other one that we mentioned in the work that we've done. But obviously semis is also an important piece of this puzzle. Walk us through your thoughts, please. Lee Simpson: Sure. I think from a sort of a hardware perspective, and really we're talking about semiconductors here and possibly even just the equipment guys, specifically – when seeing things through a European lens. It's been a bonanza. We've seen quite a big build out obviously for GPUs. We've seen incredible new server architectures going into the cloud. And now we're at the point where we're changing things a little bit. Does the power architecture need to be changed? Does the nature of the compute need to change? And with that, the development and the supply needs to move with that as well. So, we're now seeing the mantle being picked up by the AI guys at the very leading edge of logic. So, someone has to put the equipment in the ground, and the equipment guys are being leaned into. And you're starting to see that change in the order book now.  Now, I labor this point largely because, you know, we'd been seen as laggards frankly in the last couple of years. It'd been a U.S. story, a GPU heavy story. But I think for us now we're starting to see a flipping of that and it's like, hold on, these are beneficiaries. And I really think it's 'cause that bow wave has changed in logic. Paul Walsh: And Lee, you talked there in your opening remarks about the extent to which obviously the focus has been predominantly on the U.S. ways to play, which is totally understandable for global investors. And obviously this has been an extraordinary year of ups and downs as it relates to the tech space. What's your sense in terms of what you are getting back from clients? Is the focus shifts may be from some of those U.S. ways to play to Europe? Are you sensing that shift taking place? How are clients interacting with you as it relates to the focus between the opportunities in the U.S. and Asia, frankly, versus Europe? Lee Simpson: Yeah. I mean, Europe's coming more into debate. It's more; people are willing to talk to some of the players. We've got other players in the analog space playing into that as well. But I think for me, if we take a step back and keep this at the global level, there's a huge debate now around what is the size of build out that we need for AI? What is the nature of the compute? What is the power pool? What is the power budgets going to look like in data centers? And Emmet will talk to that as well. So, all of that… Some of that argument’s coming now and centering on Europe. How do they play into this? But for me, most of what we're finding people debate about – is a 20-25 gigawatt year feasible for [20]27? Is a 30-35 gigawatt for [20]28 feasible? And so, I think that's the debate line at this point – not so much as Europe in the debate. It's more what is that global pool going to look like? Paul Walsh: Yeah. This whole infrastructure rollout's got significant implications for your coverage universe… Lee Simpson: It does. Yeah. Paul Walsh: Emmet, it may be a bit tangential for the telco space, but was there anything you wanted to add there as it relates to this sort of agentic wave piece from a telco's perspective? Emmet Kelly: Yeah, there's a consensus view out there that telcos are not re

Our Research and Investment Management analysts Michael Cyprys and Denny Galindo discuss how and why cryptocurrencies are transitioning from niche speculation to portfolio staples. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges for Morgan Stanley Research.Denny Galindo: And I'm Denny Galindo, Investment Strategist for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Michael Cyprys: Today we break down the forces making crypto more accessible and what this shift means for investors everywhere.It's Tuesday, November 11th at 10am in New York.We've seen cryptocurrencies move from the fringes of finance to being considered a legitimate part of mainstream asset allocation. Financial platforms, especially those serving institutional clients, are starting to integrate crypto more than ever.Denny, you've written extensively about the crypto market for some time now among your many jobs here at Morgan Stanley. So, from your perspective in wealth management, what are you hearing from retail clients about their growing interest in crypto?Denny Galindo: Yeah, we actually started writing about crypto back in 2017. We had our first explainer deck, and we started writing extensive educational reports in 2021. So, we've covered it for a while.Advisors who dabble in crypto typically had this one client. He asked a lot of questions about when they could do more. We also had some clients who were curious, maybe their neighbor made a lot of money, bought a new boat and they were like wondering, you know, what is this Bitcoin thing?Now, this year we've seen a sea change. I think it was the election really started it; the Genius Act, and some of the legislation also kind of added to it. Almost all this interest is really on Bitcoin only, although we also have gotten a decent amount of interest about stablecoins and how those might impact things. But it's really just the beginning and I think it's an area that's; it's not going to go away.Mike, on the institutional side, what trends are you seeing among asset managers and brokers in terms of crypto adoption integration?Michael Cyprys: So, we've seen a big move into the ETF space as large money managers make crypto easier to access for both retail and institutional investors. Now this comes on the back of the SEC approving the first spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs back in 2024. And since then, we've seen firms from BlackRock to Fidelity, Franklin, Invesco, and many others, including crypto native firms having launched spot Bitcoin ETFs and spot Ethereum ETFs. And these steps in the minds of many investors have legitimized crypto as an investible asset class.Most recently, we've seen the SEC adopt generic ETF listing standards for crypto ETFs that can make it easier to accelerate ETF launches in reduced regulatory frictions. And today the crypto ETF space is about $200 billion of assets under management and saw inflows of over [$]40 billion last year, over [$]45 billion so far this year – despite some of the near-term volatility. And most of the asset class today is in Bitcoin, single token ETFs, with BlackRock and Fidelity managing the largest ETFs in the space.Speaking of products, what types of crypto are retail investors most curious about? And why do those particular ones make sense for their portfolios?Denny Galindo: Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. The most popular products are really the Bitcoin products. We as a firm allowed solicitation in Bitcoin ETPs more than a year ago in brokerage accounts. We just expanded them to allow them in Advisory in October. So, we're still early days here. There really hasn't been that much interest in the other crypto products.Now when people think about this, there's three buckets here. There are some people that think of it like digital gold. And they're worried about inflation. They're worried about government deficits. And that's kind of the angle that they're approaching crypto from. A second group think of it like a venture capital, like a disruptive innovation in tech that's going after this big addressable market. And, you know, hopefully the penetration will rise in the future. And then the third bucket is really thinking [of it] out it as a diversifier. So, they're saying, ‘Hey, this thing is volatile. It doesn't match stocks, bonds, other assets. And so, I kind of want to use it for diversification.’Now, Mike, when you have these discussions with institutional clients, how do they view the risk and potential of these different cryptocurrencies?Michael Cyprys: What's interesting with the crypto space is adoption started on the retail side with institutions now slowly beginning to explore allocations. And that's the opposite of what we've seen historically with institutions leaning in ahead of retail in areas, whether it's commodities or private markets. But it's still early days.On the institutional side, we're starting to see some pensions, endowments, foundations begin to make some small allocations to Bitcoin as a long-term inflation hedge. But keep in mind, institutions tend to make investments in the context of strategic asset allocations, often with a broader macro framework.Denny, you've written quite a bit about the four-year crypto cycle. Could you explain what that is and where you think we are in the current crypto cycle?Denny Galindo: Yeah, if you look at the data, you see a pretty clear trend of a four-year cycle. So, there's three up years and one down year, and it's been like clockwork, since Bitcoin was invented.Now when you see something like that, you always try to explain like: why is this happening? So, there's two kind of dominant explanations that we've seen. So, one's macro, one's micro. Now the macro version for crypto is really the M2 cycle. So, we see that M2 to that global M2 money supply has kind of accelerated and decelerated in four-year cycles, and Bitcoin tends to really match that cycle. It tends to accelerate when M2's accelerating and it tends to decline when it's decelerating or declining.But there's also this bottoms-up way of looking at it, and commodities are really the place we go to for that analysis. So, a lot of commodities, you know, could be coffee, could be oil – if something disrupts supply, you tend to get the shortage, you get the price moving up.Then you get commodity speculators piling in, adding leverage. And it'll just kind of go parabolic. At some point something pops the bubble, usually more supply, and then you get like a great depression. You get like an 80 percent draw down. All the leverage comes out and the whole thing crashes. So crypto has also followed that.Now, we break the four-year cycle into four seasons: spring, summer, fall, and winter. And each season has a different characteristic about which parts of the market work, which don't work, what things look like. We are in the fall season right now. And that tends to last about a year. We wrote a note last year on this. Fall is the time for harvest. So, it's the time you want to take your gains.But the debate is, you know, how long will this fall last? When will the next winter start? Or maybe this pattern won't even hold in the future. And so, this is the big debate in the crypto circles these days.And Mike, given the volatility, given the great depressions we talked about in Bitcoin with these, you know, 70-80 percent drawdowns, how do you see it fitting into institutional portfolios compared to other cryptocurrencies?Michael Cyprys: Compared to other cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin is still viewed as the flagship asset within the crypto space – just given higher adoption, greater liquidity, the sheer market value. It has longer history and better regulatory clarity as compared to other tokens. But given the volatility as you mentioned, and the early days nature of cryptocurrencies, adoption is still quite nascent amongst institutional investors.Some institutional investors view Bitcoin as digital gold or macro hedge against inflation and monetary debasement. It's also sometimes viewed as a low correlation diversifier within multi-asset portfolios. But even that's also been a debate in the marketplace too.As we look forward from here, crypto adoption within institutional portfolios could potentially expand as regulatory clarity establishes a clear framework for digital assets, right? We had the Genius Act recently that focused on stablecoins. Next up is market structure. There's a bill working its way through Congress.We've also had developments on the ETF side that lower[s] barriers for institutions to gain exposure there. Not only is it more accessible within traditional portfolios, but the ETF fits nicely into day-to-day workflow.So, bottom line is institutional views on Bitcoin and crypto are evolving, and how firms view Bitcoin – we think will depend upon the institution's objectives, their risk tolerance and portfolio context. And keep in mind that institutional allocations don't turn on a dime. They tend to be slower moving.Denny, do retail clients take a similar approach or are they more likely to take bigger bets?Denny Galindo: Our clients struggle with this question. And so, we get a lot of questions like, ‘Okay, I don't want to miss this. I'm a little nervous about it. What allocation should I use here?’ And so, we go back to our three, kind of, typical investors when we try to answer this question. We really try and help people figure out where is equal weight.So, we wrote a note in February called “Are you Underweight Bitcoin?” And we have three different answers depending on how you're thinking of it. And, you know, there's a big debate. There's no clear answer. And that's not really where we want our clients. We want them to be smaller where they can have some exposure if they want it. Not everyone wants it, but if you do want it, you can have it. And it won't really dominate the vol

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson unpacks why stocks are likely to stay resilient despite uncertainties related to Fed rates, government shutdown and tariffs.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing recent concerns for equities and how that may be changing. It's Monday, November 10th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.We’re right in the middle of earnings season. Under the surface, there may appear to be high dispersion. But we’re actually seeing positive developments for a broadening in growth. Specifically, the median stock is seeing its best earnings growth in four years. And the S&P 500 revenue beat rate is running 2 times its historical average. These are clear signs that the earning recovery is broadening and that pricing power is firming to offset tariffs. We’re also watching out for other predictors of soft spots. And over the past week, the seasonal weakness in earnings revision breath appears to be over. For reference, this measure troughed at 6 percent on October 21st, and is now at 11 percent. The improvement is being led by Software, Transports, Energy, Autos and Healthcare. Despite this improvement in earnings revisions, the overall market traded heavy last week on the back of two other risks. The first risk relates to the Fed's less dovish bias at October's FOMC meeting. The Fed suggested they are not on a preset course to cut rates again in December. So, it’s not a coincidence the U.S. equity market topped on the day of this meeting. Meanwhile investors are also keeping an eye on the growth data during the third quarter. If it’s stronger than anticipated, it could mean there’s less dovish action from the Fed than the market expects or needs for high prices.I have been highlighting a less dovish Fed as a risk for stocks. But it’s important to point out that the labor market is also showing increasing signs of weakness. Part of this is directly related to the government shutdown. But the private labor data clearly illustrates a jobs market that's slowing beyond just government jobs. This is creating some tension in the markets – that the Fed will be late to cut rates, which increases the risk the recovery since April falls flat.  In my view, labor market weakness coupled with the administration's desire to "run it hot" means that ultimately the Fed is likely to deliver more dovish policy than the market currently expects. But, without official jobs data confirming this trend, the Fed is moving slower than the equity market may like.  The other risk the market has been focused on is the government shutdown itself. And there appears to be two main channels through which these variables are affecting stock prices. The first is tighter liquidity as reflected in the recent decline in bank reserves. The government shutdown has resulted in fewer disbursements to government employees and other programs. Once the government shutdown ends which appears imminent, these payments will resume, which translates into an easing of liquidity.The second impact of the shutdown is weaker consumer spending due to a large number of workers furloughed and benefits, like SNAP, halted. As a result, Consumer Discretionary company earnings revisions have rolled over. The good news is that the shutdown may be coming to an end and alleviate these market concerns.  Finally, tariffs are facing an upcoming Supreme Court decision. There were questions last week on how affected stocks were reacting to this development. Overall, we saw fairly muted relative price reactions from the stocks that would be most affected. We think this relates to a couple of variables. First, the Trump administration could leverage a number of other authorities to replace the existing tariffs. Second, even in a scenario where the Supreme Court overturns tariffs, refunds are likely to take a significant amount of time, potentially well into 2026.So what does all of this all mean? Weak earnings seasonality is coming to an end along with the government shutdown. Both of these factors should lead to some relief in what have been softer equity markets more recently. But we expect volatility to persist until the Fed fully commits to the run it hot strategy of the administration.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach discuss potential next steps for the FOMC and the risks to their views from the U.S. government shutdown. 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: The October FOMC meeting delivered a quarter percent rate cut as widely expected – but things are more complicated, and policy is not on a preset path from here.It's Friday, November 7th at 10am in New York.So, Mike, the Fed did cut by 25 basis points in October, but it was not a unanimous decision. And the Federal Open Market Committee decided to end the reduction of its balance sheet on December 1st – earlier than we expected. How did things unfold and does this change your outlook in any way?Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, it was a surprise to me. Not so much the statement or the decision, but there were dissents. There was a dissent in favor of a 50-basis point cut. There was a dissent in favor of no cut. And that foreshadowed the press conference – where really the conversation was about, I think, a divided committee; and a committee that didn't have a lot of consensus on what would come next.The balance sheet discussion, which we can get into, it came a little sooner than we thought, but it was largely in line with our view. And I'm not sure it's a macro critical decision right now. But I do think it was a surprise to markets and it was certainly a surprise to me – how much Powell's tone shifted between September and October, in terms of what the market could expect from the Fed going forward.So, what he said in essence, the key points, you know. The policy's not on a preset path from here. Or [a] cut in December is maybe not decidedly part of the baseline; or certainly is not a foregone conclusion. And I think what that reflects is a couple of things.One is that they're recalibrating policy based on a risk management view. So, you can cut almost independent of the data, at least in the beginning. And so now I think Powell's saying, ‘Well, at least from here, future cuts are probably more data dependent than those initial cuts.’ But second, and I think most importantly is the division that appeared within the Fed. I think there's one group that's hawkish, one group that's dovish, and I think it reflects the division and the tension that we have in the economic data.So, I think the hawkish crowd is looking at strong activity data, strong AI spending, an upper income consumer that seems to be doing just fine. And they're saying, ‘Why are we cutting? Financial conditions for the business community is pretty easy. Maybe the neutral rate of interest is higher. We're probably less restrictive than you think.’ And then I think the other side of the committee, which I believe still that Chair Powell is in, is looking at a market slowdown in hiring a weak labor market. What that means for growth in real income for those households that depend on labor market income to consume; there's probably some front running of autos that artificially boosted growth in the third quarter.So, I think that the dissents, or I should say the division within the FOMC, I think reflects the tension in the underlying data. So, to know which way monetary policy evolves, Matt, it's essentially trying to decide: does the labor market rebound towards the activity data or does the activity data decelerate at least temporarily to the labor market?Matthew Hornbach: Mike, you talked a lot about data just now, and we're not exactly getting a lot of government data at the moment. How are you thinking about the path for the data in terms of its availability between now and the December FOMC meeting? And how do you think that may affect the Fed's willingness to move forward with another rate cut in the cycle?Michael Gapen: Right. So that's key and critical to understanding, right? We're operating under the assumption, of course the federal government shutdowns going to end at some point. We're going to get all this back data released and we can assess where the economy is or has been. I think the way markets should think about this is if the government shutdown has ended in the next few weeks, say before Thanksgiving – then I think we, markets, the Fed will have the bulk of the data in front of them and available to assess the economy at the December FOMC meeting.They may not have it all, but they should get at least some of that data released. We can assess it. If the economy has moderated and weakened a bit, the labor market has continued to cool, the Fed can cut. If it shows maybe the labor market rebounding downside risk to employment being diminished, maybe the Fed doesn't cut.So that's a world and it is our expectation the shutdown should end in the next few weeks. We're already at the longest shutdown on record, so we will get some data in hand to make the decision for December. Perhaps that's wishful thinking, Matt, and maybe we go beyond Thanksgiving, and the shutdown extends into December.My suspicion though, is if the government is still shut down in December, I can't imagine the economy's getting better. So, I think the Fed could lean in the direction of taking one more step.Matthew Hornbach: This is going to be very critical for how the markets think about the outlook in 2026 and price the outlook for 2026. The last FOMC meeting of the year has that type of importance for markets – pricing, the path of Fed policy, and the path of the economy into 2026. Because if we end up receiving a rate cut from the Fed, the dialogue in the investment community will be focused on when might the next cut arrive. Versus if we don't get that rate cut in December, the dialogue will focus on, maybe we will never see another rate cut in the cycle. And what if we see a rate hike as we make our way through the second half of 2026? So that can have a dramatic impact on the U.S. Treasury market and how investors think about the outlook for policy and the economy.Michael Gapen: So, I think that's right. And as you know, our baseline outlook is at least through the first quarter, if not into the second quarter. The private sector will still be attempting to pass through tariffs into prices. And I think in the meantime, demand for labor and the hiring rate will remain low.And so, we look for additional labor market slack to build. Not a lot, but the unemployment rate moving to more like 4.6, maybe 4.7 – and that underpins our expectation the Fed will be reducing rates in in 2026. But I think as you note, and as I mentioned earlier, there is this tension in the data and it's not inconceivable that the labor market accelerates. And you get, kind of, an animal spirits driven 2026; where a combination of momentum in the data, AI-related business spending, wealth effects for upper income consumers and maybe a larger fiscal stimulus from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, lead the economy to outperform.And to your point, if that is happening, it's not farfetched to think, well, if the Fed put in risk management insurance cuts, perhaps they need to take those out. And that could build in a way where that expectation, let's say towards the second half or the fourth quarter maybe of 2026, maybe it takes into 2027. But I agree with you that if the Fed can't cut in December because the economy's doing well and the data show that, and we learn more of that in 2026, you're right.So, it would… And may maybe to put it more simply, the more the Fed cuts, the more you need to open both sides of the rate path distribution, right? The deeper they cut, the greater the probability over time, they're going to have to raise those rates. And so, if the Fed is forced to stop in December, yeah, you can make that argument.Matthew Hornbach: Indeed, a lot of the factors that you mentioned are factors that are coming up in investor conversations increasingly. The way I've been framing it in my discussions is that investors want to see the glass as half full today, versus in the middle of this year the glass was looking half empty. And of course, as we head into the holiday season, the glass will be filled with something perhaps a bit tastier than water. And so…Michael Gapen: Fill my glass please.Matthew Hornbach: Indeed. So, I do think that we could be setting up for a bright 2026 ahead. And so, with that, Mike, look forward to seeing you again in December – with a glass of eggnog perhaps. And a decision in hand for the meeting that the Fed holds then. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case challenging the current administration’s tariff policy. Our Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Research explains the potential magnitude of the case’s outcome for markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today, we discuss the challenge against tariffs at the Supreme Court and how it might affect markets.It’s Thursday, Nov 6th at 11am in New York.This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the legality of most of the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration. Investors are paying close attention because if the Supreme rules against the administration, it could undo much of the four-five times tariff increase that’s taken place in the U.S. this year. That would seem to set up this hearing, and a subsequent ruling which could come as early as this month, as a clear market catalyst. But, like many policy issues affecting the economic and markets outlook, the reality is more complicated. Here’s what you need to know.First, there’s ample debate among experts about how the court will rule. That may seem surprising given the court’s makeup. Three of the nine judges were appointed by President Trump, and six of the nine by Republican Presidents. But it's not clear they’ll agree that the President used his executive power in a way consistent with the law that granted the executive branch this particular power. That law is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. And, without getting into too much detail, the law appears to have been designed to deal with economic crises and foreign adversaries, which the court might argue is not evident when considering tariffs levied against traditional allies.But, the next important point is that a ruling against the Trump administration might not actually change much around U.S. tariff levels. How is that possible? It's because the administration has other executive tariff powers it can deploy if needed, and ones that are arguably more durable. For example, Section 301 gives a President wide latitude to designate a trading partner as undertaking unfair trade practices. So this authority could be swapped in for IEEPA. That could take time, as Section 301 requires a study to be submitted, but there are other temporary authorities that could bridge the gap. So the U.S. can likely ensure continuity of current tariff levels if it wants – keeping tariffs more of a constant than a variable in our outlook.Of course, we have to consider ways we could be wrong. For example, the administration could use a ruling against it to re-focus instead on product specific tariffs through Section 232. That likely would result in U.S. effective tariff rates drifting a bit lower, alleviating some of the pressure our economists see on the consumer and corporate importers, adding more support to risk assets. But that scenario might come with some volatility along the way if the administration feels the need to float larger product specific tariff levels before settling on more palatable levels – similar to what happened in April.So bottom line, there’s more tariff policy noise to navigate this year. It could bring some market volatility, and maybe even a bit of upside, but the most likely outcome is that we circle back to the approximate levels we are today. Setting up for 2026, that means other debates – like how companies respond to tariffs and capital spending incentives – are probably more important to the outlook than the level of tariffs themselves. We’re digging in on all that and will keep you in the loop.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.

Concluding a two-part roundtable discussion, our global heads of Research, Thematic Research and Firmwide AI focus on the human impacts of AI adoption in the workplace.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Kathryn Huberty: Welcome to Thoughts in The Market, and to part two of our conversation on AI adoption. I'm Katy Huberty, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Research. Once again, I'm joined by Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic Research, and Jeff McMillan, Morgan Stanley's Head of Firm-wide AI. Today, let's focus on the human level. What this paradigm shift means for individual workers. It's Wednesday, November 5th at 10am in New York. Kathryn Huberty: Stephen, there's a lot of simultaneous fear and excitement around widespread AI adoption. There's obviously concern that AI could lead to massive job losses. But you seem optimistic about this paradigm shift. Why is that? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, as I mentioned in part one, this is the most popular discussion topic with my children. And I would say younger folks are quite concerned about this. There's a lot of angst among young folks thinking about what is that job market really going to look like for them. And admittedly, AI could be quite disruptive. So, we don't want to sugarcoat that. There's clearly going to be impacts across many jobs. Our work showed that around 90 percent of jobs will be impacted in some way. Oh, in the long term, I would guess nearly every job will be impacted in some way. The reason we are more optimistic is that what we see is a range of what we would think of as augmentation, where AI can essentially help you do something much better. It can help you expand your capabilities. And it will result in entirely new jobs. Now with any new technology, it's always hard to predict exactly what those new jobs are. But examples that I see in my world of energy would be smart grid analysis, predictive maintenance, managing systems in a much more efficient way. Systems that are so complicated that they're really beyond the capability of humans to manage very effectively. So, I'm quite excited there. I'm extremely excited in the life sciences where we could see entire new approaches to curing some of the worst diseases plaguing humankind. So, I am really very excited in terms of those new areas of job creation. In terms of job losses, one interesting analysis that a lot of investors are really focused on that we included in our Future of Work report was the ratio – within a job – of augmentation to automation. The lower the ratio, the higher the risk of job loss in the sense that that shows a sign that more of what AI is going to do, is going to replace that type of human work. Examples of that would be in professional services. As I mentioned, you know, one of my former professions, law would be an example of an area where you could see this. But essentially, tasks that don't require a lot of proprietary data, require less creativity. Those are the types of tasks that are more likely to be automated. Kathryn Huberty: One theme I hear both in Silicon Valley and in our industry is the value of domain expertise goes up. So, the lawyer that's very good in the courtroom or handling a really complicated situation because they have decades of experience, the value of that labor and talent goes up. And so, when my friends ask me what their kids should pursue in school and as a career, I tell them it's less about what job they pursue. Pick a passion and become a domain expert really quickly. Stephen Byrd: I think that's excellent advice. Kathryn Huberty: Jeff, how do you see AI changing the skills we'll need at Morgan Stanley and the way that people should think about their careers? Jeff McMillan: I think you have to break this down into three pieces – and Stephen sort of alluded to it. One, you have to look at the jobs that are likely to disappear. Two, you have to look at the jobs that are going to change. And then finally, you have to look at the new jobs that are going to actually emerge from this phenomena. You should be thinking right now about how you are going to prepare yourself with the right skills around learning how to prompt and learning how to move into those functions that are not going to be eliminated. In terms of jobs that are changing, they're going to require a far, far greater sense of collaboration, creativity. And again, prompting; prompt engineering is sort of the center of that. And I would highly encourage every single person who's listening to this to become the single best prompt engineer in their group, in their friend[s group], in their organization. And then in terms of the jobs that are being created, I'm actually pretty optimistic here. As we build agents, there's actually a bull case that we're going to create so much complexity in our environment that we're going to need more people to help manage that. But the skills are not going to be repetitive linear skills. They're going to require real time decision-making, leadership skills, collaboration skills. But again, I would go back to every single person: learn how to talk to the machine, learn how to be creative, and practice every day your engagement with this technology. Kathryn Huberty: So then how are companies balancing the re-skilling with the inevitable culture shifts that come with any new paradigm? Jeff McMillan: So, first of all, I think if you think about this as a tool, you've already lost the plot. I think that number one, you have to remind yourself what your strategy is; whatever that strategy is, this is an enabler of your strategy. The second point I'd make is that you have to go from both – the top down, in terms of leadership messaging that this change is here, it's important and it needs to be embraced. And then it's a bottoms-up because you have to empower people with the right tools and the technology to transform their own work. Because if you're trying to tell people that this is the path that they have to follow. You don't get the buy-in that you need. You really want to empower people to leverage these tools. And what excites me most is when people walk into my office and say, ‘Hey Jeff, let me show you what I built today.’ And it could be some 22-year-old who; it's their first month on the job. And what's exciting about this technology is you do not need a technology background. You need to be smart; you need to be creative. And if you've got those skills, you can build things that are really innovative. And I think that's what's exciting. So, if you can combine the top down that this is important and the bottoms up with giving people the skills and the technology and the motivation – that's the secret sauce. Kathryn Huberty: Jeff, what's your advice for the next generation college students, recent college graduates as they're thinking about navigating the early parts of their career in this environment? Jeff McMillan: Well, Katy, I first of all, I'd agree with what you say. You know, everyone's like, ‘What should I study?’ And the answer is – I don't actually know the answer to that question. But I would study what you care about. I would do something that you're passionate about. And the second point, and I hate to be a broken record on this. But I would be the single best user of GenerativeAI at your college. Volunteer with some nonprofit, build a use case with your friends. When you walk into your first job, impress in your interview that you are able to use this technology in really effective ways – because that will make a difference, in your first job. Kathryn Huberty: And I'm curious, are there areas where you think humans will always beat AI, whether it's in financial services or other industries? Jeff McMillan: I like to think that we are human and that gives us the ability to build trust and emotional relationships. And I think not only are we going to be better at that than machines are. But I think that's something that we as humans will always want. I think that there may be some individuals in the society that may feel differently. But I think as a general rule, the human-to-human relationship is something that's really important. And I like to think that it will be a differentiator for a long time to come. So, Katy, from where you sit as the Head of Global Research, how has GenAI changed the way research is being done? Kathryn Huberty: With the help of your team, Jeff, we have now embedded AI through the life cycle of investigating a hypothesis, doing the analysis, writing the research in a concise, effective way. Pushing that through our publishing process, developing digital content in our analysts’ voice, in the local language of the client. And now we're working on a client engagement tool that helps direct our research team's time. And so, the impact here is it reduces the time to market to get a alpha generating idea to our clients and, you know, and it's freeing up time for our teams. Stephen Byrd: So, Katy, I want to build on that. Productivity is a big theme. And away from the research itself, from a management perspective, how are you and your team using AI? And what do you see as the benefits? And how are you spending the extra time that's freed up by AI? Kathryn Huberty: I like to say that the research AI strategy is less about the tools. I mean, those are critical and foundational. But it's more about how we're evolving workflow and how our teams are spending time. And so, the savings are being reinvested in actually your area – thematic research – which takes a lot more coordination, collaboration. A global cross-asset view, which just takes more time to develop, and test a hypothesis, and debate internally, and get those reports to market. But it's critical for our core strategy, which is to help our clients generate alpha. When you look at equity markets over the past 30 years, a very small number of stocks drive all of the alpha. And they tend to link to themes. And so, we're reinvesting ti

In the first of a two-part roundtable discussion, our Global Head of Research joins our Global Head of Thematic Research and Head of Firmwide AI to discuss how the economic and labor impacts of AI adoption.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Kathryn Huberty: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Katy Huberty, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Research, and I'm joined by Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic Research, and Jeff McMillan, Morgan Stanley's Head of Firm-wide AI.Today and tomorrow, we have a special two-part episode on the number one question everyone is asking us: What does the future of work look like as we scale AI?It's Tuesday, November 4th at 10am in New York.I wanted to talk to you both because Stephen, your groundbreaking work provides a foundation for thinking through labor and economic impacts of implementing AI across industries. And Jeff, you're leading Morgan Stanley's efforts to implement AI across our more than 80,000 employee firm, requiring critical change management to unlock the full value of this technology.Let's start big picture and look at this from the industry level. And then tomorrow we'll dig into how AI is changing the nature of work for individuals.Stephen, one of the big questions in the news – and from investors – is the size of AI adoption opportunity in terms of earnings potential for S&P 500 companies and the economy as a whole. What's the headline takeaway from your analysis?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, this is the most popular topic with my children when we talk about the work that I do. And the impacts are so broad. So, let's start with the headline numbers. We did a deep dive into the S&P 500 in terms of AI adoption benefits. The net benefits based on where the technology is now, would be about little over $900 billion. And that can translate to well over 20 percent increased earnings power that could generate over $13 trillion of market cap upon adoption. And importantly, that's where the technology is now.So, what's so interesting to me is the technology is evolving very, very quickly. We've been writing a lot about the nonlinear rate of improvement of AI. And what's especially exciting right now is a number of the big American labs, the well-known companies developing these LLMs, are now gathering about 10 times the computational power to train their next model. If scaling laws hold that would result in models that are about twice as capable as they are today. So, I think 2026 is going to be a big year in terms of thinking about where we're headed in terms of adoption. So, it's frankly challenging to basically take a snapshot because the picture is moving so quickly.Kathryn Huberty: Stephen, you referenced just the fast pace of change and the daily news flow. What's the view of the timeline here? Are we measuring progress at the industry level in months, in years?Stephen Byrd: It's definitely in years. It's fast and slow. Slow in the sense that, you know, it's taken some companies a little while now and some over a year to really prepare. But now what we're seeing in our CIO survey is many companies are now moving into the first, I'd say, full fledged adoption of AI, when you can start to really see this in numbers.So, it sort of starts with a trickle, but then in 2026, it really turns into something much, much bigger. And then I go back to this point about non-linear improvement. So, what looks like, areas where AI cannot perform a task six months from now will look very different. And I think – I'm a former lawyer myself. In the field of law, for example, this has changed so quickly as to what AI can actually do. So, what I expect is it starts slow and then suddenly we look at a wide variety of tasks and AI is fairly suddenly able to do a lot more than we expect.Kathryn Huberty: Which industries are likely to be most impacted by the shift? And when you broke down the analysis to the industry and job level, what were some of the surprises?Stephen Byrd: I thought what we would see would be fairly high-tech oriented sectors – and including our own – would be top of the list. What I found was very different. So, think instead of sectors where there's fairly low profit per employee, often low margin businesses, very labor-intensive businesses. A number of areas in healthcare staples came to the top. A few real estate management businesses. So, very different than I expected.The very high-tech sectors actually had some of the lowest numbers, simply because those companies in high-tech tend to have extremely high profit per employee. So, the impact is a lot less. So that was surprising learning. A lot of clients have been digging into that.Kathryn Huberty: I could see why that would've surprised you. But let's focus on banking for a moment since we have the expert here. Jeff, what are some of the most exciting AI use cases in banking right now?Jeff McMillan: You know, I would start with software development, which was probably the first Gen AI use case out of the gate. And not only was it first, but it continues to be the most rapidly advancing. And that's probably; mostly a function of the software, you know, development community. I mean, these are developers that are constantly fiddling and making the technology better.But productivity continues to advance at a linear pace. You know, we have over 20,000 folks here at Morgan Stanley. That's 25 percent of our population. And, you know, the impact both in terms of the size of that population and the efficiencies are really, really significant.So, I would start there. And then, you know, once you start moving past that, it may not seem, you know, sexy. It's really powerful around things like document processing. Financial services firms move massive amounts of paper. We take paper in, whether it be an account opening, whether it be a contract. Somebody reads that information, they reason about it, and then they type that information into a system. AI is really purpose built for that.And then finally, just document generation. I mean, the number of presentations, portfolio reviews, you know, even in your world, Katy, research reports that we create. Once again, AI is really just – it's right down the middle in terms of its ability to generate just content and help people reduce the time and effort to do that.Kathryn Huberty: There's a lot of excitement around AI, but as Stephen mentioned, it's not a linear path. What are the biggest challenges, Jeff, to AI adoption for a big global enterprise like Morgan Stanley? What keeps you up at night?Jeff McMillan: I've often made the analogy that we own a Ferrari and we're driving around circles in a parking lot. And what I mean by that is that the technology has so far advanced beyond our own capacity to leverage it. And the biggest issue is – it's our own capacity and awareness and education.So, what keeps me up at night? it's the firm's understanding. It's each person's and each leader's ability to understand what this technology can do. Candidly, it's the basics of prompting. We spend a lot of time here at the firm just teaching people how to prompt, understanding how to speak to the machine because until you know how to do that, you don't really understand the art of the possible. I tell people, if you have $100 to spend, you should start spending [$]90, on educating your employee base. Because until you do that, you cannot effectively get the best out of the technology.Kathryn Huberty: And as we look out to 2026, what AI trends are you watching closely and how are we preparing the firm to take advantage of that?Jeff McMillan: You and I were just out in Silicon Valley a couple of weeks ago, and seemingly overnight, every firm has become an agentic one. While much of that is aspirational, I think it's actually going to be, in the long term, a true narrative, right? And I think that step where we are right now is really about experimentation, right? I think we have to learn which tools work, what new governance processes we need to put in place, where the lines are drawn. I think we're still in the early stage, but we're leaning in really hard.We've got about 20 use cases that we're experimenting with right now. As things settle down and the vendor landscape really starts to pan out, we'll be down position to fully take advantage of that.Kathryn Huberty: A key element of the agentic solutions is linking to the data, the tools, the application that we use every day in our workflow. And that ecosystem is developing, and it feels that we're now on the cusp of those agentic workflow applications taking hold.Stephen Byrd: So, Katy, I want to jump in here and ask you a question too. With your own background as an IT hardware analyst, how does the AI era compare to past tech or computing cycles? And what sort of lessons from those cycles shape your view of the opportunities and challenges ahead?Kathryn Huberty: The other big question in the market right now is whether an AI bubble is forming. You hear that in the press. It's one of the questions all three of us are hearing regularly from clients. And implicit in that question is a view that this doesn't look like past cycles, past trends. And I just don't believe that to be the case.We actually see the development of AI following a very similar path. If you go back to mainframe and then minicomputer, the PC, internet, mobile, cloud, and now AI. Each compute cycle is roughly 10 times larger in terms of the amount of installed compute.The reality is we've gone from millions to billions to trillions, and so it feels very different. But the reality is we have a trillion dollars of installed CPU compute, and that means we likely need $10 trillion of installed GPU compute. And so, we are following the same pattern. Yes, the numbers are bigger because we keep 10x-ing, but the pattern is the same. And so again, that tells us we're in the early innings. You know, we're still at the point of the semiconductor technology shi

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at buying opportunities approaching year-end, as U.S. trade policy and the Fed find middle ground. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing recent macro events and third quarter earnings results.It's Monday, November 3rd at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it.Last week marked the passage of two key macro events: the meeting on trade between Presidents Trump and Xi and the October Fed meeting. On the trade front, the U.S. agreed to cut tariffs on China by 10 percent and delay newly proposed tech export controls for a year. In exchange, China agreed to pause its proposed export controls on rare earths, and resume soybean purchases while cracking down on fentanyl. This is a major positive relative to how developments could have gone following the sharp escalation a few weeks ago, and markets have responded accordingly.With respect to the Fed meeting, Powell suggested policy is not on a preset course which took the bond market probability of a December rate cut down from 92 percent before the meeting to 68 percent currently. It also led to some modest consolidation in equity prices while breadth remained very weak. In my view, the market is saying that if growth holds up but the Fed only cuts rates modestly, leadership is likely to remain narrow and up the quality curve.Over the next 6 to 12 months, we think moderate weakness in lagging labor data, and a stronger than expected earnings backdrop ultimately sets the stage for a broadening in market leadership. However, we are also respectful of the signals the markets are sending in the near term. This means it's still too early to press the small cap/low quality/deep cyclical rotation trade until the Fed shows a clear willingness to get ahead of the curve. Perhaps just as important for markets was the Fed's decision to end Quantitative Tightening, or QT, in December.Recently, Jay Powell has acknowledged the potential for rising stress in the funding markets and indicated the Fed could end QT sooner rather than later. Over the past month, expectations for the timing of this QT termination ranged from immediately to as late as February. Powell seemed to split the difference at last week's meeting and this could be viewed as disappointing to some market participants.In order to monitor this development, I will be watching how short-term funding markets behave. Specifically, overnight repo usage has been on the rise and if that continues along with the widening spreads between the Secured Overnight Financing Rate and fed funds, I believe equity markets are likely to trade poorly, especially in some of the more speculative areas. In short, we think higher quality areas of the market are likely to continue to outperform until this dynamic is settled.Meanwhile, earnings season is in full swing and the real standout has been the upside in revenue surprises, which is currently more than double the historical run-rate. We think this could provide further support that our rolling recovery thesis is under way which leads to much better earnings growth than most are expecting.Bottom line, we are gaining more confidence in our core view that a new bull market began in April with the end of the rolling recession and the beginning of a new cycle. This means higher and broader earnings growth in 2026 and a potentially different leadership in the equity market. The full broadening out to lower quality, smaller capitalization stocks is being held back by a Fed that continues to fight inflation; perhaps not realizing how much the private economy and average consumer needs lower rates for this rolling recovery to fully blossom. Last week’s Fed meeting could be disappointing in that regard in the short run for equity markets. As a result, stay up the quality curve until we get more clarity on the timing of a more dovish path by the Fed and look for stress in funding markets as a possible buying opportunity into year end.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Our Japan Financials Analyst Mia Nagasaka discusses how the country’s new stablecoin regulations and digital payments are set to transform the flow of money not only locally, but globally.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mia Nagasaka, Head of Japan Financials Research at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities. Today – Japan’s stablecoin revolution and why it matters to global investors. It’s Friday, October 31st, at 4pm in Tokyo. Japan may be late to the crypto market. But its first yen-denominated stablecoin is just around the corner. And it has the potential to quietly reshape how digital money moves across the country and globally. You may have heard of digital money like Bitcoin. It’s significantly more volatile than traditional financial assets like stocks and bonds. Stablecoins are different. They are digital currencies designed to maintain a stable value by being pegged to assets such as the yen or U.S. dollar. And in June 2023, Japan amended its Payment Services Acts to create a legal framework for stablecoins. Market participants in Japan and abroad are watching closely whether the JPY stablecoin can establish itself as a major global digital currency, such as Tether. Stablecoins promise to make payments faster, cheaper, and available 24/7. Japan’s cashless payment ratio jumped from about 30 percent in 2020 to 43 percent in 2024, and there’s still room to grow compared to other countries. The government’s push for fintech and digital payments is accelerating, and stablecoins could be the missing link to a truly digital economy. Unlike Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, stablecoins are designed to suppress price volatility. They’re managed by private companies and backed by assets—think cash, government bonds, or even commodities like gold. Industry watchers think stablecoins can make digital payments as reliable as cash, but with the speed and flexibility of the internet. Japan’s regulatory approach is strict: stablecoins must be 100 percent backed by high-quality, liquid assets, and algorithmic stablecoins are prohibited. Issuers must meet transparency and reserve requirements, and monthly audits are standard. This is similar to new rules in the U.S., EU, and Hong Kong. What does this mean in practice? Financial institutions are exploring stablecoins for instant payments, asset management, and lending. For example, real-time settlement of stock and bond trades normally take days. These transactions could happen in seconds with stablecoins. They also enable new business models like Banking-as-a-Service and Web3 integration, although regulatory costs and low interest rates remain hurdles for profitability.Or think about SWIFT transactions, the backbone of international payments. Stablecoins will not replace SWIFT, but they can supplement it. Payments that used to take days can now be completed in seconds, with up to 80 percent lower fees. But trust in issuers and compliance with anti-money laundering rules are critical. There’s another topic on top of investors’ minds. CBDCs – Central Bank Digital Currencies. Both      stablecoins and CBDCs are digital. But digital currencies are issued by central banks and considered legal tender, whereas stablecoins are private-sector innovations. Japan is the world’s fourth-largest economy and considered a leader in technology. But it takes a cautious approach to financial transformation. It is preparing for a CBDC but hasn’t committed to launching one yet. If and when that happens, stablecoins and CBDCs can coexist, with the digital currency serving as public infrastructure and stablecoins driving innovation. So, what’s the bottom line? Japan’s stablecoin journey is just beginning, but its impact could ripple across payments, asset management, and even global finance. 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 analysts Ariana Salvatore and Erin Wright explain the pivotal role of healthcare in negotiations to end the government shutdown.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Erin Wright: And I'm Erin Wright, U.S. Healthcare Services Analyst. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll talk about what the U.S. government shutdown means for healthcare. It's Thursday, October 30th at 12pm in New York. Thus far, it seems like markets haven't really been paying too much attention to the government shutdown. Obviously, we're aware of the cumulative economic impact that builds every week that it lasts. But we haven't seen any movement from the political front either this week or last, which signals that it could be going on for a while longer. That being said, the end of this month is an important catalyst for a few reasons. First of all, you have the potential rollover of SNAP benefits. You have another potential missed military paycheck. And most importantly, the open enrollment period for healthcare plans. Polling is still showing neither side coming out on top with a clear advantage. Absent that changing, you probably need to see one of two things happen to have any movement forward on this front. Either more direct involvement from President Trump as he wraps up the APEC meeting or some sort of exogenous economic event, like a strike from air traffic controllers. Those types of events obviously are difficult to predict this far in advance. But up until now we know that President Trump has not really been involved in the debate. And the FAA seems to be operating a little bit with delays, but as usual. So, Erin, let's pivot to what's topical in here from a healthcare policy perspective. What are investors that you speak with paying the most attention to? Erin Wright: You bring up some important points Ariana. But from a policy perspective, it's very much an always top of mind for healthcare investors here. Right now, it is a key negotiating factor when it comes to the government shutdown. So, the shutdown debate is predominantly centered around the Affordable Care Act or the healthcare exchanges. This was a part of Obamacare. It was a program where individuals can purchase standalone health insurance through an exchange marketplace.The program has been wildly popular. It's been wildly popular in recent years with 24 million members. Growing 30 per cent last year, particularly with enhanced subsidies that are being offered today. So those subsidies are expected to expire at the end of this year, and those exchange members could be left with some real sticker shock – especially when we're going to see premium increases that could, on average, increase about 25 to 30 percent, in some states even more. So, folks are really starting to see that now. November 1st will be a key date here as open enrollment period begins. Ariana Salvatore: Right. So, as you mentioned, this is pretty key to the entire shutdown debate. Republicans are in favor of letting the expanded subsidies roll off. Democrats want to restore them to that COVID level enhancement. Of course, there's probably some middle path here, and we have seen some background reporting indicating that lawmakers are talking about a potential middle path or concession.  So, talk me through what's on the table in terms of negotiating a potential compromise or extension of these subsidies. Erin Wright: So, we could see a permutation of outcomes here. Maybe we don't get a full extension, but we could see something partial come through. We could see something in terms of income caps, which restrict, kind of, the level of participants in the AC exchanges. You could see out-of-pocket minimums, which would eliminate some of those shadow members that we've been seeing and have been problematic across the space. And then you could also grandfather in some existing members that get subsidies today. So, all of those could offer some degrees of positive. And some degrees of relief when it comes to broader healthcare services, when it comes to insurance companies, when it comes to others that are participating in this program, as well as the individuals themselves. So, it's really a patient dynamic that's getting real here. A lot is on the table, but a lot is at stake with the potential for the sunsetting of these subsidies to drive 4 million in uninsured lives. So, it is meaningful, and I think that that's something we have to kind of put into perspective here.So, would love to know Ariana though, beyond healthcare, what are some of those key debates in terms of the negotiations around the shutdown? Ariana Salvatore: Healthcare really is central to this debate. So aside from just the ACA subsidies that we talked about, some Democrats have also been pushing for a repeal or rollback of some of the pieces of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed earlier this year. That was the fiscal bill of Republicans passed through the reconciliation process – that included some cuts to Medicaid down the line. So, there's been talk around that front. I think more of a clear path on the subsidies front, because that seems to be something that Republicans are treating as an absolute no-go. Some of the other really key debates are around just kind of how to keep the ball rolling while we're still in the shutdown. So, I mentioned SNAP at first, the potential release of some contingency funds there. Again, the military paychecks are really critical. And, of course, what this all means for incoming data, which is really important – not just for investors but also for the Fed, as it kind of calibrate[s] their next move. In particular, as we head into the December meeting. I think we got a little bit of a hawkish surprise in yesterday's meeting, and that's something that investors were not expecting. So, obviously the longer that this goes on, the more those risks just continue to grow, and this deadline that we're talking about is a really critical one. It's coming up soon. So we should have a sense of how our prognosis pans out in the coming days. Thanks for the conversation, Erin. Erin Wright: Great talking to you, Ariana. Ariana Salvatore: And to our audience, thanks for listening. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review wherever you listen. And if you like Thoughts on the Market, tell a friend or colleague about the podcast today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why the recent revival of M&A activity has room to accelerate.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 discussion of merger and acquisition activity or M&A. Last year, we had a view that this activity would pick up significantly. We think we're seeing that increase now. It has further to go. It's Wednesday, October 29th at 2pm in London. We have been firm believers at Morgan Stanley in a significant multi-year uplift in global merger and acquisition activity or M&A. That conviction remains. The incentives for this type of action are strong in our view; activity still lags what fundamentals would suggest, and supportive regulatory shifts are real. M&A has now returned, and importantly, we think there's much further to go. Indeed, M&A is very closely linked to corporate confidence, and we think investors need to consider the possibility that we'll see an even bigger surge in this confidence – or a boom. First, policy uncertainty is declining as U.S. tax legislation has now passed, and tariff rates get finalized. It's the relative direction of this uncertainty that we think matters most for corporate confidence. Second, interest rates are declining with the Fed, European Central Bank, and Bank of England all set to cut rates further over the next 12 months. Third, bank capital requirements may decline in the view of Morgan Stanley analysts, which would unlock more lending for these types of transactions. Fourth, and very importantly, the regulatory backdrop is becoming more accommodative in both the U.S. and in Europe. Indeed, we think that companies may think that this is going to be the most permissive regulatory window for transactions that they might get for some time. Fifth, private equity, which is a big driver of M&A activity, is sitting on over $4 trillion of dry powder in our view – at a time when credit markets look very wide open for financing their transactions. And finally, we're seeing a surge in capital expenditure on Morgan Stanley estimates, which we see as a sign of rising corporate confidence, and importantly an urgency to act – with corporates far less content to simply sit back and repurchase their stock. All of these favorable conditions together argue for activity to push even higher. We forecast global M&A volumes to increase by 32 percent this year, an additional 20 percent next year, and reach $7.8 trillion in volume in 2027. This is a global story with M&A rising across regions, especially in Japan. It has cross-asset implications with M&A already being one of the biggest drivers of bond outperformance within the U.S. high-yield market. And this is also a story where we see a lot of value in bringing together macro and micro perspectives. While we think the top-down conditions look favorable for all the reasons I just mentioned, we also see a very encouraging picture bottom up. We polled a large number of Morgan Stanley sector analyst teams and asked them about M&A conditions in their sector. A large majority of them see more activity. So, where could these more specific implications lie? Well, as you heard on yesterday's episode, Healthcare and Biotech may see an uptick in activity. In the U.S., we also think that Banking and Media stand out. In Europe, Business Services, Metals and Mining, and Telecom seem most ripe for more M&A. Aerospace and Defense is an interesting sector that may see more M&A within multiple regions, including the U.S. and Europe, as companies look for scale. And with smaller companies trading at a valuation discount to their larger peers across the world, Morgan Stanley analysts generally see the strongest case for activity in larger companies acquiring these smaller ones. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our U.S. Biotech and Biopharma analysts Sean Laaman and Terence Flynn discuss the latest developments that could be positioning the healthcare sector for strong outperformance.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Sean Laaman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sean Laaman, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Biotech Analyst. Terence Flynn: And I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Biopharma Analyst. Sean Laaman: Today, we'll discuss how a rally in the healthcare sector is being driven by more favorable macro conditions. It's Tuesday, October 28th at 10am in New York. So, Terence, healthcare has lagged the broader market year-to-date, and valuations have been near historical lows. But recent weeks show strengthening performance. Policy headwinds have been front and center.What's changed in the regulatory environment and how is the biopharma sector adapting to these pricing and tariff dynamics? Terence Flynn: Sean, as you know, with many other sectors, tariffs were initially a focus earlier this year. But a number of companies in our space have subsequently announced significant U.S. manufacturing investments to reshore supply chains. And hence, the market's less focused on tariffs in our space right now. But the other policy dynamic and focus is what's called Most Favored Nation or MFN drug pricing. Now, this is where the President's been focused on aligning U.S. drug prices with those in other developed countries. And recently we've seen several companies announce agreements with the administration along these lines, which importantly has provided investors with more visibility here. And we're watching to see if additional agreements get announced. Sean Laaman: Got it. Another hurdle for Large-cap biopharma is a looming expiration of patents with [$]177 billion exposed by 2030. How is this shaping M&A trends and strategic priorities? Terence Flynn: For sure. I mean, as you know, Sean, patent expiry is our normal part of the life cycle of drug development. Every company goes through this at some point, but this does put the focus on company's internal pipelines to continue to progress while also being able to access external innovation via M&A. Recently we have started to see a pickup in deal activity, which could bode well for performance in SMID-cap biotech. Sean Laaman: At the same time, you believe relative valuations look compelling for Large-cap biopharma. Where are valuations versus where they've been historically? What's driving this and how should investors think about positioning? Terence Flynn: Absolutely. Look, on a price to earnings multiple, the sector's trading at about a 30 percent discount to the S&P 500 right now. Now that's in line with prior periods of policy uncertainty. But as policy visibility improves, we expect the focus will shift back to fundamentals. Now, positioning to me still feels light here, given some of the patent cliff dynamics we just discussed. Now, Sean, with the Fed moving toward rate cuts, how do you see this impacting your sector on the biotech side? Sean Laaman: Well, Terence, particularly in my space, which is Small- and Mid-cap biotech companies, they're typically capital consumers are not capital producers. They're particularly sensitive to the current rate environment.Therefore, they're sensitive to spending on pipeline. They're sensitive to M&A. So, as rates come down, we expect more spending on pipeline and more M&A activity, which is generally positive for the sector. Looking forward, biotech sector is generally the best performing sector on a six-to-12-month timeframe post the first rate cut. Terence Flynn: Great. You've also talked about this SMID to Big thesis on the biotech side. Can you explain what's driving that? Sean Laaman: Sure Terence. There’s three pieces to the SMID to Big thematic. So, we in SMID-cap biotech, we cover 80 to 90 companies. About a third of those are newly, kind of profitable companies. Those companies are turning from being capital consumers to capital producers. We see about $15 billion of cash on balance sheets for 2025, going to north of 130 billion by 2030. That's the first piece. The second piece is due to regulatory uncertainty at the USFDA. We're seeing more attractive valuations amongst clinical stage names. That's the second piece. And third piece relates to your coverage, Terence. I refer back to that [$]177 billion of LOE. So, we expect generally that M&A activity will be quite high amongst our sector. Terence Flynn: And let's not forget about AI, which has implications across the healthcare space. How much is this changing the dynamic in biotech, Sean? Sean Laaman: It is changing, but we're really at the beginning. I think there's three things to think about. The first one is faster trial recruitment. The second one is faster regulatory submissions. And the third one, which is the most interesting, but we're really at the beginning of, is faster time to appropriately targeted molecules. Terence Flynn: Great. And maybe lastly, what are the key risks and catalysts for SMID-cap biotech in the current environment? Sean Laaman: As always, we're focused on pipeline failures in terms of risk. Secondly, in terms of risk, we're looking at regulatory risk at the FDA. And thirdly, we're looking at the rise in China biotech and the competitive dynamic there.Whether you're watching large cap biopharma, M&A moves, or the rise of cash-rich, SMID-cap biotechs, the healthcare sector setup is unlike anything we've seen in years.Terence, thanks for speaking with me. Terence Flynn: Always a pleasure to be on the show. Thanks for having me, Sean. Sean Laaman: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses the outlook for stocks after the preliminary U.S.-China trade agreement and ahead of the Fed meeting and big tech earnings.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the remaining hurdles for equities after what appears to be a preliminary trade deal with China.It's Monday, October 27th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it.Over the past few weeks, trade tensions between the U.S. and China escalated once again focused on rare earths and technology transfers with each country playing its strongest card. Over the weekend, it appears that we have at least a preliminary agreement to de-escalate these tensions which means avoiding prohibitively high tariffs that were scheduled to go on at the end of this month.  While we don’t have many details on what has been agreed to, it appears that critical rare earths will continue to ship to the U.S. while technology transfer restrictions by the U.S. to China will ease. Presumably, Fentanyl tariffs of 20 percent on China are likely to be part of any broader agreement between Presidents Trump and Xi, if they end up meeting at the upcoming Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.Given the sharp sell-off in stocks a few weeks ago on the news of trade tensions re-escalating, it’s not surprising that stocks are rallying sharply this morning on news of a possible deal from last week’s talks.  Our attention now turns to the other big events this week. First, the Federal Reserve is meeting tomorrow and Wednesday to decide its next move on monetary policy. There is a broad consensus view that the Fed will cut another 25 basis points but there are very different views about how they will address its balance sheet run-off known as quantitative tightening, or QT.  Based on my conversations, there is a growing consensus view for the Fed to announce the end of QT but uncertainty around the timing. Our house view is for the Fed to wait until the January meeting to make this official with an end of the program in February. Others believe the Fed could announce something as early as this week.  That dispersion in expectations does create some room for disappointment from markets, especially given the recent increase in funding market spreads. More specifically, the widening in spreads suggests banking reserves may already be too low and restrictive for the pick-up in economic activity and capital spending that requires more liquidity. Second, earnings revision breadth has rolled over sharply the past few weeks. Most of this decline is due to normal seasonality and the fact that revisions breadth had reached unsustainably high levels since bottoming out in April. Therefore, a reset should be expected as we previewed over a month ago. Nevertheless, it needs to stabilize and push higher again for stocks to continue their advance in my view.  Perhaps most importantly for the S&P 500 is the fact that all of the hyperscalers are reporting this week and will likely determine if revision breadth rebounds. It will also be important to see how those stocks react to what is likely to be continued aggressive guidance on AI capex plans. Since April, the hyperscaler stocks have rewarded higher guidance on spending. Should that change, we may see a different tone to how these companies discuss their spending plans.   Bottom line, I remain bullish on my 12 month view for U.S. stocks based on what I believe will be better and broader growth in earnings next year. Nevertheless, the near term window remains a bit cloudy on trade, Fed policy shifts and earnings revisions breadth. Stay patient with new capital deployment and look to take advantage of downdrafts when they arise like a few weeks ago.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Our U.S. Software Analyst Sanjit Singh explains how AI is reshaping software development and why the future for the sector may be brighter – and busier – than ever.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sanjit Singh, the U.S. Software Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Today: how AI is transforming software and what that means for developers.It’s Friday, October 24th, at 10am in New York.There's been a lot of news stories and anecdotal accounts about AI taking over jobs, especially in the software industry. You may have heard of vibe coding, where people can use natural language prompts, guiding AI to build software applications. So yes, AI is creating a world where software writes itself. But at the same time, the demand for human creativity only grows.The introduction of AI coding assistants has dramatically expanded what software can do, fueling a surge in both the volume of code and the complexity of projects. But instead of shrinking the developer workforce, AI is actually supporting continued growth in developer headcount, even as productivity soars.We’re estimating the software development market will grow at a 20 percent compound annual growth rate, reaching $61 billion by 2029. And that’s up from $24 billion in 2024. And in terms of the developer population, [research] firms like IDC expect it to jump from 30 million paid developers in 2024 to 50 million by 2029 – that’s a 10 percent annual growth rate. Even the most conservative estimates, like those from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, see developer jobs growing roughly 2 percent per year through 2033, outpacing overall employment growth.So, what does this mean for people behind the code? AI isn’t replacing developers. It’s redefining them. Routine tasks are increasingly handled by AI agents, and this frees up developers to become curators, reviewers, architects, and most important problem-solvers.The upshot? Companies may need fewer developers for repetitive work, but the overall demand for skilled engineers remains robust. As AI lowers the barrier to entry, the pool of people who can build software applications expands dramatically. But at the same time, the complexity and ambitions of projects rise, keeping experienced developers in high demand.No doubt, AI coding tools are delivering real productivity gains. Some teams are reporting nearly doubling their code capacity and cutting pull request times in half after adopting AI assistants. Test coverage has increased sharply, resulting in 20 percent fewer production incidents for some organizations. But there is a catch with all this AI-generated code. It’s creating significant new bottlenecks downstream.An example of this is code review, which is becoming a major pain point. Many organizations are experiencing pull request fatigue, with developers rubber-stamping changes just to keep up. Some teams now require three reviewers for AI-generated change, compared to just one before. And in terms of automated testing, systems are getting overwhelmed because every change made with AI sets off a complete round of test.Now we estimate productivity gains from AI in software engineering at about 15–20 percent. But in complex projects, the gains are much lower, as the volume of new code often means more bugs and more rework – and hence more human developers.So where do we go from here? In our view, the future isn’t about fully autonomous software development. Instead, large enterprises are likely to favor an integrated approach, where AI agents and human developers work side by side. AI will automate more of the software development lifecycle. And that not only includes coding – which, coding typically accounts for 10-20 percent of the software development effort – but other areas like testing, security, and deployment. But humans will remain in the loop for oversight, design, and decision-making. And as software gets cheaper and faster to build, organizations won’t just do the same work with fewer people – they likely will do more.In short, the need for skilled developers isn’t going away. But it’s definitely evolving. And in the age of AI, it’s not about man versus machine. It’s about man with machine. And so with more software, we see more developers.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets wades into the debate around whether the boom in artificial intelligence investment is a warning sign for credit markets. 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 – the debate about whether elevated capital expenditure and AI technology is showing classic warning signs of overbuilding and worries for credit.It's Thursday, October 23rd at 2pm in London.Two things are true. AI related investment will be one of the largest investment cycles of this generation. And there is a long history of major investment cycles causing major headaches to the credit market. From the railroads to electrification, to the internet to shale oil, there are a number of instances where heavy investment created credit weakness, even when the underlying technology was highly successful.So, let's dig into this and why we think this AI CapEx cycle actually has much further to run.First, Morgan Stanley has done a lot of good collaborative in-depth work on where the AI related spend is coming from and what's still in the pipeline. And importantly, most of the spending that we expect is still well ahead of us. It's only really ramping up starting now.Next, we think that AI is seen as the most important technology of the next decade by some of the biggest, most profitable companies on the planet. We think this increases their willingness to invest and stick with those investments, even if there's a lot of uncertainty around what the return on all of this expenditure will ultimately be.Third, unlike some other major recent capital expenditure cycles – be they the internet of the late 1990s or shale oil of the mid 2010s, both of which were challenging for credit – much of the spending that we're seeing today on AI is backed by companies with extremely strong balance sheets and significant additional debt capacity. That just wasn't the case with some of those other prior investment cycles and should help this one run for longer.And finally, if we think about really what went wrong with some of these prior capital expenditure cycles, it's often really about overcapacity. A new technology – be it the railroads or electricity or the internet – comes along and it is transformational.And because it's transformational, you build a lot of it. And then sometimes you build too much; you build ahead of the underlying demand. And that can lower returns on that investment and cause losses.We can understand why large levels of AI capital investment and the history of large investment cycles in the past causes understandable concern. But when tying these dynamics together, it's important to remember why large investment cycles have a checkered history. It's usually not about the technology not working per se, but rather a promising technology being built ahead of demand for it and resulting in excess capacity driving down returns in that investment, and the builders lacking the financial resources to bridge that gap.So far, that's not what we see. Data centers are still seeing strong underlying demand and are often backed by companies with exceptionally good resources. We need to watch if either of these change.But for now, we think the AI CapEx cycle has much further to go.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today

Our analysts Brian Nowak, Keith Weiss and Matt Bombassei break down the most important tech insights from Morgan Stanley’s Spark Private Company Conference and industry shifts that will likely shape 2026 and beyond. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----  Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet Research. I'm joined today by Keith Weiss, Head of U.S. Software Research and Matt Bombassei from my team.Today we're going to talk about private companies and technology – and how they're showing us the direction of travel for disruptive technologies and emerging investment opportunities.It's Wednesday, October 22nd at 10am in New York.Keith and Matt, we just returned from Morgan Stanley's Spark Private Company Conference last week in Los Angeles. It had over 85 private tech companies, 150 plus investor firms. There were a lot of themes that were discussed across the entire tech space impacting a lot of different sectors, including energy, healthcare, financial services, and cybersecurity.Keith, what were some of the biggest takeaways you took away from Spark this year?Keith Weiss: I'd say just to start off with, the Spark Conference is one of my favorite conferences of the year. It's a more intimate conference where you really get to spend time with both the private company executives and founders, as well as investors from the VC community and public company investors. And the conversations are more broad ranging; they're more about the thematics in the industry. They're more long term in nature.So, it's not just a conversation about what's next quarter going to look like, or what data points are you drumming up. You're having these thoughtful conversations about what's going on in the industry and how that's going to impact business models, how it's going to impact innovation cycles, how it's going to impact pricing models, within these companies. So, it tends to be a very interesting conference for me to attend.So, for me, some of the key takeaways. Typically, when we're in these innovation cycles, it feels like everybody's rowing in the same direction. We all understand where the technology's heading, we're all understanding how it's going to be delivered, and it's a race to get there. And you're having a conversation about who's doing best in that race, who's best positioned, who's got a better motor in their race car, if you will.So, to me, one of the big takeaways was we don't have that agreement today, right? There's different players that are looking at this market evolution differently. On one side of the equation, the application vendors – and a lot of this debate is in SaaS based applications. They see SaaS based applications having a very big role in taking these models that are inherently in-determinative and making them to be more determinative and useful within an enterprise context.Bringing them the data that they need to get the job done and the right data; bringing them the context of the business process being solved; bringing the governance that's necessary to use in an enterprise environment. But most importantly, to make it effective and efficient for the large enterprise.On the other side of the equation, you have venture capital investors and more early-stage investors who are looking at this as a huge phase shift, right? This is going to fundamentally change how we build software, how we utilize software, and they worry about a deprecation of that SaaS application layer. They think the model itself is going to start to encompass, it's going to start to subsume a lot more of that application functionality, a lot more of that analytics. And they see a lot more disruption going forward.So that debate within the marketplace, that's something that's interesting to me. It's something that we don't typically see in these innovation cycles. So that's takeaway number one.Takeaway number two, we're still really early days, and that's a little bit implied in in the first statement; I definitely hear a lot of it when I talk to the end customer. When I talk to CIOs. This wasn't necessarily at Spark, but earlier in the week, I was at a CIO conference, there was 150 CIOs in the room. One of the gentlemen on stage asked a question. ‘Who in the room has a good understanding of what we're talking about when we mean Agentic AI, when we mean agentic computing within our enterprise.’ Of the 150 CIOs, four raised their hands. Still very early days in understanding how this is going to evolve, how we're going to actually deliver these capabilities into the enterprise.And the last takeaway I would say is more excitement about the federal government becoming a better customer for software companies overall. People are more interested in new avenues into that federal government. There's been some very successful companies that have opened the door to getting into these federal government contracts without going through the primes, without doing the typical federal government procurement cycles.And that's very interesting to the startup community, which tends to move faster, which tends to drive on innovation versus relationship building; versus being in an existing kind of incumbent prime. So, I thought that opening was – it was pretty interesting as well.Brian Nowak: it sounds like it's still very early, there are a lot of different points of view and no real consensus as to where technologies could go next. However, one theme with an enterprise software – [it] does seem like cybersecurity has a little more of a unified view.So maybe walk us through what you learned from a cybersecurity perspective and what should we be focused on there?Keith Weiss: Yeah, absolutely. If there is a consensus, the consensus is that generative AI and these innovations and the fast pace of innovation is going to be a positive for cybersecurity spending, right? The reason being, there's three main factors that are driving that overall spending.One is expansion of surface area, right? Cybersecurity in one dimension, you can think of how much is there to be protected, right? And if we think about the major themes that we're talking about, we're going to be developing a lot more software, right? The code generation tools are improving software developer productivity. You have an expanding capability of what you can actually automate.We'll be building a lot more software. That software needs to be protected, right? We have new entities that are going to be operating inside of enterprises, and that's the agents. So, CIOs are thinking about this future state where you have tens, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of agents operating in the environment, doing work on behalf of end users, but having permissions and having ability to execute business processes. How do we secure that side of the equation? We're talking about outside of just the four walls of the large enterprise, going into more operational technologies, being able to automate more of that work. That needs to be secured as well.So, an expanding surface area is definitely good for the cybersecurity budget. You can almost think of cybersecurity as a tax on that surface area. We generally think about it; somewhere between 4 and 6 percent of IT spend is going to be spent on overall security. So, that's one big driver.The second big driver is the elevated threat environment. So, while we're excited to get our hands on these extended capabilities of generative AI, the bad guys are already there, right? They're taking advantage of this. The sophistication, the volume and the velocity of these attacks is all increasing. That makes a harder job for the existing infrastructure to keep up, and it's going to likely necessitate more spending on cybersecurity to tackle these newer challenges; the newer dynamism within the cybersecurity threat appropriately. So, you're going to have to use generative AI to counter the generative AI.And then the last component of it; the last driver would be the regulatory environment. Regulatory tends to have some cybersecurity angles. If we think about it here, we're seeing it in terms of data governance is probably the big one. Where does this data go when it goes into the model? Are we putting the right controls around it? Do we have the right governance on it? So that's a big area of concern.A lot of complaining going on at the conference about the lack of consistency in that regulatory environment. All these different initiatives coming up from the state – really creates a challenging environment to navigate. But that's all good-ness for cybersecurity vendors that can help you get into compliance with these new regulations that are coming up. So overall, a lot of positivity around cybersecurity spending and startups definitely look to take advantage of that.Brian Nowak: Matt, so Keith says there's lack of consensus and boats being rode in every direction on what should be adopted first. And only 3 percent of CIOs know what agentic AI means. What did you learn about early signal on adoption? And some of the barriers to adoption? And hurdles that companies are talking about that they need to overcome to really adopt some of these new tools?Matt Bombassei: Yeah. Well, to Keith's point, it is really early, right? And that was a consistent theme that we heard from our companies at the conference. They are seeing early signs of cost efficiency, making employees more productive as opposed to maybe broad scale layoffs. But it's the deployment of these model technologies into specific sub-verticals – so accounting, legal engineering – where that adoption is driving greater efficiency within the organization.These companies are also adopting models that are smaller and a bit more fine tuned to their specific work product. And so that comes at a lower cost. We heard companies talking about costs at 1/50 of the cost of the broader foundational models when they're deploying it wit

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Michael Zezas discuss the latest developments in U.S.-China relations and how they could affect investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----  Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.  Today, we’re talking about the U.S. and China—why the relationship remains complicated, and what it means for markets. It’s Tuesday, Oct 21st, at 12:30pm in New York. If you’ve been following headlines, you know that U.S.-China relations are rarely out of the news. But beneath the surface, the dynamics are more nuanced than the daily soundbytes suggest. Investors often ask: Are we headed for a decoupling of the two economies, or is there room for cooperation? The answer, as always, is—it’s complicated. Let’s start with the basics. The U.S. and China are deeply intertwined economically, but strategic competition has intensified. Recent years have seen tariffs, export controls, and restrictions on technology transfer. Yet, there’s still plenty of trade between the two countries, and both economies are dependent on each other for growth and innovation. So what’s going on now?  In recent weeks, China has moved to tighten rare earth export controls and the U.S. has proposed 100 percent tariffs in return. If this came to pass, these events could mark a clear economic split. But given the interdependencies we just cited, neither Washington nor Beijing seems eager for a true split, at least not anytime soon. The economic costs would be staggering, and both sides know it. So, a truce seems more likely, perhaps with somewhat different terms than the narrow semis-for-rare earths agreement they made this spring. And longer term, this episode seems to be a part of a broader dynamic, where rolling negotiations and truces are more likely than either a durable trade peace or a hard economic decoupling. For fixed income investors, this drives some important considerations.  First, U.S. industrial policy is ramping up, with clear implications for AI infrastructure. AI is an area where the U.S. views it as essential that they outcompete China. Supported by renewed CapEx incentives from the latest tax bill, it’s clear to us that U.S. companies will be pushing further into AI development, where my colleagues have identified $2.9 trillion of data center financing needs over the next three years, about half of which will come from various credit markets. And for credit investors, this presents an important opportunity. Another consideration is how markets will balance near-term growth risks with an array of medium term growth possibilities. As our U.S. economics team has pointed out, the evidence suggests that corporates haven’t yet been forced to make tough decisions about passing on or absorbing tariff costs, underscoring that trade-related growth pressures aren’t yet in the rearview. The ongoing U.S. government shutdown doesn’t help either. It’s all a good argument for why bond yields could move lower in the near term.  But also, we should expect yield curves could steepen more, with higher relative yields in longer maturities. This would reflect greater uncertainties around higher fiscal deficits, inflation, and economic growth. Our economists have been calling out the mixed messages in economic data, as well as a U.S. fiscal sustainability picture that appears reliant on acceleration in corporate CapEx for a manufacturing and AI-driven growth burst. In sum, the U.S.-China relationship is evolving, with global implications that don’t lend themselves to easy narratives or quick fixes. Our challenge will continue to be crafting investment strategies that reflect durable policy undercurrents, the signal amid news headline noise. 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.

As the S&P 500 continues to rally, our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses three factors that could lead to a stock market correction in the near term.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----  Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I'll be discussing why we are still in a new bull market even if a correction is likely in the near term. It's Monday, October 20th at 1pm in New York. So, let's get after it. I continue to believe the sharp selloff in April following Liberation Day marked the trough of what was effectively a three-year rolling recession in the U.S. economy. We have written extensively about this view; but it still remains very much out of consensus. Since 2022 most sectors of the private economy have gone through their own individual recession but at different times. The final trough in the rate of change in economic activity came in April  around the tariff announcements which came as a surprise to almost everyone, at least in terms of the magnitude and scope. In short, Liberation Day was really capitulation day on the last piece of bad news for the economic cycle which then bottomed. Stocks seem to agree which is why they have rallied in a straight line since then, much like they do after the trough in any economic cycle. The other proof we have for this claim is the v-shaped recovery in earnings revision breadth, something we have discussed for many months in our written research and on this podcast. Based on our numerous conversations with investors, this view remains very unpopular. Instead, most believe the economy and earnings growth for next year are at risk of being lower rather than higher than expected, as I do. Core to my view is that we are now firmly in an inflationary regime since COVID and the implementation of helicopter money to get us out of that crisis. The government has  to run it hot to get us out of the massive debt and deficit problem created over the past 20 years. The end result is that investors need to expect hotter but shorter cycles rather than the elongated 10-year cycles we experienced between 1980-2020 when inflation was falling. That means two-year up cycles followed by one-year down cycles for U.S. equity markets, which is exactly what's happened since 2020. We are now in the midst of a new up cycle that began in April. The key thing to understand during this new regime is that inflation is not bad for stocks so long as it's accelerating and the Fed is on the sidelines or easing like in 2020-21, 2023 and now today. Higher inflation means higher earnings growth which is why price earnings multiples are high today. With inflation likely to accelerate next year, stocks are anticipating better earnings growth. In other words, stocks are a hedge against inflation. In fact, relative to gold, high quality stocks may offer a cheaper inflation hedge at this point given their dramatic underperformance to precious metals year-to-date and since 2021. Eventually, inflation will be a problem again for stocks like in 2022 when the Fed has to react by tightening policy, but that's a story for another day. Having said all this, the equity markets are a bit frothy at the moment and so a 10-15 percent correction in the S&P 500 is not only possible but would be normal at this stage of a new bull market. I see  three primary reasons for why we could get that in the near term. First, China-U.S. trade relations have recently escalated again, and we are slowly marching toward a November 1st deadline for tariffs on China to go back to Liberation Day levels. While most investors don't want to get sucked into selling at the worst possible time like they did in April, this risk is real and will weigh on stocks if we don't see evidence of a de-escalation in the next few weeks. Second, funding markets have exhibited some signs of increased stress lately. This is likely due to the ongoing quantitative tightening program by the Fed which is draining bank reserves. Should these stresses increase, it could spill over into equities. Third, our earnings revision breadth metric is rolling over now after its historic rise since April. This could continue into earnings season as it's normal to see some retracement from such a high level and tariffs start to flow through from inventories to the income statement. Trade tensions might also weigh on company guidance in the short term. Bottom line, I believe a new bull market began in April with a new rolling economic and earnings recovery that is now quite nascent. However, even new bull markets have corrections along the way, and certain conditions argue we are at risk for the first tradable one since April. Keep your powder dry in the near term for what should be a great buying opportunity, if it arrives. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!