Relief and Volatility Ahead for U.S. Stocks

As interest in using cryptocurrencies for transactions continues to rise for both consumers and businesses, crypto has begun a cycle of increased stability and popularity - but the question is, can this cycle continue? -----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sheena Shah, Lead Cryptocurrency Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will be asking the question - are cryptocurrencies currency? It's Thursday, March 31st at 2:00 p.m. in London. Did you really buy that house with crypto? Or did you just sell your crypto for dollars and use dollars to buy the house? Crypto skeptics think that goods cannot be priced in cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, primarily because their price is too volatile. But at some point, if crypto begins to be used for enough purchases of everyday goods and services, prices may begin to stabilize. Increased stability will further entice consumers to use crypto, and the cycle will continue. The question has always been, will this virtuous cycle ever begin? The answer is now clear, it has already begun. Here are some examples. Firstly, paying with cryptocurrency needs to be as easy as paying with a credit or debit card today. Over 50 crypto companies and exchanges have issued their own crypto cards, and these are attached to the Visa or MasterCard payments networks, meaning they're accepted all around the world. In the last quarter of 2021, Visa said its crypto related cards handled $2.5 billion worth of payments. Now that may sound small, at less than 1% of all Visa's transactions, but it is growing quickly. The difficulty in increasing crypto adoption is getting the merchant to accept crypto. It needs to be easy and cheap, which is something lots of new crypto companies and products are trying to achieve. Secondly, many would argue that something can only be a currency if you can pay your taxes with it. Even that is changing today. Over the past year, local and some national governments have introduced or proposed laws that will allow its residents to use cryptocurrency to pay their taxes. El Salvador famously made bitcoin legal tender in its country in 2021. In the past week, Rio de Janeiro announced it will become the first city in Brazil to allow cryptocurrency payments for taxes starting next year. It isn't just emerging economies, though, that are trying to attract global crypto investors. The city of Lugano in Switzerland has teamed up with Tether, the creator of the largest stablecoin - a type of cryptocurrency that's kept stable versus the U.S. dollar, to make bitcoin and two other cryptocurrencies de facto legal tender. In the U.S., Colorado is hoping to become the first state to accept crypto for taxes later in the year, and Florida's governor is investigating the logistics of doing the same. Both these proposals may be difficult to put into law in the end, as the U.S. constitution doesn't allow individual states to create their own legal tender, but it hasn't stopped these proposals and more from coming in. In both these examples, the receiver of the crypto typically immediately converts to fiat currency, like U.S. dollars, through an intermediary service provider. So let's come back to our original question - did you really buy that house with crypto? In February, a house in Florida was sold for 210 Ether, the second largest crypto, or the equivalent of over $650,000 dollars. Interestingly, the seller received the ether but didn't liquidate into U.S. dollars soon afterwards due to market volatility, because the value of ether in U.S. dollars fell by around 10%. Consumers and businesses are increasingly wanting to transact in cryptocurrency. Maybe most are simply wanting to trade the value of the asset, but as it becomes easier to transact in crypto and legal structures are defined, cryptocurrencies could start to become currency. The question is, will the virtuous cycle continue or be broken? Cryptocurrencies are beginning the long journey of challenging U.S. dollar primacy, and the president's recent executive order on digital assets shows little sign of regulators getting in their way for now. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, share this and other episodes with a friend or colleague today.

31 Maalis 20224min

As the Fed kicks off a new rate hiking cycle, investors are looking back at the previous hiking cycle to ease their concerns today. Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy Michael Zezas and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach discuss.-----Transcript-----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Matthew Hornbach: And I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Michael Zezas: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the last Fed hiking cycle and what it might mean for investors today. It's Wednesday, March 30th at 11:00 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: Matt, we've recently entered a new Fed hiking cycle as the Fed deals with inflation. But it seems like clients have been focusing with you of late on the question of what drove the Fed during the last hiking cycle, where they paused their tightening and started to reverse course. Why is that something investors are focusing on right now? Matthew Hornbach: Well, Mike, investors are looking for answers about this hiking cycle, and a good place to start is the last cycle. The past week saw U.S. Treasury yields reach new highs and the Treasury curve flattened even more. Markets are now pricing Fed policy to reach a neutral setting this year of around 2.5%. The market also prices Fed policy to reach 3% next year. For context, the Fed was only able to raise its policy rate to 2.5% in the last cycle. So the fact that markets now price a higher policy rate than in the last cycle, after which the Fed ended up cutting interest rates, has people nervous. It's worth noting, though, that a 3% policy rate is still some distance below policy rates in the mid 1990s and the mid 2000s. Michael Zezas: Got it. So then, what do you think of the argument that the Fed may have over tightened in the last cycle? Matthew Hornbach: Well, instead of telling you what I think, let me tell you what FOMC participants were thinking at the time. I went back and read the minutes from the June 2019 FOMC meeting. That was the meeting before the Fed first cut rates, which they did in July. I chose to focus on that meeting because that's when several FOMC participants first projected lower policy rates. And according to the account of that decision, participants thought that a slowdown in global growth was weighing on the U.S. economy. In fact, evidence from global purchasing manager data showed that growth in emerging market and developed market economies was slowing, and was occurring well before the U.S. economy began to slow. And also, data suggested that global trade volumes were well below trend. So Mike, let me put it back to you then. It seems to me that Fed policy wasn't driving economic weakness back then, but that something else was driving this change in global economic activity. And I think, you know where I'm going with this... Michael Zezas: Yes, you're talking about the trade conflict between the U.S. and China, where from 2017 to 2019 there was a slow and then rapidly escalating series of tariff hikes between the two countries. It was a very public pattern of response and counter response, interspersed with negotiations and sharp rhetoric from both sides, eventually resulted in tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in traded goods. Now, those tariffs endure to this day, but the tariff hikes stopped in late 2019 after the two sides made a stopgap agreement. But even though this was just a few years ago and perhaps seems tame in comparison to the global challenges that have come up since, like the pandemic and now the Russia-Ukraine conflict, I think it's important to remember that at the time this was a big deal and created a lot of concern for companies, economists and investors. You have to remember that before 2017, the consensus in the US and most of Europe was that free trade was good, and anything that raised trade barriers was playing with fire for the economy. We'd often hear from clients that raising tariffs was just like Smoot-Hawley, the legislation in the U.S. that hiked tariffs in many textbooks credit as a key cause of the Great Depression. So, as the U.S. and China engage in their tariff escalation and in many ways demonstrate, at least on the U.S. side, that the political consensus no longer viewed low trade barriers as intrinsically good, you have corporations becoming increasingly concerned about the direction of the global economy and starting to take steps to protect themselves, like limiting capital investment to keep cash on hand. And this, of course, concerned investors and economists. Matthew Hornbach: Right. So this is more or less what the Fed suggested when it actually moved to cut its policy rate in July of 2019. The opening paragraph of the FOMC statement, in fact, suggested that U.S. labor markets remain strong and that economic activity had been rising at a moderate rate. But to your point, Mike, the statement also said that growth of business fixed investment had been soft. And in describing the motivation to cut rates, the statement pointed to implications from global developments and muted inflation pressures at home. Michael Zezas: OK, so then if it wasn't tight Fed policy, it was instead this exogenous shock, the trade conflict between the US and China. What does that tell us about how investors should look at the risks and benefits of the Fed's policy stance today? Matthew Hornbach: Well, it first tells us that policy rates near 2.5% shouldn't worry us very much. Of course, a 2.5% policy rate today may not be the same as it was in 2018 at the height of the last hiking cycle. It may be more, or it may be less restrictive, only time will tell. But we know the economy we have today is arguably stronger than it was at the end of the last hiking cycle. The unemployment rate's about the same, but the level of real gross domestic product is higher, its rate of change is higher and inflation is higher as well, both for consumer prices and for wages. All of this suggests that Fed policy could go above 2.5%, like our economists suggest it will, without causing a recession. But as the last hiking cycle shows us, we need to keep our eyes out for other risks on the horizon unrelated to Fed policy. Michael Zezas: Well, Matt, thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. Matthew Hornbach: It was great talking with you, Michael, Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

30 Maalis 20226min

As oil and gas prices rise, governments and investors must weigh investment in clean energy initiatives and new capacity in traditional energy commodities. Head of North American Power & Utilities and Clean Energy Research Stephen Byrd and Head of North American Oil and Gas Research Devin McDermott discuss.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of comprehensive or selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly informational, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.-----Transcript-----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Head of North American Power and Utilities, and Clean Energy Research. Devin McDermott: And I'm Devin McDermott, Head of Morgan Stanley's North American Oil and Gas Research. Stephen Byrd: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the key debate around energy security and energy transition amid the Ukraine Russia conflict. It's Tuesday, March 29th, at 9 a.m. in New York. Stephen Byrd: So, Devin, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has, among other concerns, really put a spotlight on energy supply and demand. I want to get into this perceived tension between energy security, that is making sure there's enough supply to meet demand, and the transition to clean energy. But first, maybe let's start with the backdrop. There's been a lot of discussion around higher energy prices. This is a world you live in every day, and I wondered if you could paint us a picture of both oil and natural gas supply and demand globally. Devin McDermott: Yeah, certainly, Stephen, and it's definitely been a dynamic market here over the last several years, coming out of COVID and the price declines that we saw then and the sharp recovery that we've been in now for about a year and a half across the energy commodity complex. If we start with oil first, we had record demand destruction in the second quarter of 2020 around global lockdowns, industrial activity slowing and along with that, oil prices broke negative for the first time in history. And then coming out of that, we've had the combination of a few factors that drove prices higher. The first has been demand has been on a very strong recovery path since that bottom in the second quarter of 2020, growing alongside people getting out again, aviation starting to pick up, the economy growing on the back of the stimulus that was injected over the past few years around the world, not just in the US. And then constrained supply, and that constrained supply comes from a mix of different factors, but the biggest of which is a reduction in investment around the world. The other factor is decarbonization goals, in particular with the global oil majors, which are big investors in global oil and gas capacity, and they've put their marginal dollar increasingly into low carbon initiatives, New Energy's platforms, renewables, driving decarbonization goals across their global footprint. Now, shifting over to the gas side, gas is a fascinating market. Globally, it's fairly regionally disconnected historically, but we've had this big investment over the past decade in liquefied natural gas or LNG that's really brought these regional markets together into one global picture. And we've been on, up until COVID, a declining path on prices. LNG projects take many years to build, they're expensive, they have long paybacks, and they were first to get chopped when companies cut capital budgets to preserve liquidity back in 2020, but demand was still growing through that timeframe. So it pushed us into this period of supply shortfall and higher prices. And actually, last year, on three separate occasions, we set new all time highs for global non-U.S. natural gas prices, and that recovery path and period of stronger for longer prices has persisted here into 2022. And even prior to Russia Ukraine, it was something that we thought would persist for at least the next several years. Stephen Byrd: You know, it's fascinating before the Russia-Ukraine conflict we already had, you know, tight markets, rising pricing. Now we really need to dig into the Russia-Ukraine conflict and all the impacts. Maybe let's just start Devin with, sort of, how big of a player Russia is in terms of oil and gas, and what the impact is of any current or future sanctions against Russia. Devin McDermott: Russia is one of the world's largest producers of oil and also one of the world's largest producers of natural gas. And to put some numbers around that, Russia represents about 10% of the world's oil supply, about half of that gets exported to the rest of the world. And they represent about 17% of the world's natural gas supply, about 7 of that gets exported to the rest of the world. These are big numbers. And if you look at Europe specifically, about 30% of their gas needs are coming from Russia on pipeline gas right now. So any disruptions to those flows have significant impacts to the global oil and gas market on top of this already tight backdrop. Stephen Byrd: And Devin I guess as we think about Europe, there's tremendous focus, as you point out Russia is a major player in energy and a major exporter. And I wonder if you could just talk to the current situation and what do you think would be feasible in terms of satisfying energy demand as Europe thinks about looking for other sources of energy? Devin McDermott: Yeah, it's a good question, Stephen and our European energy team has done a lot of work around this and they think that because of the events that have happened so far, not including any potential incremental sanctions or disruption of supply, that we'll lose about a million barrels a day of Russian oil here over the next several months, starting in April through the balance of this year. And again, just to put that in the context, that's about 10% of Russian supply, about 1% of the world's supply on a normalized pre-COVID basis. Now, some of the disruption in flows to Europe will be bought by other countries. You've seen India and China step in and pick up some of this Russian crude that's no longer going to Europe, but it's not going to fill the entire gap. So it leaves us tighter in the oil market than we were just a few weeks ago. On the natural gas side, it'll be a gradual pivot away from Russian pipeline gas within the European market toward a range of different things, one of which is LNG liquefied natural gas. But, as I mentioned before, that market was already in a shortfall, meaning there was not enough supply to meet demand prior to this. So this transition away from Russian gas is going to require substantial investment and take a long time, 5 to 10 years plus, to carry out. It means that these high prices that we're seeing likely have some sustainability to them. Devin McDermott: Stephen, that brings me to a question that I wanted to ask you on the clean energy side. Do you think that we might see a greater policy, and even energy consumer push, to clean energy both in the US and globally on the back of these elevated commodity prices and what's going on in Russia and Ukraine at the moment? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Devin, we've been seeing a lot of interest among investors in exactly what is going to be the policy response both in Europe and the United States and elsewhere. And I'd say the EU has taken action already. The European Commission laid out a repower EU plan that is very aggressive in terms of additional renewables growth, additional growth in green hydrogen. We see quite a few European utilities and clean energy developers benefiting from the EU's increased emphasis and push towards more and more clean energy. And Rob Pulleyn, my colleague who covers European utilities and clean energy developers and is also a commodities strategist with respect to carbon, has been spending a lot of time on this, has laid out a suite of companies that would benefit quite significantly. There does seem to be a really big policy push in Europe. The United States is not clear. The real question is whether some version of build back better legislation will pass. We just don't know. Now, there is a reason to believe that there could be a compromise position in which some elements of a support for fossil fuel production are included, along with the whole suite of clean energy support that we already know is there. That said, it's possible that compromise simply won't be met. And in that case, we won't get any kind of additional support at the federal level. What's fascinating in the United States, though, is frankly, we don't necessarily need to see that support in order to see tremendous growth in clean energy, we are already seeing a big shift. And as we stand today, we think that clean energy in the United States will more than triple between now and 2030. It's one of the fastest growth rates globally. That is driven mostly by economics, in some cases by state policy, but mostly by economics. Devin McDermott: So, Stephen, I wanted to go back to this question on the tension between energy security and the energy transition. Is it an either or? Stephen Byrd: You know, Devin, we get asked that question a great deal, and I strongly believe the answer is no, those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. And in fact, what we're seeing is both the policy push as well as a business push in both directions. And a good example of that would be the U.S. Utilities that I cover. They are certainly very focused on deploying more renewable energy. And as a group, for example, we see that utilities will decarbonize in the United States by about 75% by 2030 off of 2005 baseline. So very aggressive decarbonization. At the same time, those utilities are very focused on ensuring grid reliability. Now, as we deploy more renewable energy, we're learning quite a few lessons. One lesson is the importance of more energy storage, so demand has been picking up a great deal for that. Another lesson we're learning is the importance of nuclear generation, we're learning that they're critical. They provide both reliability and also zero carbon energy. And in the U.S., we've had a very strong operational track record for our nuclear fleet. So we're learning lessons along the way, but what we're seeing is a push in both directions. Now, as you know, clean energy relative to the world that you live in, oil and gas, is still fairly small. It's going to take many years before clean energy really makes a meaningful impact in terms of global energy consumption. That said, for example, coal generation in places like the United States will decline over time and be replaced with mostly renewable energy, but also with some degree of natural gas generation to ensure reliability. So we're seeing really both ideas play out, and both investment theses are very rational, and we see really good opportunities on both of those ideas. Devin McDermott: And let's take it one step further and talk investment opportunities and themes on the back of this. As you think about the different subsets of clean energy and clean tech, where would you be focused for opportunities here? Stephen Byrd: You know, it's interesting. One group of stocks that we generally like are clean energy developers. And the reason we like those stocks is essentially this spread between what we're thinking of as inflationary traditional energy like oil and gas, and this deflationary dynamic of clean energy. One example is in places like California, the traditional utility costs to customers are rising very rapidly above 10% a year. If you look in the long term, the cost of our clean energy solutions are dropping anywhere from 5% a year, to 10, 15% per year. That's a tremendous economic wedge, and we think the developers will be able to essentially capture a lot of that spread. On the manufacturers side there are still some supply chain dynamics, which can cause some near-term margin compression that concerns us, in some cases. I would say another area of really interesting growth is green hydrogen, especially in Europe. A number of our companies are focused on that market as well. So those would be a couple of the buckets of opportunity that we see. Devin McDermott: Great. Stephen, thanks so much for the time today. It's really a fascinating topic and one that's unfolding right before our eyes today. Stephen Byrd: Well, it was great speaking with you, Devin. Devin McDermott: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please give us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

29 Maalis 202211min

As the Fed continues down a hawkish road for 2022, investors must consider the impact of policy tightening on economic growth and equity risk premiums.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 28th at 11:00 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 2022 has been a year of extraordinary hawkishness from the Fed, and it continues to surprise on the upside with both its formal guidance and informal communications. This has led to almost weekly revisions for more Fed rate hikes from just about everyone, including our economists who now expect 50 basis point interest rate hikes in both May and June, and then 25 basis points in every meeting thereafter. The bond market has definitely gotten the message, too, with one of the sharpest rises in short term interest rates ever witnessed. Longer term rates have also adjusted as the expected terminal rate for this cycle has risen to 2.9%. The questions for equity investors now is whether they believe the Fed will actually tighten this much and what will be the impact on the economy from a growth standpoint. We have several takeaways from these recent moves. First, the Fed appears to be very committed to reducing inflation. Friday's University of Michigan Consumer Confidence Report for March confirmed that high prices are still the key reason this metric has plummeted to levels usually reserved for recessions. Second, 10 year yields are now at a level that takes the equity risk premium to its lowest level since the Great Financial Crisis. As a reminder, equity risk premium is the return and investor receives above and beyond the yield on a Treasury bond. The higher the risk, the greater the equity risk premium. In our view, it makes little sense for the equity risk premium to be so low right now, given the heightened risks to earnings growth from a rise in cost pressures, payback in demand, and a war that has structurally increased the price of food and energy. While stocks are a good hedge from higher inflation, keep in mind that inflation from food and energy is bad for most companies as it acts as a tax on consumers. Only energy and materials companies really benefit from this kind of inflation but they make up a very small slice of the index. Some may argue technology companies are less affected, but we're skeptical as they will feel it too in lower revenues if the consumer spending fades. Third, the risk from further exogenous shocks to growth are also elevated given the war in Ukraine, China's real estate stress, and ongoing battle with COVID, to name a few. This is one reason why market volatility remains so high. Importantly for investors, our work suggests the equity risk premium is also understated relative to this high market volatility. In short, equity investors are not being properly compensated for taking equity like risk at current prices. Finally, these high valuations are not isolated to just a few sectors. The lower equity risk premium is present across all sectors except energy and materials, and these are the two biggest beneficiaries of high commodity inflation. In some ways, the low equity risk premium for these sectors is simply saying the market does not believe the recent boost to earnings and cash flow is sustainable, due to either demand destruction or the eventual supply response. The bottom line is that we remain bearish on the S&P 500 index from a risk reward standpoint, particularly after the recent rally. Our year end base case target of 4400 is 4% below current levels. At the stock level, we continue to recommend investors look for stable cash flow generating companies in defensive sectors like utilities, health care, REITs and consumer staples. Thanks for listening! If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

28 Maalis 20223min

The new Fed hiking cycle has begun and with it comes expectations for faster rate hikes and quantitative tightening to address inflation, as well as questions around how and when the U.S. economy will be affected. Chief U.S. Economist Ellen Zentner and Senior U.S. Economist Robert Rosener discuss.-----Transcript-----Ellen Zentner: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Chief U.S. Economist for Morgan Stanley Research. Robert Rosener: And I'm Robert Rosner, Morgan Stanley's Senior U.S. Economist. Ellen Zentner: On this episode of the podcast, we'll be talking about the outlook for the U.S. economy as the Fed begins a new rate hike cycle. It's Friday, March 25th at 9:00 a.m. in New York. Ellen Zentner: So Robert, last week the U.S. Federal Reserve raised the federal funds rate a quarter of a percentage point, which is notable because it's the first interest rate hike in more than two years, and it's likely to be the first of many. Chair Powell has told us that it's unlikely to be like any prior hiking cycle, so maybe you could share our view on the pace of hikes and where and when it might peak for the cycle. Robert Rosener: Well, it certainly is starting off unlike any recent policy tightening cycle, and recent remarks from Fed policymakers have really doubled down on the message that policy tightening is likely to be front loaded. And we're now forecasting that we're likely to see an even steeper path for Fed policy tightening this year, and we think that as soon as the May meeting, we could see the Fed pick up the pace and hike interest rates by 50 basis points and follow that in June with yet another 50 basis point increase. We're expecting they'll revert back to a 25 basis point per meeting pace after that, but still that marks 225 basis points of policy tightening that we're expecting this year in our baseline outlook. Ellen Zentner: So how does Jay Powell, the chair of the FOMC, fit into this? Do you think he's about in line with this view as well? Robert Rosener: He does seem to be generally in line with this view, but he is negotiating the outlook among a committee that has a diversity of views, and we've been hearing from policy makers, a wide range of policy makers, over the last week. What's been notable is that more and more policymakers are starting to get on board the train that a faster pace of policy tightening is likely to be warranted. And that may very well include rate hikes that come in larger increments, such as 50 basis point increments, over the course of the year as policymakers seek to get monetary policy into more of a neutral setting. Ellen Zentner: So this is all because of inflation. Inflation's broad based, it's rising. I think it felt like there was a very big shift on the FOMC January/February, when the inflation data was really rocketing to new heights. So in order to bring inflation down when the Fed is hiking, how long does it take for those hikes to flow through into the economy to bring inflation down? Robert Rosener: Well, that's a really good question, and certainly that broadening that you mentioned is key. We saw a run up in inflation in the later part of last year that was driven by a few segments, particularly on the goods side. But as we moved into the end of 2021 and early 2022, what we really started to see was a broadening out of inflationary pressures and particularly a broadening into the service sectors of the economy where price pressures began to pick up more notably and began to lead the inflation data higher. Now, as we think about how monetary policy interacts with that, tighter monetary policy needs to slow growth in order to slow inflation. And typically, you would look at monetary policy and not expect it to be really materially affecting the economy for, say, a year out. Something that Chair Powell has stressed is that monetary policy transmits through financial conditions, and financial markets moved to price in a more hawkish Fed outlook as soon as the latter part of last year. Now, as those rate hikes got priced into the market, that acted to tighten financial conditions. So as Chair Powell noted in his press conference, the clock for when rate hikes start to impact the economy doesn't necessarily start on the delivery of those rate hikes. It starts when they affect financial conditions. And so we may start to see that a backdrop of tighter financial conditions begins to reduce some of the steam in the economy and reduce some of the steam in inflation as we move through the course of the year. But with headline CPI currently at around 8%, likely to march higher in the upcoming data, there's a lot of room to bring that down. So we might have to wait some time before we see material relief on inflation. Ellen Zentner: So let's talk about the balance sheet because they're not just hiking rates, right? They're going to reduce the size of their balance sheet, what we call quantitative tightening or Q.T. And so run us through our view and how the Fed's thinking about that quantitative tightening process when they're unwinding much of that four and a half trillion in asset purchases that they made during the pandemic. Robert Rosener: So the Fed has made it clear they're on track to begin winding down the size of their balance sheet, and that's a decision that we're expecting will come at the May meeting, that in very short order the Fed would begin to reduce the size of its balance sheet with caps on reinvestment and total at about $80 billion per month. And that would set roughly the monthly pace by which the balance sheet would decline, and Chair Powell has indicated that that process may take around three years to bring the balance sheet down to a size that would be consistent with a neutral balance sheet. It's going to act to tighten financial conditions in the same way or similar ways that rate hikes do, but it's a little bit less clear how those effects happen, over what time horizons they happen. So there's some uncertainty there, but it's something that the Fed wants to have running in the background, while they pursue rate hikes. Ellen Zentner: So in terms of, you know, if the balance sheet is going to be doing additional tightening, what do we think the Fed funds equivalent of that is, has Chair Powell discussed that?Robert Rosener: So when we looked at this, we looked at the effects through financial conditions. And in our estimates, the tightening of financial conditions that we would see on the back of the balance sheet reduction that we're expecting, was about the equivalent this year of one additional 25 basis point hike. Now, perhaps coincidentally, Chair Powell in his most recent remarks, also noted that the tightening of the balance sheet or the shrinking of the balance sheet this year would be about the equivalent of one rate hike. So there's some consolidation of views there that it does act to tighten. Again, there's uncertainty bands around that, but it's about the equivalent of one additional hike this year. Robert Rosener: So Ellen, we can't really talk about the Fed raising rates without thinking about the broader implications for the yield curve, and more recently the applications for yield curve inversion. For listeners who might not be familiar, that's when shorter term investments in U.S. treasuries, such as the 2-year yield, pay more than longer term treasuries, such as the 10-year yield. Historically, when we've seen that spread inverting, it's been a signal that a recession might be coming. What are you thinking about the risks that the yield curve is telling us now? And does that tell us anything about the risk of a future recession? Ellen Zentner: Well, Robert, I think it is clear that the yield curve, if we're talking about just the spread between 2-year treasuries and 10-year treasuries, is going to continue to flatten and invert. And policymakers have made it clear that because of special factors, they shouldn't be concerned this time. And when I look at factors in the economy that are typically what you would look at for signals of recession, you know, jobs, we are still creating jobs, it’s been a very steady run of about 500,000 jobs a month. We are expecting another strong print in the upcoming payroll report, that does not speak to approaching recession. When I look at retail and wholesale sales still growing, industrial production still growing, real disposable income of households still growing. Even though we're dealing with the fading of fiscal stimulus, that labor income has been very strong. So all of those traditional measures would tell you that an inverted yield curve today is not providing you a signal of approaching recession, and I think overall inversion of the yield curve has become less of a recession indicator since we have been trapped so near the zero lower bound over the last cycle and this cycle. Robert Rosener: So we talked about the Fed, we talked about the yield curve and financial conditions, but of course, there's a lot of things that the Fed has to take into account as it thinks about the outlook. And of course, we're all watching the terrible events unfolding in Ukraine. And as we think about the ripple effects on the world economy, particularly in Europe, as well as more broadly on energy security and supply and so much more. Clearly, this is an impact that's going to be affecting regions differently. But how should we think about how that's going to be felt here in the U.S. economy? And what does that mean for the Fed? Ellen Zentner: So I think first and foremost, it plays back into the inflation story. I think what we've heard from the chair is that typically they do look through food and energy price fluctuations. But in this case, where inflation is already broad based and high, they do have to act and it just puts more fuel behind the need to have a more aggressive tightening cycle. When we look at our own analysis and impact analysis that you've done for us on the team, the impact on inflation from increases in energy prices is four times that of the impact on GDP growth. In the U.S. we're just about energy independent. And so it's become more ambiguous as whether higher energy prices are really a negative for the U.S. economy. But the way I would look at this is, it will slow activity in parts of the economy, we've taken our own growth forecasts down to reflect that forecast for GDP, and it will disproportionately affect lower income households. Where food prices, energy prices and just general inflation impacts them to a much greater degree than upper income households. So overall, aggregate spending will look quite strong in the U.S. economy, but for the lower income groups, I think it's going to be lagging behind. But certainly you mentioned Europe, you know, Europe is facing possible recession if gas supplies are cut off, which is a very real risk. But it's just not going to be as big of an impact to the U.S. economy, where we'll feel it is if other parts of the globe are deteriorating it can hamper financial conditions here, and that's something that the Fed will be watching closely. And so, Robert, you and I will be watching these developments closely as well. We've made it clear and the Fed has made it clear that it's on the path higher for interest rates, but the outlook always comes with risks and we'll be reporting back on those risks in future podcasts. So, thanks for taking the time to talk, Robert. Robert Rosener: Great talking with you, Ellen. Ellen Zentner: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

25 Maalis 202210min

While the possibility of a yield curve inversion in the U.S. has news outlets and investors wondering if a recession is on the way, there’s more to the story that should put minds at ease.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about global macro trends and how investors can interpret these trends for rates and currency markets. It's Thursday, March 24th at noon in New York. For most investors, most of the time, the general level of U.S. Treasury yields is more important than the differences between yields on shorter maturity bonds and those on longer maturity bonds. The most widely quoted Treasury yield is usually the one investors earn by lending their money to the government for 10 years. But there are times when the difference between yields on, say, treasuries that mature in 2 years and those that mature in 10 years make the news. And this is one of those times. These yields are tracked over time on a visual representation we call the yield curve. And at some point soon, we expect the yields on 2 year treasuries to be higher than those on 10 year treasuries. This is what we call a 2s10s yield curve inversion. The reason why yield curve inversion makes the news is because, in the past, yield curve inversion has preceded recessions in the U.S. economy. Still, there are two points to make about the relationship between the yield curve and recessions, both of which should put investors' minds at ease. First, using history as a guide, inverted 2s10s yield curves preceded recessions by almost two years on average. While time flies, two years is plenty of time for people to prepare for harder times ahead. Second, despite popular belief, yield curve inversions don't necessarily cause recessions, and neither does significantly tighter fed monetary policy - which also can cause yield curves to invert. In his recent speech, Fed Chair Powell highlighted 1965, 1984, and 1994 as times when the Fed raised the federal funds rate significantly without causing a recession. Another important point is that the yield curve can flatten for reasons unrelated to tighter Fed policy. For example, between 2004 and 2006, the yield curve flattened by much more than Fed policy alone would have suggested. The curve flattening during this period baffled the Fed and investors alike. Former Fed Chair Greenspan labeled the episode "a conundrum" at the time. So what caused the yield curve to flatten so much during that period? Former Fed Chair Bernanke suggested it was a global savings glut. Overseas investors purchased an increasingly larger share of the Treasury market than they had ever bought before. Fast forward to today and the demand from overseas investors has been replaced by demand from the Fed. In fact, the Fed owns almost 30% of outstanding Treasury notes and bonds, which goes some way to explaining how flat the yield curve is today. And, to be clear, fed ownership of those bonds also isn't a reason to think recession is right around the corner. Another common concern about a flat yield curve is that it will cause banks to stop lending. And without banks lending into the real economy, recession might loom large. But our U.S. Bank Equity Research Team is less concerned. Their work shows that bank loans grew during the prior 11 periods of yield curve inversion since 1969. While they found some moderation in loan growth, it was modest. And this year, despite our forecast for an inverted yield curve. The project loans to grow 7% over the year, after loans shrank last year, when the yield curve was actually much steeper. So in the end, while we think the yield curve will invert this year, we don't think investors should worry too much about a looming recession - even if the news does. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

24 Maalis 20223min

While the demand for Environmental, Social, and Governance investing has been growing primarily in Europe, a potential new regulatory policy may drive new interest and opportunity for U.S. investors.-----Transcript-----Welcome the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, March 23rd at 10 a.m. in New York. Taking a break from specific market impacts for the moment, we want to focus on the growth of a new market for investors - the market for ESG investing, which a new regulatory policy may help nudge into the mainstream in the U.S. As you may already know, ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance, three factors that represent a measurement of how socially conscious the investment is. The demand for this style of investing has grown substantially in recent years. For example, per our sustainability research team, there are about 2 trillion dollars of dedicated ESG assets under management globally. But about 85% of that is in Europe, showing how U.S. investors have been relatively slower to adopt such strategies. Yet earlier this week, the SEC proposed a new rule that could create new incentives for U.S. investors to adopt ESG strategies. This rule would require companies to provide disclosures about their emissions, as well as governance and strategy for dealing with climate related risks. As our sustainability research team noted in a report this week, having a standard for disclosure can help build the ESG market by giving investors a common template for understanding ESG impacts. That differs from the current state of play, where many companies do disclose on climate related issues, but to different levels and by differing standards, making analytical comparisons difficult. We should note, though, that this is just a first step toward a regulation that could boost the size of the ESG market. Regulatory rules tend to take a long time to finalize and implement. According to Government Accountability Office case studies, it can take anywhere from six months to five years, as proposed rules navigate a series of comment periods, judicial challenges and revisions. So we'll track the process here and report back when there's more to know. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

23 Maalis 20222min

While the cost of shelter has risen quickly, the measure of housing inflation has been slow to catch up, creating challenges for renters, homeowners and the Fed.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Tuesday, March 22nd at 2:00 p.m. in London. Our base case at Morgan Stanley is that the U.S. economy sees solid growth over the next two years, with inflation moderating but still being somewhat higher than the Federal Reserve would like. We think this means the Fed raises interest rates modestly more than the market expects, flattening the US yield curve. But what are the risks to this view? Specifically, what could cause inflation to be much higher, for much longer, putting the Federal Reserve in a more pressing bind? I want to focus here on core inflation as central banks have more leeway to look through volatile food or energy prices. This is a story about shelter. The cost of shelter represents about 1/3 of U.S. core consumer price inflation. That makes sense. For most Americans, where you live is your largest expense, whether you rent or pay a mortgage. The CPI measure of inflation assumes that the cost of renting has risen 4.5% in the last year. Now, if that sounds low, you're not alone. At the publicly traded apartment companies covered by my colleague Richard Hill, a Morgan Stanley real estate analyst, rents have risen 10% or more year-over-year. There are reasons that the official CPI number is lower. For one, not everyone renews their lease at the same time. But with a strong labor market and limited supply, the case for higher rents going forward looks strong. Owner occupied housing is even more interesting. Since 2016, U.S. home prices have risen about 56%. But the cost of a house that goes into the CPI inflation calculation, known as "owners’ equivalent rent", has risen only 21%. That's a 35% gap between actual home prices and where the inflation calculation sits. This is a potential problem. Even if home prices stop going up, the official measure of housing inflation could keep rising at a healthy clip to simply catch up to where home prices already are. And given high demand, low supply, and still low interest rates, home prices may keep going up, meaning there's even more catching up to do from the official inflation measure. Higher shelter costs are also a challenge because they're very hard for the Federal Reserve to address. Raising interest rates, which is the usual strategy to combat inflation, makes buying a house less attractive relative to renting. Which means even more upward pressure on rental demand and even higher rents. And higher interest rates make building homes more costly to finance, further restricting housing supply and raising home prices.Housing has long been a very important sector for the economy and financial markets. Over the next 12 months, expect it to be central to the inflation debate as well. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

22 Maalis 20223min