Thoughts on the Market Podcast

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 stocks remain so resilient.

It's Monday, July 14th at 11:30am in New York.

So, let’s get after it.

Why has the equity market been resilient in the face of new tariff  announcements? Well first, the import cost exposure for S&P 500 industries is more limited given the deferrals and exemptions still in place like the USMCA compliant imports from Mexico. Second, the higher tariff rates recently announced on several trading partners are generally not perceived to be the final rates as negotiations progress. I continue to believe these tariffs will ultimately end up looking like a 10 percent consumption tax on imports that generate significant revenue for the Treasury. And finally, many companies pre-stocked inventory before the tariffs were levied and so the higher priced goods have not yet flowed through the cost of goods sold.

Furthermore, with the market’s tariffs concerns having peaked in early April, the market  is looking forward and focused on the data it can measure. On that score, the dramatic v-shaped rebound in earnings revisions breadth for the S&P 500 has been a fundamental tailwind that justifies the equity rally since April in the face of continued trade and macro uncertainty. This gauge is one of our favorites for predicting equity prices and it troughed at -25 percent in mid-April. It’s now at +3 percent. The sectors with the most positive earnings revisions breadth relative to the S&P 500 are Financials, Industrials and Software — three sectors we continue to  recommend due to this dynamic.

The other more recent development helping to support equities is the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill. While this Bill does not provide incremental fiscal spending to support the economy or lower the statutory tax rate, it does lower  the cash earnings tax rates for companies that spend heavily on both R&D and Capital Goods.

Our Global Tax Team believes we could see cash tax rates fall from 20 percent today back toward the 13 percent level that existed before some of these benefits from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expired in 2022. This benefit is also likely to jump start what has been an anemic capital spending cycle for corporate America, which could drive both higher GDP and revenue growth for the companies that provide the type of equipment that falls under this category of spending.

Meanwhile, the Foreign-Derived Intangible Income is a tax incentive that benefits  U.S. companies earning income from foreign markets. It was designed to encourage companies to keep their intellectual property in the U.S. rather than moving it to countries with lower tax rates. This deduction was scheduled to decrease in 2026, which would have raised the effective tax rate by approximately 3 percent. That risk has been eliminated in the Big Beautiful Bill.

Finally, the Digital Service Tax imposed on online companies that operate  overseas may be reduced. Late last month, Canada announced that it would rescind its Digital Service Tax on the U.S. in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the U.S. This would be a major windfall for online companies and some see the potential for more countries, particularly  in Europe, to follow Canada’s lead as trade negotiations with the U.S. continue.

Bottom line, while uncertainty around tariffs remains high, there are many other positive drivers for earnings growth over the next year that could more than  offset any headwinds from these policies. This suggests the recent rally in stocks is justified and that investors may not be as complacent as some are fearing.

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!

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Jenna Giannelli: And I'm Jenna Giannelli, Head of U.S. Consumer and Retail Credit Research.

Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we're going to dig into one of the biggest conundrums in the market today. Where and when are tariffs going to show up in prices and margins?

It's Friday, July 11th at 10am in New York.

Jenna, it's great to catch up with you today because I think you can really bring some unique perspective into one of the biggest puzzles that we're facing in the market today. Even with all of these various pauses and delays, the U.S. has imposed historically large tariffs on imports. And we're seeing a rapid acceleration in the amount of money collected from those tariffs by U.S. customs. These are real hard dollars that importers – or somebody else – are paying. Yet we haven't seen these tariffs show up to a significant degree in official data on prices – with recent inflation data relatively modest. And overall stock and credit markets remain pretty strong and pretty resilient, suggesting less effect.

So, are these tariffs just less impactful than expected, or is there something else going on here with timing and severity? And given your coverage of the consumer and retail sectors, which is really at the center of this tariff debate – what do you think is going on?

Jenna Giannelli: So yes, this is a key question and one that is dominating a lot of our client conversations. At a high level, I'd point to a few things. First, there's a timing issue here. So, when tariffs were first announced, retailers were already sitting on three to four months worth of inventory, just due to natural industry lead times. And they were able to draw down on this product.

This is mostly what they sold in 1Q and likely into 2Q, which is why you haven't seen much margin or pricing impact thus far. Companies – we also saw them start to stock up heavily on inventory before the tariffs and at the lower pause rate tariffs, which is the product you referenced that we're seeing coming in now. This is really going to help mitigate margin pressure in the second quarter that you still have this lower cost inventory flowing through.

On top of this timing consideration, retailers – we've just seen utilizing a range of mitigation measures, right? So, whether it's canceled or pause shipments from China, a shifting production mix or sourcing exposure in the short run, particularly before the pause rate on China. And then really leaning into just whether it's product mix shifts, cost savings elsewhere in the PNL, and vendor negotiations, right? They're really leaning into everything in their toolbox that they can.

Pricing too has been talked about as something that is an option, but the option of last resort. We have heard it will be utilized, but very tactically and very surgically, as we think about the back half of the year. When you put this all together, how much impact is it having? On average from retailers that we heard from in the first quarter, they thought they would be able to mitigate about half of the expected tariff headwind, which is actually a bit better than we were expecting.

Finally, I'll just comment on your comment regarding market performance. While you're right in that the overall equity and credit markets have held up well, year-to-date, retail equities and credit have fared worse than their respective indices. What's interesting, actually, is that credit though has significantly outperformed retail equities, which is a relationship we think should converge or correct as we move throughout the balance of the year.

Andrew Sheets: So, Jenna, retailers saw this coming. They've been pulling various levers to mitigate the impact. You mentioned kind of the last lever that they want to pull is prices, raising prices, which is the macro thing that we care about. The thing that would actually show up in inflation.

How close are we though to kind of running out of other options for these guys? That is, the only thing left is they can start raising prices?

Jenna Giannelli: So closer is what I would say. We're likely not going to see a huge impact in 2Q, more likely as we head into 3Q and more heavily into the all-important fourth quarter holiday season. This is really when those higher cost goods are going to be flowing through the PNL and retailers need to offset this as they've utilized a lot of their other mitigation strategies. They've moved what they could move. They've negotiated where they could, they've cut where they could cut. And again, as this last step, it will be to try and raise price.

So, who's going to have the most and least success? In our universe, we think it's going to be more difficult to pass along price in some of the more historically deflationary categories like apparel and footwear. Outside of what is a really strong brand presence, which in our universe, historically hasn't been the case.

Also, in some of the higher ticket or more durable goods categories like home goods, sporting goods, furniture, we think it'll be challenging as well here to pass along higher costs. Where it's going to be less of an issue is in our Staples universe, where what we'd put is less discretionary categories like Beauty, Personal Care, which is part of the reason why we've been cautious on retail, and neutral and consumer products when we think about sector allocation.

Andrew Sheets: And when do you think this will show up? Is it a third quarter story? A fourth quarter story?

Jenna Giannelli: I think this is going to really start to show up in the third quarter, and more heavily into the fourth quarter, the all-important holiday season.

Andrew Sheets: Yeah, and I think that’s what’s really interesting about the impact of this backup to the macro. Again, returning to the big picture is I think one of the most important calls that Morgan Stanley economists have is that inflation, which has been coming down somewhat so far this year is going to pick back up in August and September and October. And because it's going to pick back up, the Federal Reserve is not going to cut interest rates anymore this year because of that inflation dynamic.

So, this is a big debate in the market. Many investors disagree. But I think what you're talking about in terms of there are some very understandable reasons, maybe why prices haven't changed so far. But that those price hikes could be coming have real macroeconomic implications.

So, you know, maybe though, something to just close on – is to bring this to the latest headlines. You know, we're now back it seems, in a market where every day we log onto our screens, and we see a new headline of some new tariff being announced or suggested towards countries. Where do you think those announcements, so far are relative to what retailers are expecting – kind of what you think is in guidance?

Jenna Giannelli: Sure. So, look what we've seen of late; the recent tariff headlines are certainly higher or worse, I think, than what investors in management teams were expecting. For Vietnam, less so; I'd say it was more in line. But for most elsewhere, in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, the rates that are set to go in effect on August 1st, as we now understand them, are higher or worse than management teams were expecting.

Recall that while guidance did show up in many flavors in the first quarter, so whether withdrawn guidance or lowered guidance. For those that did factor in tariffs to their guide, most were factoring in either pause rate tariffs or tariff rates that were at least lower than what was proposed on Liberation Day, right?

So, what's the punchline here? I think despite some of the revisions we've already seen, there are more to come. To put some numbers around this, if we look at our group of retail consumer cohort, credits, consensus expectations for calling for EBITDA in our universe to be down around 5 percent year-over-year. If we apply tariff rates as we know them today for a half-year headwind starting August 1st, this number should be down around 15 percent year-over-year on a gross basis…

Andrew Sheets: So, three times as much.

Jenna Giannelli: Pretty significant. Exactly. And so, while there might be mitigation efforts, there might be some pricing passed along, this is still a pretty significant delta between where consensus is right now and what we know tariff rates to be today – could imply for earnings in the second half.

Andrew Sheets: Jenna, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Jenna Giannelli: My pleasure. Thank you.

Andrew Sheets: And thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

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.

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Today – is the demand for U.S. assets declining? Let's look at the recent trends in global investment flows.

It’s Wednesday, July 9th at 1pm in New York.

The U.S. equity market has reached an all-time high, but at the same time lingering uncertainty about U.S. trade and tariff policies is forcing global investors to consider the riskiness of U.S. assets. And so the big question we need to ask is: are investors – particularly foreign investors – fleeing U.S. assets?

This question comes from recent data around fund flows to global equities. And we have to acknowledge that demand for U.S. stocks overall has declined, going by high-frequency data. But at the same time, we think this idea is exaggerated.

So why is that? As many listeners know, fund flows – which represent the net movement of money into and out of various investment vehicles like mutual funds and ETFs – are an important gauge of investor sentiment and market trends. So what are fund flows really telling us about investors’ sentiment towards U.S. equities? It would be nice to get an unequivocal answer, but of course, the devil is always in the details. And the problem is that different data sources and frequencies across different market segments don’t always lead to the same conclusions.

Weekly data across global equity ETF and mutual funds from Lipper show that international investors were net buyers through most of April and May. But the pace of buying has slowed year-to-date versus 2024. Still, it remains much higher than during the same period in 2021 through 2023. Treasury TIC data point to something similar – a slowdown in foreign demand, but not significant net selling.

So where are the flows going, if not to the U.S.? They are going to the rest of the world, but more particularly, Europe. Europe stocks, in fact, have been the biggest beneficiary of decreasing flows to the U.S. Nearly $37 billion U.S. has gone into Europe-focused equity funds year-to-date. This is significantly higher than the run-rates over the prior five years. What’s more notable here is that year-to-date, flows to European-focused ETFs and mutual funds dominated those targeting Japan and Emerging Markets. This suggests that Europe is now the premier destination for equity fund flows, with very little demand spillovers to other regions' equity markets.

These shifts have yet to show up in the allocation data, which tracks how global asset managers invest in stocks regionally. Global equity funds' portfolio weights to Rest-of-the-World has gone up by roughly the same amount as allocation to the U.S. has come down. But allocation to the U.S. has actually gone down by roughly the same amount, as its share in global equity indices; which means that If allocation to the U.S. has changed, it's simply because the U.S. is now a smaller part of equity indices.

Meanwhile, an estimated U.S.$9 billion from Rest-of-the World went into international equity funds, which excludes U.S. stocks altogether. Granted, it’s not a lot; but scaled for fund assets, it's the highest net flows international equities have seen. In other words, some investors are choosing to invest in equities excluding U.S. altogether.

These trends are unlikely to reverse as long as lingering policy uncertainty dampens demand for U.S.-based assets. But as we've argued in our mid-year outlook, there are very few alternative markets to the U.S. dollar markets right now. U.S. stocks might start to see less marginal flows from foreign investors – to the benefit of Rest-of-the-World equities, especially Europe. But demand is unlikely to dry up completely over the next 12 months.

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.

Ross Law: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ross Law from Morgan Stanley's European Aerospace and Defense team.

Arushi Agarwal: And I'm Arushi Agarwal from the European Sustainability Research Team.

Ross Law: Today, a topic that's rapidly defining the boundaries of sustainable investing and technological leadership – the use of AI in defense.

It's Tuesday, July 8th at 3pm in London.

At the recent NATO summit, member countries decided to boost their core defense spending target from 2 percent to 3.5 percent of GDP. This big jump is sure to spark a wave of innovation in defense, particularly in AI and military technology. It's clear that Europe is focusing on rearmament with AI playing a major role.

In fact, AI is revolutionizing everything from unmanned systems and cyber defense to simulation training and precision targeting. It’s changing the game for how nations prepare for, and engage in conflict.

And with all these changes come serious challenges. Investors, policy makers and technologists are facing some tough questions that sit at the intersection of two of Morgan Stanley's four key themes: The Multipolar World and Tech Diffusion.

So, Arushi, to set the stage, how is the concept of sustainability evolving to include national security and defense, particularly in Europe?

Arushi Agarwal: You know, Ross, it's fascinating to see how much this space has evolved. Over the past year, geopolitical tensions have really pushed national security much higher on the sustainability agenda. We're seeing a structural shift in sentiment towards defense investments.

While historically defense companies were largely excluded by sustainability funds, we're now seeing asset managers revisiting these exclusions, especially around conventional and nuclear weapons. Some are even launching thematic funds, specifically focused on security and resilience.

However, in the absence of standard methodologies to assess weapon related exposures, evaluate sector-specific ESG risks and determine transparency, there is no clear consensus on what sustainability focused managers can hold.

Greater policy focus has created the need to identify a long-term approach to investing in this sector, one that is cognizant of ethical issues. Investors are now increasingly asking whether rapid technological integration might allow for a more forward-looking, risk aware approach to investing in national security.

Ross Law: So, it's no news that Europe has historically underspent on defense. Now, the spending goal is moving to 3.5 percent of GDP to try and catch up. Our estimates suggest this could mean an additional $200 billion per year in additional spend – with a focus on equipment over personnel, at least for the time being. With this new focus, how is AI shaping the European rearmament strategy?

Arushi Agarwal: Well, AI appears to be at the core of EU’s 800 billion euro rearmament plan. The commission has been quite clear that escalating tensions have not only led to a new arms race but also provoked a global technological race.

Now to think about it, AI, quantum, biotech, robotics, and hypersonic are key inputs not only for long-term economic growth, but also for military pre-eminence.

In our base case, we estimate that total NATO military spend into AI applications will potentially more than double to $112 billion by 2030. This is at a 4 percent AI investment allocation rate. If this allocation rate increases to 10 percent as anticipated by European deep tech firms, the NATOs AI military spend could grow sixfold to $306 billion by 2030 in our bull case.

So, Ross, you were at the Paris Air Show recently where companies demonstrated their latest product capabilities. Which AI applications are leading the way in defense right now?

Ross Law: Yeah, it was really quite eye-opening. We've identified nine key AI applications, reshaping defense, and our Application Readiness Radar shows that Cybersecurity followed by Unmanned Systems exhibit the highest level of preparedness from a public and private investment perspective.

Cybersecurity is a major priority due to increased proliferation of cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns, and this technology can be used for both defensive and offensive measures. Unmanned systems are also really taking off, no pun intended, mainly driven by the rise in drone warfare that's reshaping the battlefield in Ukraine.

At the Paris Airshow, we saw demonstrations of “Wingman” crewed and uncrewed aircraft. There have also been several public and private partnerships in this area within our coverage. Another area gaining traction is simulation and war gaming. As defense spending increases and potentially leads to more military personnel, we see this theme in high demand in the coming years.

Arushi Agarwal: And how are European Aerospace and Defense companies positioning themselves in terms of AI readiness?

Ross Law: Well, they're really making significant advancements. We've assessed AI technology readiness for our A&D companies across six different verticals: the number of applications; dual-use capabilities; AI pricing power; responsible AI policy; and partnerships on both external and internal product categories.

What's really interesting is that European A&D companies have higher pricing power relative to the U.S. counterparts, and a higher percentage are both enablers and adopters of AI. To accelerate AI integration, these companies are increasingly partnering with government research arms, leading software firms, as well as peers and private players.

Arushi Agarwal: And some of these same technologies can also be used for civilian purposes. Could you share some examples with us?

Ross Law: The dual use potential is really significant. Various companies in our coverage are using their AI capabilities for civilian applications across multiple domains. For example, geospatial capabilities can also be used for wildfire management and tracking deforestation. Machine learning can be used for maritime shipping and port surveillance.

But switching gears slightly, if we talk about the regulatory developments that are emerging in Europe to address defense modernization, what does this mean, Arushi, for society, the industry and investors?

Arushi Agarwal: There's quite a lot happening on the regulatory front. The European Commission is working on a defense omnibus simplification proposal aimed at speeding up defense investments in the EU. It's planning to publish a guidance notice on how defense investment will fit within the sustainable finance framework. It’s also making changes to its sustainability reporting directive. If warranted, the commission will make additional adjustments to reflect the needs of the defense industry in its sustainability reporting obligations.

The Sustainable Fund Reform is another important development. While the sustainability fund regulation doesn't prohibit investment into the defense sector, the commission is seeking to provide clarification on how defense investment goals sit within a sustainability framework.

Additionally at the European Security Summit in June, the European Defense Commissioner indicated that a roadmap focusing on the modernization of European defense will be published in autumn. This will have a special focus on AI and quantum technologies. For investors, whilst exclusions easing has started to take place, pickup in individual positioning has been slow. As investors ramp up on the sector, we believe these regulatory developments can serve as catalysts, providing clear demand and trend signals for the sector

Ross Law: So finally, in this context, how can companies and investors navigate these ethical considerations responsibly.

Arushi Agarwal: So, in the note we highlight that AI risk management requires the ability to tackle two types of challenges. First, technical challenges, which can be mitigated by embedding boundaries and success criteria directly into the design of the AI model. For example, training AI systems to refuse harmful requests.

Second, challenges are more open-ended and ambiguous set of challenges that relate to coordinating non-proliferation among countries and preventing misuse by bad actors. This set of challenges requires continuous interstate dialogue and cooperation rather than purely technical fixes.

From an investor perspective, closer corporate engagement will be key to navigating these debates. Ensuring firms have clear documentation of their algorithms and decision-making processes, human in the loop systems, transparency around data sets used to train the AI models are some of the engagement points we mention in our note.

Ultimately, I think the key is balance. On the one hand, we have to recognize the legitimate security needs that defense technologies address. And on the other hand, there's the need to ensure appropriate safeguards and oversight.

Ross Law: Arushi, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Arushi Agarwal: It was great speaking with you, Ross,

Ross Law: And thank you all 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.

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

Today, the U.S. consumer. What's changing about the ways Americans spend, save and feel about the future?

It's Monday, July 7th at 10am in London.

As markets digest mixed signals – whether that's easing inflation, changing politics, and persistent noise around tariffs – U.S. consumers are recalibrating. Under the surface of headline numbers, a more complex story is unfolding about the ways Americans are not just reacting but adapting to macro challenges.

First, I want to start with a big picture. Data from our latest consumer survey shows that consumer sentiment has stabilized, even as uncertainty around tariffs persists, especially into these rolling July deadlines. Inflation remains the top concern for most. But the good news is that it's trending lower. This month more than half of respondents cited inflation as their primary concern, a slight decrease from last month and a year ago. Now, that's a subtle but a meaningful decline suggesting consumers may be adjusting their expectations rather than bracing for continued price shocks. At the same time though political concerns are on the rise. More than 40 percent of consumers now list the U.S. political environment as a major worry. That's slightly up from last month; and not surprisingly concern around geopolitical conflicts has also jumped from a month ago.

Now, when we break this down by income levels, we see some interesting trends. Inflation is the top concern across all income groups, except for those earning more than $150,000. For them, politics takes the top spot. Lower income households, though, are more focused on paying rent and debts, while higher income groups are more concerned about their investments.

As for tariffs, concern remains high but stable. About 40 percent of consumers are very worried about tariffs and another 25 percent are moderately so. But if we look under the surface, it's really showing us a political divide. 63 percent of liberals are very concerned, compared to just 23 percent of conservatives who say they're very concerned.

Despite these worries, though, fewer people overall are planning to cut back on spending. Only about a third say they'll spend less due to tariffs, which is down quite a bit from earlier this year. Meanwhile, about a quarter plan to spend more, and roughly a third don't expect to change their plans at all.

This resilience points to the notable behavioral trend I mentioned at the start. Consumers are not just reacting, they're adapting. Looking at the broader economy, consumer confidence is holding steady according to our survey, although it's slightly down from last month. But when it comes to household finances, the outlook is more positive with a significant number expecting their finances to improve and fewer expecting them to worsen – a net positive.

Savings are also showing some resilience. The average consumer has several months of savings, slightly up from last year. Spending intentions are stable with nearly a third of consumers planning to spend more next month while fewer planned to spend less. And when it comes to big ticket items, more than half of U.S. consumers are planning a major purchase in the next three months, including vehicles, appliances, and vacations.

Speaking of vacations, summer travel season is here and I'm looking forward to taking a trip soon. Around 60 percent of consumers are planning to travel in the next six months, with visiting friends and family being the top reason.

So, what's the biggest takeaway for investors?

Despite ongoing concerns about inflation, politics and tariffs, U.S. consumers are showing remarkable resilience. It's a nuanced picture, but one that overall suggests stability in the face of uncertainty.

Thanks for listening. I hope you enjoyed the show, and if you did, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Today on a special Independence Day episode of the podcast, we're going to talk a bit about the history of U.S. debt and the contrast between corporate and federal debt trajectories.

It's Thursday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle.

The 4th of July, which represents the U.S. declaring independence from Great Britain, remains one of my favorite holidays. A time to gather with friends and family and celebrate what America is – and what it can still be.

It is also, of course, a good excuse to talk about debt.

Declaring independence is one thing, but fighting and beating the largest empire in the world at the time would take more than poetic words. The borrowing that made victory possible for the colonies also almost brought them down in the 1780s under a pile of unsustainable debt. It was a young treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton, who successfully lobbied to bring these debts under a federal umbrella – binding the nation together and securing a lower borrowing cost. As we'd say, it's a real fixed income win-win.

Almost 250 years later, the benefits of that foresight are still going strong, with the United States of America enjoying the world's largest economy, and the largest and most liquid equity and bond markets. Yet lately there's been more focus on whether those bond markets are, well, too large.

The U.S. currently runs a budget deficit of about 7 percent of GDP, and the current budget proposals in the house and the Senate could drive an additional 4 trillion of borrowing over the next decade above that already hefty baseline. Forecast even further out, well, they look even more challenging.

We are not worried about the U.S. government's ability to pay its bills. And to be clear, in the near term, we are forecasting at Morgan Stanley, U.S. government yields to go down as growth slows and the Federal Reserve cuts rates more than expected in 2026. But all of this borrowing and all the uncertainty around it – it should increase risk premiums for longer term bonds and drive a steeper yield curve.

So, it's notable then – as we celebrate America's birthday and discuss its borrowing – that it's really companies that are currently unwrapping the presents. Corporate balance sheets, in contrast, are in very good shape, as corporate borrowing trends have diverged from those of the government.

Many factors are behind this. Corporate profitability is strong. Companies use the post-COVID period to refinance debt at attractive rates. And the ongoing uncertainty – well, it's kept management more conservative than they would otherwise be. Out of deference to the 4th of July, I've focused so far on the United States. But we see the same trend in Europe, where more conservative balance sheet trends and less relative issuance to governments is showing up on a year-over-year basis. With companies borrowing relatively less and governments borrowing relatively more, the difference between what companies and the government pay, that so-called spread that we talk so much about – well, we think it can stay lower and more compressed than it otherwise would.

We don't think this necessarily applies to the low ratings such as single B or lower borrowers, where these better balance sheet trends simply aren't as clear. But overall, a divergent trend between corporate and government balance sheets is giving corporate bond investors something additional to celebrate over the weekend.

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.

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. 

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ron Kamdem, Head of Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Commercial Real Estate research. Today I’ll talk about the ways GenAI is disrupting the real estate industry.

It’s Tuesday, July 1st, at 10am in New York.

What if the future of real estate isn’t about location, location, location – but automation, automation, automation?

While it may be too soon to say exactly how AI will affect demand for real estate, what we can say is that it is transforming the business of real estate, namely by making operations more efficient. If you’re a customer dealing with a real estate company, you can now expect to interact with virtual leasing assistants. And when it comes to drafting your lease documents, AI can help you do this in minutes rather than hours – or even days.

In fact, our recent work suggests that GenAI could automate nearly 40 percent of tasks across half a million occupations in the real estate investment trusts industry – or REITs. Indeed, across 162 public REITs and commercial real estate services companies or CRE with $92 billion of total labor costs, the financial impact may be $34 billion, or over 15 percent of operating cash flow. Our proprietary job posting database suggests the top four occupations with automation potential are management – so think about middle management, sales, office and administrative support, and installation maintenance and repairs.

Certain sub-sectors within REITs and CRE services stand to gain more than others. For instance, lodging and resorts, along with brokers and services, and healthcare REITs could see more than 15 percent improvement in operating cash flow due to labor automation. On the other hand, sectors like gaming, triple net, self-storage, malls, even shopping centers might see less than a 5 percent benefit, which suggests a varied impact across the industry.

Brokers and services, in particular, show the highest potential for automation gains, with nearly 34 percent increase in operating cash flow. These companies may be the furthest along in adopting GenAI tools at scale. In our view, they should benefit not only from the labor cost savings but also from enhanced revenue opportunities through productivity improvement and data center transactions facilitated by GenAI tools.

Lodging and resorts have the second highest potential upside from automating occupations, with an estimated 23 percent boost in operating cash flow. The integration of AI in these businesses not only streamline operations but also opens new avenues for return on investments, and mergers and acquisitions.

Some companies are already using AI in their operations. For example, some self-storage companies have integrated AI into their digital platforms, where 85 percent of customer interactions now occur through self-selected digital options. As a result, they have reduced on-property labor hours by about 30 percent through AI-powered staffing optimization. Similarly, some apartment companies have reduced their full-time staff by about 15 percent since 2021 through AI-driven customer interactions and operational efficiencies.

Meanwhile, this increased application of AI is driving new revenue to AI-enablers. Businesses like data centers, specialty, CRE services could see significant upside from the infrastructure buildout from GenAI. Advanced revenue management systems, customer acquisition tools, predictive analytics are just a few areas where GenAI can add value, potentially enhancing the $290 billion of revenue stream in the REIT and CRE services space.

However, the broader economic impact of GenAI on labor markets remains hotly debated. Job growth is the key driver of real estate demand and the impact of AI on the 164 million jobs in the U.S. economy remains to be determined. If significant job losses materialize and the labor force shrinks, then the real estate industry may face top-line pressure with potentially disproportionate impact on office and lodging. While AI-related job losses are legitimate concerns, our economists argue that the productivity effects of GenAI could ultimately lead to net positive job growth, albeit with a significant need for re-skilling.

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.

James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.

Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And after getting through last week's blistering hot temperatures, today we're going to talk about what may be a cooling housing market.

It's Monday, June 30th at 2:30pm in New York.

Now, Jim, home prices. We just got another index. They set another record high, but the pace of growth – the acceleration as a physicist in me wants to say – appears to be slowing. What's going on here?

James Egan: The pace of home price growth reported this month was 2.7 percent. That is the lowest that it's been since August of 2023. And in our view, the reason's pretty simple. Supply is increasing, while demand has stalled.

Jay Bacow: But Jim, this was a report for the spring selling season. I know we got it in June, but this is supposed to be the busiest time of the year. People are happy to go around. They're looking at moving over the summer when the kids aren't in school. We should be expecting the supply to increase. Are you saying that it's happening more than it's anticipated?

James Egan: That is what we're saying. Now, we should be expecting inventories today to be higher than they were in, call it January or February. That's exactly the seasonality that you are referring to. But it's the year-over-year growth we're paying attention to here. Homes listed for sale are up year-over-year, 18 months in a row. And that pace, it's been accelerating. Over the past 40 years, the pace of growth from this past month was only eclipsed one time, the Great Financial Crisis.

Jay Bacow: [sighs] I always get a little worried when the housing analyst brings up the Great Financial Crisis. Are you saying that this time the demand isn't responding?

James Egan: That is what we're saying. So, through the first five months of this year, existing home sales are only down about 2 percent versus the first five months of 2024. So they've basically kind of plateaued at these levels. But that also means that we're seeing the fewest number of transactions through May in a calendar year since 2009. And that combination of easing inventory and lackluster demand, it's pushed months of supply back to levels that we haven't seen since the beginning of this pandemic. Call it the fourth quarter of 2019, first quarter of 2020, right before inventory has really plummeted to historic lows.

Jay Bacow: All right, so 2009, another financial crisis reference. But you're also – you're speaking around a national level, and as a housing analyst, I feel like you haven't really spoken about the three most important factors when we think about things which are: Location. Location. And location.

James Egan: Absolutely. And the deceleration that we're seeing in home price growth – and I would point out it is still growth – has been pervasive across the country. Year-over-year, HPA is now decelerating in 100 percent of the top 100 MSAs, for which we have data. In fact, a full quarter of them, 25 percent of these cities are now actually seeing prices decline on a year-over-year basis. And that's up from just 5 percent with declining home prices one year ago.

Jay Bacow: As a homeowner, I do like the home price growth. And is it the same story when you look more narrowly around supply and demand?

James Egan: So, there might be some geographical nuances, but we do think that it largely boils down to that. Local inventory growth has been a very good indicator of weaker home price performance, particularly the level of for-sale inventory today versus that fourth quarter of 2019. If we look at it on a geographic basis, of 14 MSAs that have the highest level of inventory today compared to 2019, 11 of them are in either Florida or Texas. On the other end of the spectrum, the cities where inventory remains furthest away from where it was four and a half years ago, they're in the Northeast, they're in the Midwest.

Jay Bacow: As somebody who lives in the Northeast, I'd like to hear that again. But you're also; you're quoting existing prices, which that's been the outperformer in the housing market. Right?

James Egan: Exactly. New home prices have actually been decreasing year-over-year for the past year and a half at this point. It's actually brought the basis between new home prices, which tend to trade at a little bit of a premium to existing sales; it's brought that basis to its tightest level that we've seen in at least 30 years. And that's before we take into account the fact that home builders have been buying down some of these mortgage rates. But Jay, you've recently done some work trying to size this.

Jay Bacow: Yeah. First it might help to explain what a buydown is.

A home builder might have a new home listed at say, $450,000. And with mortgage rates in the context of about 6.5 percent right now, the home buyer might not be able to afford that, so they offer to pay less. The home builder – often many of them also have an origination arm as well. They'll say, you know what? We'll sell it to you at that $450,000, but we'll give you a lower mortgage rate; instead of 6.5 percent, we'll sell it to you for $450,000 with a 5 percent mortgage rate. Then maybe the home buyer can afford that.

James Egan: And so, new home prices are actually coming down. And by that we're specifically referring to the median price of new home transactions. They're falling despite the fact that these buy downs might be influencing prices a little bit higher.

Jay Bacow: Right. And when we look at how often this is happening, it's a little actually hard to get it from the data [be]cause they don't have to report it. But when we look at the distribution of mortgage rates in a given month – prior to 2022, there were effectively no purchase loans that were originated less than one point below the prevailing mortgage rate for a given month.

However, more recently we're up to about 12 percent of Ginnie Mae purchases, and those are the more credit constrained borrowers that might have a harder time buying a home. And about 5 percent of conventional purchase loans are getting originated with a rate 1 percent below the outstanding market.

James Egan: And so, this might be another sign that we're seeing a little bit of softening in home prices. But what are the implications on the agency mortgage side?

Jay Bacow: I would say there's probably two things that we're keeping an eye out on. Because these are homeowners that are getting below market rate, the investors are getting a below market coupon. And because they're getting sold at a discount, they don't want that, but they're going to stay around for a while. So, investors are getting these rates that they don't want for longer.

And then the other thing you think about from the home buyer perspective is, you know, maybe they – it's good for them right now. But if they want to sell that home. Because they're getting a below market mortgage rate, they bought the home for maybe more than other people would've. So, unless they can sell it with that mortgage attached, which is very difficult to do, they probably have to sell it for a lower price than when they bought it.

Now Jim, what does all this mean for home prices going forward?

James Egan: Now, when we think about home prices, we're talking about the home price indices, right? And so those are going to be repeat sales. It’s going to, by definition, look at existing prices and not necessarily the dynamics we're talking in the new home price market.

Jay Bacow: Okay, so all this builder buy down stuff is interesting for what it means for new home prices – but doesn't impact all the HPA indices that you reference.

James Egan: Exactly, and at the national level, despite what we've been talking about on this podcast, we do think that home prices remain more supported than what we are seeing locally. Inventory is increasing, but it also remains near historically low levels. Months of supply that I mentioned at the top of this podcast, it's picked up to the highest level it's been since the beginning of this pandemic. We're also talking about four to four and a half months of supply. Anything below six is a tight environment that has been historically associated with home prices continuing to climb.

That's why our base case is for positive HPA this year. We're at +2 percent. That's slower than where we are now. We think you're going to continue to see deceleration. And because of what we're seeing from a supply and demand perspective, we are a little bit more skewed to the downside in our bear case. Instead of that +2, we're at -3 percent than we are towards the upside in our bull case. Instead of that plus two, we’re at plus 5 percent in the bull case. So slower HPA from here, but still positive.

Jay Bacow: Well, Jim, it's always a pleasure talking to you, particularly when you're highlighting that the home price growth is going to be stronger in the place where I own a home.

James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to all of you listening, thank you for listening to another episode of Thoughts on the Market.

Please leave a review or a like wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Today I'm going to talk about how we're trying to simplify the complicated questions of recent geopolitical events.

It's Friday, June 27th at 2pm in London.

Recent U.S. airstrikes against Iran and the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel have dominated the headlines. The situation is complicated, uncertain, and ever changing. From the time that this episode is recorded to when you listen to it, conditions may very well have changed again.

Geopolitical events such as this one often have a serious human, social and financial cost, but they do not consistently have an impact on markets. As analysis by my colleague, Michael Wilson and his team have shown, over a number of key geopolitical events over the last 30 years, the impact on the S&P 500 has often been either fleeting or somewhat non-existent. Other factors, in short, dominate markets.

So how to deal with this conundrum? How to take current events seriously while respecting that historical precedent that they often can have more limited market impact? How to make a forecast when quite simply few investors feel like they have an edge in predicting where these events will go next?

In our view, the best way to simplify the market's response is to watch oil prices. Oil remains an incredibly important input to the world economy, where changes in price are felt quickly by businesses and consumers.

And so, when we look back at past geopolitical events that did move markets in a more sustained way, a large increase in oil prices often meaning a rise of more than 75 percent year-over-year was often part of the story. So, when we look back at past geopolitical events that did move markets in a more sustained way, a large increase in oil prices, by which we mean a rise of 75 percent or more year-over-year was often part of the story. Such a rise in such an important economic input in such a short period of time increases the risk of recession; something that credit markets and many other markets need to care about. So how can we apply this today?

Well, for all the seriousness and severity of the current conflict, oil prices are actually down about 20 percent relative to a year ago. This simply puts current conditions in a very different category than those other periods be they the 1970s or more recently, Russia's invasion of Ukraine that represented genuine oil price shocks. Why is oil down? Well, as my colleague Martin Rats referred to on an earlier episode of this program, oil markets do have very healthy levels of supply, which is helping to cushion these shocks.

With oil prices actually lower than a year ago, we think the credit will focus on other things. To the positive, we see an alignment of a few short-term positive factors, specifically a pretty good balance of supply and demand in the credit market, low realized volatility, and a historically good window in the very near term for performance. Indeed, over the last 15 years, July has represented the best month of the year for returns in both investment grade and high yield credit in both the U.S. and in Europe.

And what could disrupt this? Well, a significant spike in oil prices could be one culprit, but we think a more likely catalyst is a shift of those favorable conditions, which could happen from August and beyond. From here, Morgan Stanley economists’ forecasts see a worsening mix of growth in inflation in the U.S., while seasonal return patterns to flip from good to bad.

In the meantime, however, we will keep watching oil.

Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today. 

Matt 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.

Matt Hornbach: Today we're discussing the outcome of the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting and our expectations for rates, inflation, and the U.S. dollar from here.

It's Thursday, June 26th at 10am in New York.

Matt Hornbach: Mike, the Federal Reserve decided to hold the federal funds rate steady, remaining within its target range of 4.25 to 4.5 percent. It still anticipates two rate cuts by the end of 2025; but participants adjusted their projections further out suggesting fewer cuts in 2026 and 2027.

You, on the other hand, continue to think the Fed will stay on hold for the rest of this year, with a lot of cuts to follow in 2026. What specifically is behind your view, and are there any underappreciated dynamics here?

Michael Gapen: So, we've been highlighting three reasons why we think the Fed will cut late but cut more. The first is tariffs introduce differential timing effects on the economy. They tend to push inflation higher in the near term and they weaken consumer spending with a lag. If tariffs act as a tax on consumption, that tax is applied by pushing prices higher – and then only subsequently do consumers spend less because they have less real income to spend. So, we think the Fed will be seeing more inflation first before it sees the weaker labor market later.

The second part of our story is immigration. Immigration controls mean it's likely to be much harder to push the unemployment rate higher. That's because when we go from about 3 million immigrants per year down to about 300,000 – that means much lower growth in the labor force. So even if the economy does slow and labor demand moderates, the unemployment rate is likely to remain low. So again, that's similar to the tariff story where the Fed's likely to see more inflation now before it sees a weaker labor market later.

And third, we don't really expect a big impulse from fiscal policy. The bill that's passed the house and is sitting in the Senate, we’ll see where that ultimately ends up. But the details that we have in hand today about those bills don't lead us to believe that we'll have a big impulse or a big boost to growth from fiscal policy next year.

So, in total the Fed will see a lot of inflation in the near term and a weaker economy as we move into 2026. So, the Fed will be waiting to ensure that that inflation impulse is indeed transitory, but a Fed that cuts late will ultimately end up cutting more.

So we don't have rate hikes this year, Matt, as you noted. But we do have 175 basis points in rate cuts next year.

Matt Hornbach: So, Mike, looking through the transcript of the press conference, the word tariffs was used almost 30 times. What does the Fed's messaging say to you about its expectations around tariffs?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, so it does look like in this meeting, participants did take a stand that tariffs were going to be higher, and they likely proceeded under the assumption of about a 14 percent effective tariff rate. So, I think you can see three imprints that tariffs have on their forecast.

First, they're saying that inflation moves higher, and in the press conference Powell said explicitly that the Fed thinks inflation will be moving higher over the summer months. And they revised their headline and core PCE forecast higher to about 3 percent and 3.1 percent – significant upward revisions from where they had things earlier in the year in March before tariffs became clear. The second component here is the Fed thinks any inflation story will be transitory. Famous last words, of course. But the Fed forecast that inflation will fall back  towards the 2 percent target in 2026 and 2027; so near-term impulse that fades over time. And third, the Fed sees tariffs as slowing economic growth. The Fed revised lower its outlook for growth in real GDP this year. So, in some [way], by incorporating tariffs and putting such a significant imprint on the forecast, the Fed's outlook has actually moved more in the direction of our own forecast.

Matt Hornbach: I'd like to stay on the topic of geopolitics. In contrast to the word tariffs, the words Middle East only was mentioned three times during the press conference. With the weekend events there, investor concerns are growing about a spike in oil prices. How do you think the Fed will think about any supply-driven rise in energy, commodity prices here?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think the Fed will view this as another element that suggests slower growth and stickier inflation. I think it will reinforce the Fed's view of what tariffs and immigration controls do to the outlook. Because historically when we look at shocks to oil prices in the U.S.; if you get about a 10 percent rise in oil prices from here, like another $10 increase in oil prices; history would suggest that will move headline inflation higher because it gets passed directly into retail gasoline prices. So maybe a 30 to 40 basis point increase in a year-on-year rate of inflation. But the evidence also suggests very limited second round effects, and almost no change in core inflation.

So, you get a boost to headline inflation, but no persistence elements – very similar to what the Fed thinks tariffs will do. And of course, the higher cost of gasoline will eat into consumer purchasing power. So, on that, I think it's another force that suggests a slower growth, stickier inflation outlook is likely to prevail.

Okay Matt, you've had me on the hot seat. Now it's your turn. How do you think about the market pricing of the Fed's policy path from here? It certainly seems to conflict with how I'm thinking about the most likely path.

Matt Hornbach: So, when we look at market prices, we have to remember that they are representing an average path across all various paths that different investors might think are more likely than not. So, the market price today, has about 100 basis points of cuts by the end of 2026. That contrasts both with your path in terms of magnitude. You are forecasting 175 basis points of rate cuts; the market is only pricing in 100. But also, the market pricing contrasts with your policy path in that the market does have some rate cuts in the price for this year, whereas your most likely path does not.

So that's how I look at the market price. You know, the question then becomes, where does it go to from here? And that's something that we ultimately are incorporating into our forecasts for the level of Treasury yields.

Michael Gapen: Right. So, turning to that, so moving a little further out the curve into those longer dated Treasury yields. What do you think about those? Your forecast suggests lower yields over the next year and a half. When do you think that process starts to play out?

Matt Hornbach: So, in our projections, we have Treasury yields moving lower, really beginning in the fourth quarter of this year. And that is to align with the timing of when you see the Fed beginning to lower rates, which is in the first quarter of next year. So, market prices tend to get ahead of different policy actions, and we expect that to remain the case this year as well. As we approach the end of the year, we are expecting Treasury yields to begin falling more precipitously than they have over recent months.

But what are the risks around that projection? In our view, the risks are that this process starts earlier rather than later. In other words, where we have most conviction in our projections is in the direction of travel for Treasury yields as opposed to the timing of exactly when they begin to fall. So, we are recommending that investors begin gearing up for lower Treasury yields even today. But in our projections, you'll see our numbers really begin to fall in the fourth quarter of the year, such that the 10-year Treasury yield ends this year around 4 percent, and it ends 2026 closer to 3 percent.

Michael Gapen: And these days it's really impossible to talk about movements in Treasury yields without thinking about the U.S. dollar. So how are you thinking about the dollar amidst the conflict in the Middle East and your outlook for Treasury yields?

Matt Hornbach: So, we are projecting the U.S. dollar will depreciate another 10 percent over the next 12 to 18 months. That's coming on the back of a pretty dramatic decline in the value of the dollar in the first six months of this year, where it also declined by about 10 percent in terms of its value against other currencies.

So, we are expecting a continued depreciation, and the conflict in the Middle East and what it may end up doing to the energy complex is a key risk to our view that the dollar will continue to depreciate, if we end up seeing a dramatic rise in crude oil prices. That rise would end up benefiting countries, and the currencies of those countries who are net exporters of oil; and may end up hurting the countries and the currencies of the countries that are net importers of oil. The good news is that the United States doesn't really import a lot of oil these days, but neither is it a large net exporter either.

So, the U.S. in some sense turns out to be a bit of a neutral party in this particular issue. But if we see a rise in energy prices that could benefit other currencies more than it benefits the U.S. dollar. And therefore, we could see a temporary reprieve in the dollar’s depreciation, which would then push our forecast perhaps a little bit further into the future.

So, with that, Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Michael Gapen: It's great speaking with you, Matt.

Matt 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.

Rahul Anand: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rahul Anand, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Australia Materials Research team.

Today, I'll dig deeper into one of the vital necessities for the development of robotics – critical minerals – and why they're so vital to be front of mind for the Western world today.

It's Wednesday, June 25th at 8am in Sydney, Australia.

Humanoid robots will soon become an integral part of our daily lives. A few weeks ago, you heard my colleagues Adam Jonas and Sheng Zhong discuss how humanoids are going to transform the economy and markets. Morgan Stanley Research expects this market to reach more than a billion units by 2050 and generate almost [$] 5 trillion in annual revenue.

When we think about that market, and we think about what it could do for critical minerals demand, that could skyrocket. And the key areas of critical minerals demand would basically be focused on rare earths, lithium and graphite.

Each one of these complex machines is going to require about a kilo of rare earths, 2 kgs of lithium, 6.5 kgs kilos of copper, 1.5 kgs of nickel, 3 kgs of graphite, and about 200 grams of cobalt. Importantly, this market from a cumulative standpoint by the year 2050, could be to the tune of about $800 billion U.S., which is staggering.

And beyond that market size of $800 billion U.S., I think it's important to drill a bit deeper – because if we now consider how these markets are dominated currently, comes the China angle. And China currently dominates 88 percent of rare earth supply, 93 percent of graphite supply and 75 percent of refined lithium supply. China recently placed controls on seven heavy rare earths and permanent magnet exports in response to tariff announcements that were made by the U.S., and a comprehensive deal there is still awaited.

It's very important that we have to think about diversification today, not just because these critical minerals are so heavily dominated by China. But more importantly, if we think about how the supply chain comes about, it's now taking circa 18 years to get a new mine online, and that's the statistic for the past five years of mines that came online. That number is up nearly 50 percent from last decade, and that's been driven basically by very long approval processes now in the Western world, alongside very long exploration times that are required to get some of these mines up and running.

On top of that, when we think about the supply demand balance, by 2040 we're expecting that the NdPr, or the rare earth, market would be in a 26 percent deficit. Lithium could be in a deficit close to 80 percent. So, it's not just about supply security. It's also about how long it will take to bring these mines on. And on top of that, how big the amount of supply that's required is really going to be.

I know when you think about 2040, it sounds very long dated, but it's important to understand that we have to act now. And in this humanoid piece of research that we have done as the global materials team, which was led by the Australian materials team, we basically have provided 34 global stocks to play this thematic in the rare earths, lithium and rare earth magnet space.

It's also very important to remember and keep front of mind that as part of the London negotiations that happened between U.S. and China, no agreement was reached on critical military use rare earth magnets and exports. Now that's an important point because that's going to play as a key point of leverage in any future trade deal that comes about between the two countries.

This remains an evolving situation, and this is something that we are going to continue monitoring and will bring you the latest on as time progresses.

Look, thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Equity Strategist. Today I’ll discuss why we remain positive on India’s long-term equity story.

It’s Tuesday, the 24th of June at 9am in Singapore.

We’ve had a long-standing bullish outlook on the India economy and its stock market. In the last five years MSCI India has delivered a total return in U.S. dollars of 145 percent versus 94 percent for global equities and just 39 percent for emerging markets. Indian equities are our most preferred market within Asia for three key reasons. First, India’s superior economic and earnings growth. Second, lower exposure to trade tariffs. And third, a strong domestic investor base. And all of this adds up to structural outperformance not just in Asia but indeed globally, and with significantly lower volatility than peer group markets.

So let’s dive deeper. To start with – the macroeconomic backdrop. We expect India to account for 20 percent of overall incremental global GDP growth in the coming decade. Manufacturing competitiveness is improving thanks to bolstered infrastructure in power, ports, roads, freight transport systems as well as investments in social infrastructure such as water, sewage and hospitals.

Additionally, India's growing middle class offers market opportunities to companies across many product categories. There’s robust domestic consumption, a strong investment cycle led by public and private capital expenditure and continuing structural reforms, including in the legal sphere. GDP growth in the first quarter was more than 7 percent and our team expects over 6 percent in the medium term, which would be by far the highest of the major economies

Furthermore, we continue to expect robust corporate earnings growth. Since the end of COVID, MSCI India has delivered around 12 percent per annum [U.S.] dollar earnings per share growth versus low single digits for Emerging Markets overall. And we forecast 14 percent and 16 percent over the next two fiscal years. Growth drivers in the short term include an emerging private CapEx cycle, re-leveraging of corporate balance sheets, and a structural rise in discretionary consumption –  signaling increased business and consumer confidence, after last year’s elections.

Another key reason that we’re positive on India currently is its lower-than-average vulnerability to ongoing trade and tariff disputes between the U.S. and its trade partners. Exports of goods to the U.S. amount to only 2 percent of India’s GDP versus, for example, 10 percent in Thailand or 14 percent in Taiwan. And India’s total goods exports are only around 12 percent of GDP. Moreover, for the time being, India’s very large services sector’s exports are not exposed to tariff actions, and are actually early beneficiaries of AI adoption.

Finally, India’s strong individual stock ownership means that there’s persistent retail buying, which underpins the equity market. Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) flows driven by a young urbanizing population are making new highs, and in May amounted to over U.S.$3 billion. They provide consistent capital inflows. That means that this domestic bid on stocks is unlikely to fade anytime soon.

This provides a strong foundation for the market and supports valuations which are slightly above emerging market averages. It also means that its market beta to global equities are low and falling, approximately 0.4 versus 1.1 ten years ago. And price volatility is well below other emerging markets.  All told, making India an attractive play in volatile times.

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.