Podcast Contributor: Michael Zezas

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

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

Michael Zezas: Today, our focus is once again on Washington – as the U.S. government fiscal year draws to a close and a potential government shutdown hangs in the balance.

It's Friday, September 26th at noon in New York.

Ariana we're just four days away from the end of the month. By October 1st, Congress needs to have a funding agreement in place, or we risk a potential shutdown. To that point, Democrats and Republicans seem far apart on the deal to avoid a shutdown. What's the state of play?

Ariana Salvatore: Right now, Republicans are pushing for what's called a clean continuing resolution. That's a bill that would keep funding levels flat while putting more time on the clock for negotiators to hammer out full fiscal year appropriations. And the CR they're proposing lasts until November 21st.

Democrats, conversely, are seeking to tie government funding to legislative compromise in other areas, including the enhanced Obamacare or ACA subsidies, and potential spending cuts to Medicaid from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Republicans signed earlier this year. Remember, even though Republicans hold a majority in both chambers, this has to be a bipartisan agreement because of exactly how thin those margins of control are.

But Mike, it seems as we get closer, investors are asking more infrequently whether or not a shutdown is happening – and are more interested in how long it could potentially last. What are we thinking there?

Michael Zezas: So, it's hard to know. Shutdowns typically last a few days, but sometimes there are short as a few hours, sometimes as long as a few weeks. Historically, shutdowns tend to end when the economic risk, and therefore the attached political risk gets real. So, consider the 35-day shutdown under President Trump in this first term.

The compromise that ended it came quickly after there was an air traffic stoppage at New York's LaGuardia Airport – when 10 air traffic controllers who weren't being paid failed to show up for work.

So, we think the more relevant question for investors is what it all means for economic activity. Our economists have historically argued that a government shutdown takes something like 0.1 percent off of GDP every single week it's happening. However, once employees go back to work, a lot of times that effect fades pretty quickly.

Now it's important to understand that this time around there could be a wrinkle. The Trump administration is talking about laying employees off on a durable basis during the shutdown. And that's something that maybe would have more of a lasting economic impact. It's hard to know how credible that potential is. There would almost certainly be court challenges, but it's something we have to keep our eye on that could create a more meaningful economic consequence.

Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And there are also some really important indirect macroeconomic effects here. Like delayed data releases. Much of the federal workforce, to your point, will not be working through a shutdown – which could impede the collection and the release of some key data points that matter for markets like labor and inflation data, which come from BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So, assuming we're in this scenario with a longer-term shutdown. Obviously, we're going to see an increase in uncertainty, especially as investors are looking toward each data print for guidance on what the Fed's next move might be. What do we expect the market reaction to all of this to be?

Michael Zezas: Well, the obvious risk here is that markets might have to price in some weaker growth potential. So, you could see treasury yields fall. You could see equity markets wobble; be a bit more volatile. It could be that those effects are temporary, though. And that volatility could easily be amplified by having to price risk in the market without the data you were talking about, Ariana. So, investors could overreact to anecdotal signals about the economy or underweight some real risks that they're not seeing.

So, that's why even a short shutdown can have outsized market effects. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike.

Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you get this podcast and tell your friends about it. We want everyone to listen.

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

Today, let’s talk about how changes in U.S. policy are shaping the markets in 2025—and why we’re seeing a pickup in capital markets activity.

It’s Wednesday, September 24th at 10:30am in New York.

At the start of this year, one thing investors agreed on was that with President Trump back in office, U.S. policy would shift in big ways. But there was less agreement about what those changes would mean for the economy and markets. Our team built a framework to help investors track changes in trade, fiscal, immigration, and regulatory policy – focusing on the sequencing and severity of these choices. That lens remains useful. But now, 250 days into the administration, we think it’s more valuable to look at the impacts of those shifts, the durable policy signals, and how markets are pricing it all.

Let’s start with policy uncertainty. It is still high, but it’s come down from the peaks we saw earlier this year. For example, the White House has made deals with key trading partners, which means tariff escalation is on pause for now. Of course, things could change if those partners don’t meet their commitments, but any fallout may take a while to show up. Even if courts challenge new tariffs, the administration has ways to bring them back. And with Congress divided, most big policy moves are coming from the executive branch, not lawmakers.

With policy changes slowing down, it’s worth reflecting on a new durable consensus in Washington. For years, both parties mostly agreed on lowering trade barriers and keeping the government out of private business. But it seems that’s changed. Industrial policy—where the government takes a more active role in shaping industries—is now a key part of U.S. strategy. Tariffs that started under Trump stayed under Biden, and even current critics focus more on how tariffs are applied than whether they should exist at all. You see this shift in areas like healthcare, energy, and especially technology. Take semiconductors. The CHIPS act under Biden aimed to build a secure domestic supply chain while Trump's approach includes licensing fees on exports to China and considering more government stakes in companies.

So, why is capital markets activity picking up then? There are several drivers.

First, less uncertainty about policy means companies feel more confident making big decisions. Earlier this year, activity like IPOs and mergers was unusually low compared to the size of the economy. But corporate balance sheets are strong—companies have plenty of cash, and private investors are looking to put money to work. Add in new needs for investment driven by artificial intelligence and technology upgrades, and you get a recipe for more deals.

Our corporate clients have told us that having a smaller range of possible policy outcomes helped them move forward with strategic plans. Now, we’re seeing the results: IPOs are up 68 percent year-on-year, and M&A is up 35 percent. Those numbers are coming off low levels, so the pace may slow, but we expect growth to continue for a while.

This all syncs up with other trends in the market. For example, we continue to see steeper yield curves and a weaker dollar. Why? Well, trade policy is likely to stay restrictive. The fiscal policy trajectory appears locked in as the President and Congress have already made the fiscal choices that they prefer. And the Federal Reserve appears willing to tolerate more inflation risk in order to support growth. That means the dollar could keep falling and longer maturity bond yields could be sticky, even as shorter maturity yields decline to reflect the more dovish Fed.

As always, it's important to watch how these trends interact with the broader economy, and that will be important to how we start deliberating on our outlook for 2026. We'll keep analyzing and share more with you as we go.

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

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

Today: What a subtle shift in the Fed’s reaction function could mean for markets into year-end.

It’s Wednesday, September 3rd at 11am in New York.

Last week, our U.S. economics team flagged a subtle but important shift in U.S. monetary policy. Chair Jay Powell’s speech at Jackson Hole underscored that the Fed looks more focused on managing downside growth risks and, consequently, a bit more tolerant on inflation.

As you heard Michael Gapen and Matthew Hornbach discuss last week – our colleagues expect this brings forward another Fed cut into September, kicking off a quarterly pace of 25 basis-point moves. But while this is a meaningful change in the timing of Fed rate cuts, this path would only result in slightly lower policy rates than those implied by the futures market, a proxy for the consensus of investors.

So what does it mean for our views across asset classes? In short, our central case is for mostly positive returns across fixed income and equities into year-end. But the Fed’s increased tolerance for inflation is a new wrinkle that means investors are likely to experience more volatility along the way.

Consider U.S. government bonds. A slower economy and falling policy rates argue for lower Treasury yields. But if investors grow more convinced that the Fed will tolerate firmer inflation, the curve could steepen further, with the risk of longer maturity yields falling less, or potentially even rising.

Or consider corporate bonds. Our economic growth view is “slower but still expanding,” which generally bodes well for corporate balance sheets and, thus, the pricing of credit risk.  That combined with lower front-end rates suggests a solid total return outlook for corporate credit, keeping us constructive on the asset class.  But of course, if long end yields are moving higher, it would certainly cut against overall returns potential.

Finally, consider the stock market.  The base case is still constructive into year-end as U.S. earnings hold firm, and recent tax cuts should further help corporate cash flows. However, if long bonds sell off, this could put the rally at risk – at least temporarily, as my colleague Mike Wilson has highlighted; given that higher long-end yields are a challenge to the valuation of growth stocks.

The risk? A repeat of the early-April dynamic where a long-end sell-off pressures valuations.

Could we count on a shift in monetary policy to curb these risks? Or another public policy shift such as easing tariffs or Treasury adjusting its bond issuance plans? Possibly. But investors should understand this would be a reaction to market conditions, not a proactive or preventative shift. 

So bottom line, we still see many core markets set up to perform well, but the sailing should be less smooth than it has been in recent months.

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.

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

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

Michael Zezas: Today, how are tariffs impacting the economy and what it means for bond markets?

It's Wednesday, August 13th at 10:30am in New York.

Michael, we've been talking about how the near-term uncertainty around tariff levels has come down. Tariff deals are, of course, still pending with some major U.S. trading partners like China; but agreements are starting to come together. And though there's lots of ways they could break over time, in the near-term, deals like the one with Europe signal that the U.S. might be happy for several months with what's been arranged. And so, the range of outcomes has shrunk.

The U.S.' current effective tariff rate of 16 percent is about where we thought we'd be at year end. But that's substantially higher than the roughly 3 percent we started the year with. So, not as bad as it looked like it could have been after tariffs were announced on April 2nd, but still substantially higher. Now's the time when investors should stay away from chasing tariff headlines and guessing what the President might do next; and instead focus on assessing the impact of what's been done.

With that as the backdrop, we got some relevant data yesterday, the Consumer Price Index for July. You were expecting that this would show some clear signs of tariffs pushing prices higher. Why was that?

Michael Gapen: Well, we did analysis on the 2018-2019 tariff episode. So, in looking at the input-output tables, economy andou an idea of how prices move through certain sectors of the economy, and applying that to the 2018 episode of tariffs – we got the result that you should see some tariff inflation in June, and then sequentially more as we move into the late summer and the early fall.

So, the short answer, Mike, is a model based plus history-based exercise – that said yes, we should start seeing the effects of tariffs on those categories, where the direct effect is high. So that'd be most of your goods categories. Over time, as we move into later this year or early next year, it'll be more important to think about indirect effects, if any.

Michael Zezas: Got it. So, the July CPI data that came out yesterday, then did it corroborate this view?

Michael Gapen: Yes and no. So, I'm an economist, so I have to do a two-handed view on this. So yes…

Michael Zezas: Always fair.

Michael Gapen: Always, yes. So, yes, core goods prices rose by two-tenths on the month, in June they also rose by two-tenths. Prior to this goods’ prices were largely flat with some of the big durables, items like autos being negative, right? So, we had all the give back following COVID. So, the prior trend was flat to negative. The last two months, they've shown two-tenths increases. And we've seen upward pressure on things like household furnishings, apparel. We saw a strong used car print this month, motor vehicle and repairs. So, all of that suggests that tariffs are starting to flow through.

Now, we didn’t – on the other hand – is we didn't get as much as we thought. New car prices were flat and maybe those price increases will be delayed until models – the 2026 models start hitting the lot. That would be September or later. And we didn't actually; I said apparel. Apparel was up stronger last month. It really wasn't up all that much this month. So, the CPI data for July corroborated the view that the inflation pass through is happening.

Where I think it didn't answer the question is how much of it are we going to get and should we expect a lot of it to be front loaded? Or is this going to be a longer process?

Michael Zezas: Got it. And then, does that mean that tariffs aren't having the sort of aggregate impact on the economy that many thought they would? Or is maybe the composition of that impact different? So, maybe prices aren't going up so much, but companies are managing those costs in other ways. How would you break that down?

Michael Gapen: We would say, and our view is that, yes, you know, we have written down a forecast. And we used our modeling in the 2018-20 19 episode to tell us what's a reasonable forecast for how quickly and to what degree these tariffs should show up in inflation.

But obviously, this has been a substantial move in tariffs. They didn't start all at once. They've come in different phases and there's a lot of lags here

So, I just think there's a wide range of potential outcomes here. So, I wouldn't conclude that tariffs are not having the effect we thought they would.

I think it's way too early and would be incorrect to conclude, just [be]cause we've had relatively modest tariff pressures in June and July, inflation that we can be sanguine and say it's not a big deal and we should just move on.

Michael Zezas: And even so, is it fair to say that there's still plenty of evidence that this is weighing on growth in the way you anticipated?

Michael Gapen: I think so. I mean, it's clear the economy has moderated. If we kind of strip out the volatility and trade and inventories, final sales to domestic purchasers 1.5 in the first quarter. It was 1.1 in the second quarter, and a lot of that slowdown was related to spending by the consumer. And a slowdown in business spending. So that that could be a little more, maybe about policy uncertainty and not knowing exactly what to do and how to plan.

But it also we think is reflected in a slowdown, in the pace of hiring. So, I would say, you got the policy uncertainty shock first. That also came through the effect of the April 2nd Liberation Day tariffs, which probably caused a freeze in hiring and spending activity for a bit. And now I would say we're moving into the part of the world where the actual increase in tariffs are going to happen. So, we'll know whether or not firms can pass these prices along or not. If they can't, we'll probably get a weaker labor market. If they can, we'll continue to see it in inflation.

But Mike, let me ask you a question now. You've had all the fun. Let me turn the table.

Michael Zezas: Fair enough.

Michael Gapen: How much does it matter for you or your team, whether or not these tariffs are pushing prices higher? And/or delaying cuts from the Fed. How do you think about that on your side?

Michael Zezas: Yeah, so this question of composition and lags is really interesting. I think though that if the end state here is as you forecast – that we'll end up with weaker growth, and as a consequence, the Fed will embark on a substantial rate cutting program. Then the direction of travel for bond yields from here is still lower. So, if that's the case, then obviously this would be a favorable backdrop for owners of U.S. treasury bonds.

It's probably also good news for owners of corporate credit, but the story's a bit trickier here. If yields move lower on weaker growth, but we ultimately avoid a recession, this might be the sweet spot for corporate credit. You've got fundamental strength holding that limits credit risk, and so you get performance from all in yields declining – both the yield expressed by the risk-free rate, as well as the credit spread.

But if we tipped into recession, then naturally we'd expect there to be a repricing of all risk in the market. You'd expect there to be some expression of fundamental weakness and credit spreads would widen. So, government bonds would've been a better product to own in that environment.

But, of course, Michael, we have to consider alternative outcomes where yields go higher, and this would turn into a bad environment for bond returns that would appear to be most likely in the scenario where U.S. growth actually ticks higher, resetting expectations for monetary policy in a more hawkish direction.

So, what do you think investors should watch for that would lead to that outcome? Is it something like an AI productivity boom or maybe something else that's not on our radar?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, so I think that is something investors do have to think about; and let me frame one way to think about that – where ex-post any easing by the Fed as early as September might be retroactively viewed as a policy mistake, right? So, we can say, yes, tariffs should slow down growth and maybe that happens in the second half of this year.

The Fed maybe eases rates as a pre-emptive measure or risk management approach to avoid too much weakness in the labor market. So even though the Fed is seeing firming inflation now, which it is. It could ease in September, maybe again in December [be]cause it's worried about the labor market. So maybe that's what dominates 2025. And, and like you said, perhaps in the very near term, continues to pull bond prices lower.

But what if we get into 2026 and the tariff effect or the tariff drag on growth fades, and the consumer begins to accelerate. So, we don't have a recession, we just get a bit of a divot in growth and then the economy recovers. Then fiscal policy kicks in, right?

We don't think the One Big, Beautiful Bill act will provide a lot of stimulus, but we could be wrong. It could kickstart animal spirits and bring forward a lot of business spending. And then maybe AI, as you said; that could be a combining factor and financial conditions would be very easy in that world, in part – given that the Fed has eased, right?

So that that could be a world where, you know, growth is modest, but it's firming. Inflation that's moved up to about 3 percent or maybe a little bit higher later this year kind of stays there. And then retroactively, the problem is the Fed eased financial conditions into that and inflation's kind of stuck around 3 percent. Bond yields – at least the long end – would probably react negatively in that world.

Michael Zezas: Yeah, that makes perfect sense to us. Well, Michael, thanks for taking the time to talk with me.

Michael Gapen: Thanks for having me on, Mike.

Michael Zezas: And to our audience, 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.

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

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

Michael Zezas: Today  ongoing effects of tariffs on the U.S. economy.

It is Friday, August 1st at 8am in New York.

So, Michael, lots of news over the past couple of weeks about the U.S. making trade agreements with other countries. It's certainly dominated client conversations we've had, as I'm assuming it's probably dominated conversations for you as well.

Michael Gapen: Yeah  certainly a topic that never goes away. It keeps on giving at this point in time. And I guess, Michael, what I would ask you is,  what do you make of the recent deals ? Does it reduce uncertainty in your mind? Does it leave uncertainty elevated?

What’s  your short-term outlook  for trade policy?

Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think it's fair to say that we've reduced the range of potential outcomes in the near term around tariff rates. But we haven't done anything to reduce longer term uncertainties in U.S. trade policy.

So, consider, for example, over the last couple of weeks, we have an agreement with Japan and an agreement with Europe – two pretty substantial trading partners – where it appears, the tariff rate that's going to be applied is something like 15 percent. And when you stack up these deals on one another, it looks like we're going to end up in an average effective tariff rate from the U.S. range of kind of 15 to 20 percent. And if you think back a couple of months, that range was much wider and we were potentially talking about levels in the 25 to 30 percent range.

So, in that sense, investors might have a bit of a respite from the idea of kind of massive uncertainty around trade policy outcomes. However, longer term, these agreements really just are kind of principles that are set out for behavior, and there's lots of trip wires that could create future potential escalations.

So, for example, with the Europe deal, part of the deal is that Europe will commit to purchase a substantial amount of U.S. energy. There's obvious questions as to whether or not the U.S. can actually supply that amidst its own energy needs that are rising substantially over the course of the next year. So, could we end up in a situation where six months to a year from now if those purchases haven't been made – the U.S. sort of presses forward and the administration threatens to re-escalate tariffs again. Really hard to know, but the point is these arrangements have lots of contingencies and other factors that could lead to re-escalation. 

But it's fair to say, at least in the near term, that we're in a landing place that appears to be somewhat smaller in terms of the range of potential outcomes.  Now, I think a question for investors is going to be – how do we assess what the effects of that have been, right? Because is it fair to say that the economic data that we've received so far maybe isn't fully telling the story of the effects that are being felt quite yet.

Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's completely right. We've always had the view that it would take several months or more just for tariffs to show up in inflation. And if tariffs primarily act as a tax on the consumer, you have to apply that tax first before economic activity would  moderate.

So, we've long been forecasting that inflation would begin to pick up in June. We saw a little of that. But it would accelerate through the third quarter, kind of peaking around the August-September period. So, I'd say we've seen the first signs of that, Michael, but we need obviously follow through evidence that it's happening. So,  we do expect that in the July, August and September inflation reports, you'll see a lot more evidence of tariffs pushing goods prices higher.

So,  we'll be dissecting all the details of the CPI looking for evidence of direct effects of tariffs, primarily on goods prices, but also some services prices. So, I'd put that down as tthe first marker, and we've seen some,  early evidence on that.

The second then, obviously, is the economy's 70 percent consumption. Tariffs act as a regressive tax on low- and middle-income consumers because non-discretionary purchases are a larger portion  of their consumption bundle and a lot of goods prices are as well. Upper income households tend to spend relatively more money  on leisure and recreation services. So, we would then expect growth in private consumption, primarily led by lower and middle-income spending softening. We think the consumer would slow down. But into the end of the year.Those are the two main markers that I would point to.

Michael Zezas: Got it. So, I, I think this is really important because there's certainly this narrative amongst clients that we talk to that markets may have already moved on from this.  Or investors may have already priced in the effects – or lack thereof – of some of this tariff escalation. Now we're about to get some real evidence from economic data as to whether or not that view and those assumptions are credible.

Michael Gapen: That's right.  Where we were initially on April 2nd after Liberation Day was largely embargo level tariffs. And if those stayed in place, trade volumes and activity and financial market asset values would've collapsed precipitously. And they were for a few weeks, as you know, but then we dialed it back and got out of thatSo, yeah, , we would say it's wrong to conclude that the economy , has absorbed these tariffs already and that they won't have,, a negative effect on economic activity. We think they will just in the base case where tariffs are high, but not too high, it just takes a while for that to happen.

Michael Zezas:  And of course, all of that's kind of core to our multi-asset outlook right now where a slowing economy, even with higher recession probabilities can still support risk assets. But of course, that piece of it is going to be very complicated if the economic data ends up being worse than you suspect.

Now, any evidence you've seen so far? For example, we had a GDP report earlier this week. Any evidence from that data as to where things might go over the next few months?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, well, another data point on trade policy and trade policy uncertainty really causing a lot of volatility in trade flows.

So, if you recall, there's big front running of tariffs in the first quarter. Imports were up about 37 percent on the quarter; that ended in the second quarter, imports were down 30 percent. So net trade was a big drag on growth in the first quarter. It was a big boost to growth in the second. But we think that's largely noise. So, what I would say is we've probably level set import and export volumes now.

 So, do trade volumes from here begin to slow? That's an unresolved question. But certainly, the large volatility in the trade and inventory data in Q1 and Q2 GDP numbers are reflective of everything that you're saying about the risks around trade policy and elevated trade policy uncertainty.

Second, though, I would say, because we started out the quarter with Liberation Day tariffs, the business sector, clearly – in our mind anyway – clearly responded by delaying activity. Equipment spending was only up 4 to 5 percent on the quarter. IP was up about 6 percent. Structures was down 10 percent. So, for all the narrative around AI-related spending, there wasn't a whole lot of spending on data centers and power generation in the second quarter.

So, what you speak to about the need to reduce some trade policy uncertainty, but also your long run trade policy uncertainty remains elevated? I would say we saw evidence in the second quarter that all of that slowed down capital spending activity. Let's see if the One Big Beautiful Bill act can be a catalyst on that front, whether animal spirits can come back. But that's the other thing I would point to is that,  business spending was weak and even though the headline GDP number was 3 percent, that's mainly a trade volatility number. Final sales to domestic purchasers, which includes consumption and business spending, was only up 1.1 percent in the quarter.

So, the economy's moderating; things are cooling. I think trade policy and trade policy uncertainty is a big part of that story.

Michael Zezas: Got it. So maybe this is something of a handoff here  where my team had been really, really focused and investors have been really, really focused on the decision-making process of the U.S. administration around tariffs. And now your team's going to lead us through understanding the actual impacts. And the headline numbers around economic data are important, but probably even more important is the underlying. Is that fair?

Michael Gapen: I think that's fair. I think as we move into the third quarter, like between now and when the Fed meets in, September, again, they'll have a few more inflation reports, a few more employment reports. We're going to learn a lot more than about what the Fed might do. So, I think the activity data and the Fed will now become much more important over the next several months than where we've been the past several months, which is about, has been about announcements around  trade.

Michael Zezas: All right. Well then, we look forward to hearing more from you and your team in the coming months. Well Michael, thanks for taking the time to talk to me.

Michael Gapen: Thanks for having me on.

Michael Zezas: And to our audience, 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. 

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

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

Michael Zezas: Today we're diving into the administration's newly released AI action plan. What's in It, what it means for markets, and where the challenges to implementation might lie.

It's Thursday, July 24th at 10am in New York.

Things are not all quiet on the policy front, but with the fiscal bill having passed Congress and trade tensions simmering ahead of the new August 1st deadline, clients are asking what the administration might focus on that investors might need to know more about.

Well, this week it seems to be AI.

The White House just unveiled its sweeping AI Action Plan, the first big policy-signaling document since the administration canceled the implementation of former President Biden's AI Diffusion Rule. So, Ariana, what do we need to focus on here?

Ariana Salvatore: This document is basically the administration signaling how it intends to cement America's role in the global development of AI – through a mix of both domestic and global policy initiatives. There are over 90 policy actions outlined in the document across three main pillars: innovation, infrastructure, and global leadership.

Michael Zezas: That's right. And even though there's still some important details to flesh out here in terms of what these initiatives might practically mean, it's worth delving into what the different areas are outlining and what it might mean for investors here.

Ariana Salvatore: So first on the innovation front. The plan calls for removing regulatory barriers to AI development, encouraging open-source models, and investing in interpretability and robustness. There's also a push throughout the document to build world class data sets and accelerate AI adoption across the federal agencies.

Michael Zezas: Infrastructure is another main pillar here, and keeping with the theme of loosening regulation, the plan includes fast tracking permits for data centers, expanding access to federal land, and improving grid interconnection for power generation. There's also a call to stabilize the existing grid and prioritize dispatchable energy sources like nuclear and geothermal.

But that's where we may see some of these frictions emerge. As our colleague Stephen Byrd has talked about quite a bit, the grid remains a major constraint for power generation; and even with some of these executive orders, the President's ability to control scaling power capacity is somewhat limited.

Many of these policy tools to increase energy production to facilitate more data centers will likely have to be addressed by Congress, especially if any of these policy changes are to be more durable.

Ariana Salvatore: One area where the executive actually does have pretty broad discretion to control is trade policy, and this document focused a lot on the U.S.’ role in the world as we see increasing AI competition on a global scale.

So, to that point, the third pillar is around global leadership. Specifically, the plan calls for the U.S. to export its full AI stack – hardware, models, standards – to allies, while simultaneously tightening export controls on rivals. China's clearly a focal point here, and that's one that is explicitly called out in the document.

Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it all seems part of a proposal to form in International AI Alliance built on shared values and open trade; and the plan explicitly frames AI leadership as a strategic priority in the multipolar world.

It calls for embedding U.S. AI standards and global governance bodies while using export controls and diplomatic tools to limit adversarial influence. But you know, importantly, something we'll have to track here is what exactly are these standards going to be and how that will shape how industry in the U.S. around AI has to behave. Those details are not yet forthcoming.

So, there's a couple of threads here across all of this; deregulation, pushing for more energy generation, trade policy aspects. Ariana, what do you think it all means for investors? Are there key sectors here that face more constraints or face more tailwinds that investors need to know about?

Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so really two key takeaways from this document. First of all, AI policy is a priority for the administration, and we're seeing them pursue efforts to reduce regulatory barriers to data center construction. Although those could run into some legal and administrative hurdles. All else equal reduction in data center, build time and cost benefits owners of natural gas fired and nuclear power plants. So, you should see a tailwind to the power and utility sector.

Secondly, this document and the messaging from the President makes AI a national security issue. That's why we see differentiated treatment for China versus the rest of the world, which is also reflected in the administration's approach to the broader trade relationship and dovetails well with our expectation for higher tariffs on China at the end of this year versus the global baseline.

Michael Zezas: Right. So, if AI becomes a national and economic security issue, which is what this document is signaling, it's one of the reasons you should expect that these tariff increases globally – but with a skew towards China – are probably durable. And it's something that we think is reflected in the sector preferences or equity strategy team, for example, with some caution around the consumer sector.

Ariana Salvatore: That's right. So, plan to watch as this unfolds.

Michael Zezas: That's it for today's episode of Thoughts on the Market. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

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

Today: Why there's no summer slowdown yet for U.S. policy catalysts for the financial markets.

It's Friday, July 18th at 8am in New York.

The past week and a half has seen many major policy, events and headlines relevant to the outlook for financial markets. This includes more speculation by the U.S. administration over leadership at the Fed, more information about the deficit impact of the new fiscal bill, and – perhaps most tangibly – announcements of new tariffs that, if they take effect, will be a meaningful step up from already elevated levels.

It would all suggest a weaker growth outlook and less overseas demand for U.S. assets. Yet major financial markets seem to have shrugged it all off. The S & P and the U.S. dollar are up about 1 percent over that time, and Treasury yields are modestly higher.

So, what's going on? Two possibilities to consider, and it implies investors should pay more attention than they may be inclined to this summer.

First, when it comes to the impact of tariffs on the economy, it's possible we're dealing with a delayed impact. The effective average U.S. tariff rate shot up from 3 to 4 percent earlier this year to 13 percent, and if recent announcements go through, that could exceed 20 percent. That's a major escalation in costs for U.S. companies and consumers and something our economists argue takes growth down to 1 percent and elevates the possibility of a recession.

But our economists also point out that we may not be experiencing these cost increases quite yet. History suggests several months of lag between implementation and economic impact as companies leverage existing lower cost inventory before making tough decisions on pricing and managing their own costs.

That means hard economic data likely does not yet tell us about the impact or lack thereof of tariffs, but that may change in the coming months.

Second. It's also possible that the recent announcements of tariff increases don't tell us the whole story. As my colleagues in our equity strategy team point out, corporate America's cost base is most sensitive to the U.S.' largest trading partners – China, Mexico, Canada, and Europe. As we've discussed in prior episodes, we see tariff rate increases as likely on all these trading partners as tough negotiations continue.

However, the details will matter greatly if rates are increased, but with a healthy dose of exceptions or quotas. Even if they diminish over time, then the real impact could be significantly blunted. In that case, markets would resume taking cues from other factors such as earnings revisions and forward-looking expectations around AI driven productivity.

So bottom line, market movements suggest investors are assuming benign U.S. policy outcomes. But there's plenty of developments to track in the coming weeks and months to test if those assumptions will hold. Trade policy details and hard economic data are key among them.

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.

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.  Today: The latest on U.S. tariffs and their market impact.

It’s Thursday, July 10th at 12:30pm in New York.

It's been a newsy week for U.S. trade policy, with tariff increases announced across many nations. Here’s what we think investors need to know.

First, we think the U.S. is in a period of tactical escalation for tariff policy; where tariffs rise as the U.S. explores its negotiating space, but levels remain in a range below what many investors feared earlier this year. We started this week expecting a slight increase in U.S. tariffs—nothing too dramatic, maybe from 13 percent to around 15 percent driven by hikes in places like Vietnam and Japan. But what we got was a bit more substantial.

The U.S. announced several tariff hikes, set to take effect later, allowing time for negotiations. If these new measures go through, tariffs could reach 15 to 20 percent, significantly higher than at the beginning of the year, though far below the 25 to 30 percent levels that appeared possible back in April. It’s a good reminder that U.S. trade policy remains a moving target because the U.S. administration is still focused on reducing goods trade deficits and may not yet perceive there to be substantial political and economic risk of tariff escalation. Per our economists’ recent work on the lagged effects of tariffs, this reckoning could be months away.

Second, the implications of this tactical escalation are consistent with our current crossasset views. The higher tariffs announced on a variety of geographies, and products like copper, put further pressure on the U.S. growth story, even if they don’t tip the U.S. into recession, per the work done by our economists. That growth pressure is consistent with our views that both government and corporate bond yields will move lower, driving solid returns.  It's also insufficient pressure to get in the way of an equity market rally, in the view of our U.S. equity strategy team. The fiscal package that just passed Congress might not be a major boon to the economy overall, but it does help margins for large cap companies, who by the way are more exposed to tariffs through China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU – rather than the countries on whom tariff increases were announced this week

Finally, How could we be wrong?  Well, pay attention to negotiations with those geographies we just mentioned:  Mexico, Canada, Europe, and China.  These are much bigger trading partners not just for U.S. companies, but the U.S. overall.  So meaningful escalation here can drive both top line and bottom line effects that could challenge equities and credit.  In our view, tariffs with these partners are likely to land near current levels, but the path to get there could be volatile. 

For the U.S., Mexico and Canada, background reporting suggests there’s mutual interest in maintaining a low tariff bloc, including exceptions for the product-specific tariffs that the U.S. is imposing.  But there are sticking points around harmonizing trade policy. The dynamic is similar with China.  Tariffs are already steep—among the highest anywhere. While a recent narrow deal—around semiconductors for rare earths—led to a temporary reduction from triple-digit levels, the two sides remain far apart on fundamental issues. 

So when it comes to negotiations with the U.S.’ biggest trading partners, there’s sticking points. And where there’s sticking points there’s potential for escalation that we’ll need to be vigilant in monitoring.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Michael.

Michael Zezas: And if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.