Why the ‘Rolling Recovery’ Has Already Begun

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: Our topic today is the Fed's first quarter percent rate cut in 2025. We're here to discuss the implications and the path forward.

It's Thursday, September 18th at 10am in New York.

So, Mike, the Fed concluded its meeting on Wednesday, and I wanted to get your takeaways. What was the high-level takeaway from your perspective?

Michael Gapen: So, I think there's two main points here. There's certainly more that we can discuss, but two main takeaways for me are obviously the Fed is moving because it sees downside risk in the labor market.

So, the August employment data revealed that the hiring rate took a large step down and stayed down, right. Hiring did not recover. It doesn't look like it was a temporary pause in hiring after the Liberation Day tariffs. And the Fed is saying – it's a curious balance in the labor market. We're not quite sure how to assess it, but when employment growth slows this much, we think we need to take notice.

So, they're responding to that. So, they're adjusting their view. We'll call it risk management 'cause that's what Powell said. And saying there's more risk of worse outcomes in the labor market, keeping a restricted policy stance is inappropriate, we should cut. So that's part one. I think he previewed all of that in Jackson Hole. So, it was largely the same, but it's important to know why the Fed's cutting.

The second thing that was interesting to me is as much as he, Powell in this case, tried to avoid the idea that we're on a preset path. That, you know, policy is always data dependent and it's always the meeting-to-meeting decision – we know that. But it does feel like if you're recalibrating your policy stance because you see more downside risk to the labor market, they're not prepared to just do once and go, ‘Well, maybe; maybe we'll go again; maybe we won't.’

The dot plots clearly indicate a series of moves here. And when pressed on, well, what's a 25 basis point rate cut going to do to help the labor market, Powell responded by, well, nothing. 25 basis points won't really affect the macro outcome, but it's the path that that matters. So, I do think; and I use the word recalibration; Powell didn't want to use that. I do think we're in for a series of cuts here. The median dot would say three, but maybe two; two to three, 75 basis points by year end. And then we'll see how the world evolves.

So in other words, I think the Fed does expect. That it will be cutting again in October. And I think the bar for the data to tell the fed not to cut is pretty high. So a shift to risk management based on downside risk to the labor market and, and closer to recalibrating the stance, meaning I think they're committed to at least two cuts here, inclusive of Wednesday's.

[00:03:00] Cut and, and probably three total.

Matthew Hornbach: So, speaking of the summary of economic projections, what struck you as being interesting about the set of projections that we got on Wednesday? And how does the Fed's idea of the path into 2026 differ from yours?

Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, it was a lot about downside risk to the labor market. But what did they do? They revised up growth. They have the unemployment rate path lower in the outer years of their forecast than they did before, so they didn't revise down this year. But they revised down subsequent years, and they revised inflation higher in 2026. That may seem at odds with what they're doing with the policy rate currently.

But my interpretation of that is, you know, the main point to your question is – they're more tolerant of inflation as the cost or the byproduct of needing to lower rates to support the labor market. So, if this all works, the outlook is a little stronger from the Fed's perspective. And so, what's key to me is that they are… You know, the median of the forecast, to the extent that they align in a coherent message, are saying, we're going to have to pay a price for this in the form of stronger inflation next year to support the labor market this year. So that means in their forecast – cuts this year, but fewer cuts in 2026 and [20]27.

And how that differs from our forecast is we're not quite as optimistic on the Fed, as the Fed is on the economy. We do think the labor market weakens a little bit further into 2026. So, you get four consecutive rate cuts upfront, again, inclusive of the one we got on Wednesday. And then you get two additional cuts by the middle of 2026.

So, we're not quite as optimistic. We think the labor market's a little softer. And we think the Fed will have to get closer to neutral, right? Powell said we're moving “in the direction of neutral.” So, he's not committing to go all the way to neutral. And we're just saying we think the Fed ultimately will have to do that, although they're not prepared to communicate that now.

Matthew Hornbach: One of the things that struck me as interesting about the summary of economic projections was the unemployment rate projection for the end of this year. So, the way that the Fed delivers these projections is they give you a number on the unemployment rate that represents the average unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of the specified year. And in this case, the median FOMC participant is projecting that the unemployment rate will average 4.5 percent. And that's what we're forecasting as well, I believe.

And so, what struck me as interesting is that with an average unemployment rate of 4.5 percent in the fourth quarter of the year, which is up about 0.2 percent from today's unemployment rate of 4.3 – the Fed is only projecting one additional rate cut in 2026.

And I'm curious, do you think that if we in fact get to the end of this year, and it looks like the unemployment rate has averaged about 4.5 percent – do you expect the Fed to continue to forecast only one rate cut in 2026?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's… Um. The short answer is no. I think that's a challenging position to be in. And by that, I mean, in addition to that unemployment rate forecast where it's 4.5 percent for the average of the fourth quarter, which could mean December's as high as 4.6; we don't know what their monthly forecast is.

But that would mean the unemployment rate's risen about a half a percentage point from its lows a few months ago. And they have inflation rising to 3 percent. Core PCE is already 2.9. So, inflation is about where it is today; [it’s] a touch firmer. But the unemployment rate has moved higher. And so, what I would say is they haven't seen a lot of evidence by December that inflation's coming back down, and the labor market has stabilized.

So, this is why we think they will be more likely to get to a neutral-ish or something closer to neutral in 2026 than they're prepared to communicate now. So, I think that's a good point.

So, Matt, if I could turn it back to you, I would just like first to ask you about the general market reaction. The 25 basis point cut was universally expected. Some probability you get a bigger cut, but most views were, we're gonna get a 25 basis point cut. So really all the potentially new news was then about the forward path from here. So how did markets reply to this? Yields did initially sell off a bit, but they generally came back. What’s your assessment of how the market took the decision?

Matthew Hornbach: Yeah, so the initial five, 10 minutes after the statement and summary of economic projections is released, everybody's digesting all of the new information. And generally speaking, investors tend to see what they want to see initially in all of the materials. So initially we had yields coming down a bit, the yield curve steepened a bit.

But then about half an hour later, it became clear – just right before the press conference had started; it became clear to people that actually this delivery in the documentation was a bit more moderate in terms of the forward look. That it was a fairly balanced assessment of where things are and where things may be heading.

And that in the end, the Fed, while it does want to bring interest rates lower, at least in the modal case, that it is still not particularly concerned about downside risks more than it is concern downside risks to activity, I should say, than it is concerned about upside risks to inflation. It very much seems a balanced assessment of the risks. And I think as a result, the market balanced out its initial euphoria about lower rates with a moderation of that view. So, interest rates ended up moving slightly higher towards the end of the day. But then, the next day they came back a bit. So, I think, it was a bit more of a steady as they go assessment from markets in the end.

Michael Gapen: And do you see markets as maybe changing their views on whether you know, it is a recalibration in the stance, therefore we should expect consecutive cuts? Or is the market now thinking, ‘Hey, maybe it is meeting by meeting.’ And what about the Fed’s forecast of its terminal rate versus the market's forecast of the terminal rate. So, what happened there?

Matthew Hornbach: Indeed. Yeah. So, in terms of how market prices are incorporating the idea that the Fed may cut at consecutive meetings through the end of the year, I think markets are generally priced for an outcome about in line with that idea. But of course, markets, and investors who trade markets, have to take into consideration the upcoming dataset and with the Fed so data dependent; so, meeting by meeting in terms of their decisions – it could certainly be the case that the next employment report and/or the next inflation report could dissuade the committee from lowering rates again, at the end of October when the Fed next meets.

So, I think the markets are, as you can expect, not going to fully price in everything that the Fed is suggesting. Both because the Fed may not end up delivering what it is suggesting; it might, or it may deliver more. So, the markets are clearly going to be data dependent as well. 

In terms of how the market is pricing the trough policy rate for the Fed – it does expect that the Fed will take its policy rate below where the summary of economic projections is suggesting. But that market pricing is more representative I think of a risk premium to the expectations of investors, which generally are in line or end up moving in line with the summary of economic projections over time.

So, given that the Fed has changed the economic projections and the forecast for policy rates, investors probably also end up shifting a bit in terms of their own expectations.

So, with that, Mike, I will bid you adieu until we speak again next time – around the time of the October FOMC meeting. So, 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 Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist.

Today – one of the most important economic relationships of our time: India and China.  And what the future may hold.

It’s Thursday, September 11^th at 2 pm in Hong Kong.

Trade dynamics between India and China are evolving rapidly. They are not just shaping their own futures. They are influencing global supply chains and investment flows.

India’s trade with China has nearly doubled in the last decade. India’s bilateral trade deficit with China is its largest—currently at U.S. $120 billion. On the flip side, China’s trade surplus with India is the biggest among all Asian economies. 

We expect this trade relationship to deepen given economic imperatives. India needs support on tech know-how, capital goods and critical inputs; and China needs to capitalize on growth opportunities in the second largest and fastest growing EM. Let’s explore these issues in turn.

India needs to integrate itself into the global value chain. And to do that, India needs Foreign Direct Investment from China, much like how China’s rise was fueled by Foreign Direct Investment from the U.S., Europe, Japan, and Korea, which brought the technology and expertise. For India, easing restrictions on Chinese FDI could be a game-changer, enabling the transfer of tech know-how and boosting manufacturing competitiveness.

Now, China is the world’s manufacturing powerhouse. It accounts for more than 40 percent of the global value chain—far ahead of the U.S. at 13 percent and India at just 4 percent. The global goods trade is increasingly focused on products higher up the value chain—think semiconductors, EVs, EV batteries, and solar panels. And China is the top global exporter in six of eight key manufacturing sectors. To put it quite simply, any economy that is looking to increase its participation in global value chains will have to increase its trade with China.

For India, this means that it must rely on Chinese imports to meet its increasing demand for capital goods as well as critical inputs that are necessary for its industrialization. In fact, this is already happening. More than half of India’s imports from China and Hong Kong are capital goods—i.e. machinery and equipment needed for manufacturing and infrastructure investment. Industrial supplies make [up] another third of the imports, highlighting India’s dependence on China for critical inputs.

From China’s perspective, India is the second largest and fastest-growing emerging market. And with U.S.-China trade tensions persisting, China is diversifying its exports markets, and India represents a significant opportunity. One way Chinese companies can capture this growth opportunity is to invest in and serve the domestic market. Chinese mobile phone companies have already been doing this and whether this can broaden to other sectors will depend on the opening up of India’s markets.

To sum up, India can leverage on China’s strengths in manufacturing and technology while China can utilize India’s vast market for exports and investment.

However, there’s a caveat: geopolitics. While economic imperatives point to deeper trade and investment ties, political developments could slow progress. Investors should watch this space closely and we will keep you updated on key developments.

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.