Why Latin America’s ‘Trifecta’ Could Reshape Global Portfolios

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: Today we'll be talking about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting that occurred last week.

It's Thursday, February 5th at 8:30 am in New York.

So, Mike, last week we had the first Federal Open Market Committee meeting of 2026. What were your general impressions from the meeting? And how did it compare to what you had thought going in?

Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think that the main question for markets was how hawkish a hold or how dovish a hold would this be. As you know, it was widely expected the Fed would be on hold. The incoming data had been fairly solid. Inflation wasn't all that concerning, and most of the employment data suggested things had stabilized. So, it was clear they were going to pause.

The question was would they pause or would they be on pause, right? And in our view, it was more of a dovish hold. And by that, it suggests to us, or they suggested to us, I should say, that they still have an easing bias and rates should generally move lower over time.

So, that really was the key takeaway for me. Would they signal a prolonged pause and perhaps suggest that they might be done with the easing cycle? Or would they say, yes, we've stopped for now, but we still expect to cut rates later? Perhaps when inflation comes down and therefore kind of retain a dovish bias or an easing bias in the policy rate path. So, to me, that was the main takeaway.

Matthew Hornbach: Of course, as we all know, there are supposed to be some personnel changes on the committee this year. And Chair Powell was asked several questions to try to get at the future of this committee and what he himself was going to do personally. What was your impression of his response and what were the takeaways from that part of the press conference?

Michael Gapen: Well, clearly, he's been reluctant to, say, pre-announce what he may do when his term is chair ends in May.   But his term as a governor extends into 2028. So, he has options. He could leave normally that's what happens. But he could also stay and he's never really made his intentions clear on that part. I think for maybe personal or professional reasons. But he has his own; he has his own reasons and, and that's fine.

And I do think the recent subpoena by the DOJ has changed the calculus in that. At least my own view is that it makes it more likely that he stays around. It may be easier for him to act in response to that subpoena by being on staff. It's a request for additional information; he needs access to that information. I think you could construct a reasonable scenario under which, ‘Well, I have to see this through, therefore, I may stay around.’ But maybe he hasn't come to that conclusion yet.

And then stepping back, that just complicates the whole picture in the sense that we now know the administration has put forward Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair. Will he be replacing the seat that Jay Powell currently sits in? Will he be replacing the seat that Stephen Myron is sitting in?

So yes, we have a new name being put forward, but it's not exactly clear where that slot will be; and what the composition of the committee will look like.

Matthew Hornbach: Well, you beat me to the punch on mentioning Kevin Warsh…

Michael Gapen: I kind of assumed that's where you were going.

Matthew Hornbach: It was going to be my next question.   I'm curious as to what you think that means for Fed policy later this year, if anything. And what it might mean more medium term?

Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, first of all, congratulations to Mr. Warsh on the appointment. In terms of what we think it means for the outlook for the Fed's reaction function and interest rate policy, we doubt that there will be a material change in the Fed's reaction function.

His previous public remarks don't suggest his views on interest rate policy are substantively outside the mainstream, or at least certainly the collective that's already in the FOMC. Some people would prefer not to ease. The majority of the committee still sees a couple more rate cuts ahead of them.

Warsh is generally aligned with that, given his public remarks. But then also all the reserve bank presidents have been renominated. There's an ongoing Supreme Court case about the ability of the administration to fire Lisa Cook. If that is not successful, then Kevin Warsh will arrive in an FOMC where there's 16 other people who all get a say. So, the chair's primary responsibility is to build a consensus; to herd the cats, so to speak. To communicate to markets and communicate to the public.

So, if Mr. Warsh wanted to deviate substantially from where the committee was, he would have to build a consensus to do that. So, we think, at least in the near term, the reaction function won't change. It'll be driven by the data, whether the labor market holds up, whether inflation, decelerates as expected. So, we don't look for material change.

Now you also asked about the medium term. I do think where his views differ, at least with respect to current Fed policy is on the size of the Fed's balance sheet and its footprint in financial markets. So, he has argued over time for a much smaller balance sheet. He's called the Fed's balance sheet bloated. He has said that it creates distortions in markets, which mean interest rates could be higher than they otherwise would be. And so, I think if there is a substantive change in Fed policy going forward, it could be there on the balance sheet.

But what I would just say on that is it'll likely take a lot of coordination with Treasury. It will likely take changes in rules, regulations, the supervisory landscape. Because if you want to reduce the balance sheet further without creating volatility in financial markets, you have to find a way to reduce bank demand for it. So, this will take time, it'll take study, it'll take patience. I wouldn't look for big material changes right out of the box.

So Matt, what I'd like to do is, if I could flip it back to you, Warsh was certainly one of the expected candidates, right? So, his name is not a surprise. But as we knew financial markets, one day we're thinking it'd be one candidate. The next day it'd be thinking at the next it was somebody else.

How did you see markets reacting to the announcement of Mr. Warsh? For the next Fed share, and then maybe put that in context of where markets were coming out of the last FOMC meeting.

Matthew Hornbach: Yeah, so the markets that moved the most were not the traditional, very large macro markets like the interest rate marketplace or the foreign exchange market. The markets that moved the most were the prediction markets. These newer markets that offer investors the ability to wager on different outcomes for a whole variety of events around the world.   But when it comes to the implications of a Kevin Warsh led Fed – for the bigger macro markets like interest rates and currencies, the question really comes down to how?

If the Fed's balance sheet policies are going to take a while to implement, those are not going to have an immediate effect, at least not an effect that is easily seen with the human eye. But it's other types of policy change in terms of his communication policy, for example. One of the points that you raised in your recent note, Mike, was how Kevin Warsh favored less communication than perhaps some of the recent, Federal Open Market Committees had with the public.

And so, if there is some kind of a retrenchment from the type of over-communication to the marketplace, from either committee members or non-voters that could create a bit more volatility in the marketplace. Of course, the Fed has been one of the central banks that does not like to surprise the markets in terms of its monetary policy making. And so, that contrasts with other central banks in the G10. For example, the Swiss National Bank tends to surprise quite a lot. The Reserve Bank of Australia tends to surprise markets. More often, certainly than the Fed does. So, to the extent that there's some change in communication strategy going forward that could lead to more volatile interest rate in currency markets.

And that then could cause investors to demand more risk premium to invest in those markets. If you previously were comfortable owning a longer duration Treasury security because you felt very comfortable with the future path of Fed policy, then a Kevin Warsh led Fed – if it decides to change the communication strategy – could naturally lead investors to demand more risk premium in their investments. And that, of course, would lead to a steeper U.S. Treasury curve, all else equal. So that would be one of the main effects that I could see happen in markets as a result of some potential changes that the Fed may consider going forward.

So, Mike, with that said, this was the first FOMC meeting of the year, and the next meeting arrives in March. I guess we'll just have to wait between now and then to see if the Fed is on hold for a longer period of time or whether or not the data convinced them to move as soon as the March meeting.

Thanks for taking time to talk, Mike.

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. 

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley.

Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.

Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the continued focus on affordability, and how to parse signals from the noise on different policy proposals coming out of D.C.

It's Wednesday, February 4th at 10am in New York.

Ariana Salvatore: President Trump signed a bill yesterday, ending the partial government shutdown that had been in place for the past few days. But affordability is still in focus. It's something that our clients have been asking about a lot. And we might hear more news when the president delivers his State of the Union address on February 24th and possibly delivers his budget proposal, which should be around the same time.

So, needless to say, it's still a topic that investors have been asking us about and one that we think warrants a little bit more scrutiny.

Michael Zezas: But maybe before we get into how to think about these affordability policies, we should hit on what we're seeing as the real pressure points in the debate. Ariana, you recently did some work with our economists. What were some of your findings?

Ariana Salvatore: So, Heather Berger and the rest of our U.S. econ[omics] team highlighted three groups in particular that are feeling more of the affordability crunch, so to speak. That's lower income consumers, younger consumers, and renters or recent home buyers.

Lower income households have experienced persistently higher inflation and more recently weaker wage growth. Younger consumers were hit hardest when inflation peaked and are more exposed to higher borrowing costs. And lastly, renters and recent buyers are dealing with much higher shelter burdens that aren't fully captured in standard inflation metrics.

Now, the reason I laid all that out is because these are also the cohorts where the president's approval ratings have seen the largest declines.

Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it makes sense that those are the groups where the administration might be targeting some of these affordability initiatives.

Ariana Salvatore: That's right. But that's not the only variable that they're solving for. Broadly speaking, we think that the president and Republicans in Congress really need to solve for four things when it comes to affordability policies.

First, targeting these quote right cohorts, which are those, as we mentioned, that have either moved furthest away from the president politically, or have been the most under pressure. Second feasibility, right? So even if Republicans can agree on certain policies, getting them procedurally through Congress can still be a challenge. Third timing – just because the legislative calendar is so tight ahead of the November elections. And fourth speed of disbursement. So basically, how long it would take these policies to translate to an uplift for consumers ahead of the elections.

Michael Zezas: So, thinking through each of these constraints, starting with how easy it might be to actually get some of these policies done, most of the policies that are being proposed on the housing side require congressional approval. In terms of these cohorts, it seems like these policies are most likely to focus on – that seems aimed at lower-income and younger voters. And in terms of timing, we know the legislative calendar is tight ahead of the midterms, and the policy makers want to pursue things that can be enacted quickly and show up for voters as soon as possible.

Ariana Salvatore: So, using that lens, we think the most realistic near-term tools are probably mostly executive actions. Think agency directives and potential changes to tariff policy. If we do see a second reconciliation bill emerge, it will probably move more slowly but likely cover some of those housing related tax credit changes.

But of course, not all these policies would move the needle in the same way. What do we think matters most from a macro perspective?

Michael Zezas: So, what our economists have argued is that the affordability policies being discussed – tax credits subsidies, payment pauses – they could be meaningful at a micro level for targeted households, but for the most part, they don't materially change the macro outlook. The exception might be tariffs; that probably has the broadest and most sustained impact on affordability because it directly affects inflation. Lower tariffs would narrow inflation differentials across cohorts, support real income growth and make it easier for the Fed to cut rates.

Ariana Salvatore: Right. And just to add a finer point on that, I think directionally speaking, this is where we've seen the administration moving in recent months. Remember, towards the end of last year, the Trump administration placed an exemption on a lot of agricultural imports. And just the other day, we heard news that the trade deal with India was finalized reducing the overall tariff rate to 18 percent from about 50 percent prior.

Michael Zezas: Okay. So, putting it all together for what investors need to know. We see three key takeaways. First, even absent new policy, our economists expect some improvement in affordability this year as inflation decelerates and rate cuts come into view. And specifically, when we talk about improvements in affordability, what our economists are referring to is income growth consistently outpacing inflation, lowering required monthly payments.

Second, most proposed affordability policies are unlikely to generate the meaningful macro growth impulse, so investors shouldn't overreact to headline announcements. And third, the cohort divergence matters for equities. Pressure on lower income in younger consumers helps explain why parts of consumer discretionary have lagged. While higher income exposed segments have remained more resilient.

So, if inflation continues to cool, especially via tariff relief, that's what would broaden the consumer recovery and potentially create better returns for some of the sectors in the equity markets that have underperformed.

Ariana Salvatore: Right, and from the policy side, I would say this probably isn't the last time we'll be talking about affordability. It's politically salient. The policy responses are likely targeted and incremental, and this should continue to remain a top focus for voters heading into November.

Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike.

Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.