Relief and Volatility Ahead for U.S. Stocks

Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.

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

Matthew Hornbach: The October FOMC meeting delivered a quarter percent rate cut as widely expected – but things are more complicated, and policy is not on a preset path from here.

It's Friday, November 7th at 10am in New York.

So, Mike, the Fed did cut by 25 basis points in October, but it was not a unanimous decision. And the Federal Open Market Committee decided to end the reduction of its balance sheet on December 1^st – earlier than we expected. How did things unfold and does this change your outlook in any way?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, it was a surprise to me. Not so much the statement or the decision, but there were dissents. There was a dissent in favor of a 50-basis point cut. There was a dissent in favor of no cut. And that foreshadowed the press conference – where really the conversation was about, I think, a divided committee; and a committee that didn't have a lot of consensus on what would come next.

The balance sheet discussion, which we can get into, it came a little sooner than we thought, but it was largely in line with our view. And I'm not sure it's a macro critical decision right now. But I do think it was a surprise to markets and it was certainly a surprise to me – how much Powell's tone shifted between September and October, in terms of what the market could expect from the Fed going forward.

So, what he said in essence, the key points, you know. The policy's not on a preset path from here. Or [a] cut in December is maybe not decidedly part of the baseline; or certainly is not a foregone conclusion. And I think what that reflects is a couple of things.

One is that they're recalibrating policy based on a risk management view. So, you can cut almost independent of the data, at least in the beginning. And so now I think Powell's saying, ‘Well, at least from here, future cuts are probably more data dependent than those initial cuts.’ But second, and I think most importantly is the division that appeared within the Fed. I think there's one group that's hawkish, one group that's dovish, and I think it reflects the division and the tension that we have in the economic data.

So, I think the hawkish crowd is looking at strong activity data, strong AI spending, an upper income consumer that seems to be doing just fine. And they're saying, ‘Why are we cutting? Financial conditions for the business community is pretty easy. Maybe the neutral rate of interest is higher. We're probably less restrictive than you think.’ And then I think the other side of the committee, which I believe still that Chair Powell is in, is looking at a market slowdown in hiring a weak labor market. What that means for growth in real income for those households that depend on labor market income to consume; there's probably some front running of autos that artificially boosted growth in the third quarter.

So, I think that the dissents, or I should say the division within the FOMC, I think reflects the tension in the underlying data. So, to know which way monetary policy evolves, Matt, it's essentially trying to decide: does the labor market rebound towards the activity data or does the activity data decelerate at least temporarily to the labor market?

Matthew Hornbach: Mike, you talked a lot about data just now, and we're not exactly getting a lot of government data at the moment. How are you thinking about the path for the data in terms of its availability between now and the December FOMC meeting? And how do you think that may affect the Fed's willingness to move forward with another rate cut in the cycle?

Michael Gapen: Right. So that's key and critical to understanding, right? We're operating under the assumption, of course the federal government shutdowns going to end at some point. We're going to get all this back data released and we can assess where the economy is or has been. I think the way markets should think about this is if the government shutdown has ended in the next few weeks, say before Thanksgiving – then I think we, markets, the Fed will have the bulk of the data in front of them and available to assess the economy at the December FOMC meeting.

They may not have it all, but they should get at least some of that data released. We can assess it. If the economy has moderated and weakened a bit, the labor market has continued to cool, the Fed can cut. If it shows maybe the labor market rebounding downside risk to employment being diminished, maybe the Fed doesn't cut.

So that's a world and it is our expectation the shutdown should end in the next few weeks. We're already at the longest shutdown on record, so we will get some data in hand to make the decision for December. Perhaps that's wishful thinking, Matt, and maybe we go beyond Thanksgiving, and the shutdown extends into December.

This, I think, poses a key challenge for the Fed. Powell said if we don't have data, it's like driving in the fog. What are you supposed to do? You should drive a little slower. Implying if we don't have the data, it might not be so obvious we should cut, and maybe the thing to do is to not do anything.

My suspicion though, is if the government is still shut down in December and we're not getting the data we need, at least the full set of data. We're, you know, the shutdown at that point is like twice as long as the longest one on record. Growth in the fourth quarter of the year would be basically flat. And so, I think there'd be plenty of reason to think there's going to be spillovers somewhere. And the right thing to do would be to take out a little bit more insurance. So, if the government's still shut down, I can't imagine the economy's getting better. So, I think the Fed could lean in the direction of taking one more step.

Matthew Hornbach: This is going to be very critical for how the markets think about the outlook in 2026 and price the outlook for 2026. The last FOMC meeting of the year has that type of importance for markets – pricing, the path of Fed policy, and the path of the economy into 2026. Because if we end up receiving a rate cut from the Fed, the dialogue in the investment community will be focused on when might the next cut arrive. Versus if we don't get that rate cut in December, the dialogue will focus on, maybe we will never see another rate cut in the cycle. And what if we see a rate hike as we make our way through the second half of 2026? So that can have a dramatic impact on the U.S. Treasury market and how investors think about the outlook for policy and the economy.

Michael Gapen: So, I think that's right. And as you know, our baseline outlook is at least through the first quarter, if not into the second quarter. The private sector will still be attempting to pass through tariffs into prices. And I think in the meantime, demand for labor and the hiring rate will remain low.

And so, we look for additional labor market slack to build. Not a lot, but the unemployment rate moving to more like 4.6, maybe 4.7 – and that underpins our expectation the Fed will be reducing rates in in 2026. But I think as you note, and as I mentioned earlier, there is this tension in the data and it's not inconceivable that the labor market accelerates. And you get, kind of, an animal spirits driven 2026; where a combination of momentum in the data, AI-related business spending, wealth effects for upper income consumers and maybe a larger fiscal stimulus from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, lead the economy to outperform.

And to your point, if that is happening, it's not farfetched to think, well, if the Fed put in risk management insurance cuts, perhaps they need to take those out. And that could build in a way where that expectation, let's say towards the second half or the fourth quarter maybe of 2026, maybe it takes into 2027. But I agree with you that if the Fed can't cut in December because the economy's doing well and the data show that, and we learn more of that in 2026, you're right.

So, it would… And may maybe to put it more simply, the more the Fed cuts, the more you need to open both sides of the rate path distribution, right? The deeper they cut, the greater the probability over time, they're going to have to raise those rates. And so, if the Fed is forced to stop in December, yeah, you can make that argument.

Matthew Hornbach: Indeed, a lot of the factors that you mentioned are factors that are coming up in investor conversations increasingly. The way I've been framing it in my discussions is that investors want to see the glass as half full today, versus in the middle of this year the glass was looking half empty. And of course, as we head into the holiday season, the glass will be filled with something perhaps a bit tastier than water. And so…

Michael Gapen: Fill my glass please.

Matthew Hornbach: Indeed. So, I do think that we could be setting up for a bright 2026 ahead. And so, with that, Mike, look forward to seeing you again in December – with a glass of eggnog perhaps. And a decision in hand for the meeting that the Fed holds then. Thanks for taking the time to talk.

Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt.

Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

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

Today, we discuss the challenge against tariffs at the Supreme Court and how it might affect markets.

It’s Thursday, Nov 6th at 11am in New York.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the legality of most of the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration. Investors are paying close attention because if the Supreme rules against the administration, it could undo much of the four-five times tariff increase that’s taken place in the U.S. this year.  That would seem to set up this hearing, and a subsequent ruling which could come as early as this month, as a clear market catalyst. But, like many policy issues affecting the economic and markets outlook, the reality is more complicated. 

Here’s what you need to know.

First, there’s ample debate among experts about how the court will rule. That may seem surprising given the court’s makeup. Three of the nine judges were appointed by President Trump, and six of the nine by Republican Presidents.  But it's not clear they’ll agree that the President used his executive power in a way consistent with the law that granted the executive branch this particular power. That law is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. And, without getting into too much detail, the law appears to have been designed to deal with economic crises and foreign adversaries, which the court might argue is not evident when considering tariffs levied against traditional allies.

But, the next important point is that a ruling against the Trump administration might not actually change much around U.S. tariff levels. How is that possible? It's because the administration has other executive tariff powers it can deploy if needed, and ones that are arguably more durable. For example, Section 301 gives a President wide latitude to designate a trading partner as undertaking unfair trade practices. So this authority could be swapped in for IEEPA. That could take time, as Section 301 requires a study to be submitted, but there are other temporary authorities that could bridge the gap.  So the U.S. can likely ensure continuity of current tariff levels if it wants – keeping tariffs more of a constant than a variable in our outlook.

Of course, we have to consider ways we could be wrong. For example, the administration could use a ruling against it to re-focus instead on product specific tariffs through Section 232. That likely would result in U.S. effective tariff rates drifting a bit lower, alleviating some of the pressure our economists see on the consumer and corporate importers, adding more support to risk assets.  But that scenario might come with some volatility along the way if the administration feels the need to float larger product specific tariff levels before settling on more palatable levels – similar to what happened in April.

So bottom line, there’s more tariff policy noise to navigate this year. It could bring some market volatility, and maybe even a bit of upside, but the most likely outcome is that we circle back to the approximate levels we are today. Setting up for 2026, that means other debates – like how companies respond to tariffs and capital spending incentives – are probably more important to the outlook than the level of tariffs themselves. We’re digging in on all that and will keep you in the loop.

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