Relief and Volatility Ahead for U.S. Stocks

Central bank support has been a key driver of market strength since last year. So how will markets react during the months-long tapering process?----- 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 Thursday, November 4th at 2p.m. in London. Since the start of the pandemic, the Federal Reserve, along with many other global central banks, instituted massive purchase programs of government bonds and mortgages. These purchases, known as quantitative easing, or QE, were designed to keep interest rates low and boost liquidity in financial markets during a time of stress. Since February of 2020, these purchases caused the Fed's bond holdings to rise by $4.4 Trillion dollars. On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve announced its intention to start dialing these purchases back. To be clear, the Fed will still be buying a lot of bonds over the coming months. But after buying $120 billion of securities in October, the fed will buy $105 billion in November and $90 billion in December, a trend our economists think mean that they will cease these purchases entirely by June of next year. This ‘tapering’ of purchases and its impact for markets is a major source of debate. One school of thought is that central bank support has been the main driver of market strength, not just recently, but going all the way back to the global financial crisis. Markets, after all, have done better when the Fed has been buying bonds. But as much as you'll hear phrases like "the market is only up because of the Federal Reserve", this idea can suffer from some real statistical fallacies. Yes, markets have done better when the Fed has felt the need to support the economy. But the Fed has generally felt this need when conditions were bad, and bad conditions often meant lower market prices—something that was true in, say, the autumn of 2012 or March of last year. I know this is the type of hard-hitting financial insight you expect from this podcast but buying when prices are low tends to produce superior returns. So what does ‘tapering’ mean? Well, one thing we can look at is the last time the Fed started to dial back its purchases. After a strong year for markets and the economy in 2013, the Fed started to ‘taper’ its bond purchases in January of 2014. That turned out to be a bad month for markets. But the reasons were important. U.S. data was unusually weak, China's economy was slowing and there were troubles in emerging markets, including Argentina. The market's response, we'd argue, was very normal and fundamentally driven. The best example of this? Even though the Fed was reducing its bond purchases in January, bond prices actually rose, which is what you'd expect when concerns around growth increase. The data ultimately improved, and 2014 turned into a reasonable year for stocks, albeit a shadow of the stellar returns of the year before. But putting it all together, we think 2014 provides an important clue for how markets could respond to tapering: as the Fed becomes less involved in the markets, fundamentals matter more, and become a larger driver of whether markets will sink or swim. 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.

4 Marras 20213min

Inflation rates, commodity prices and central bank policy are tied together through self-referential loops. With today’s FOMC meeting, it is worth a closer look at these meta dynamics.----- 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 Wednesday, November 3rd at noon in New York.Is there anything more "meta" than commodity markets, headline inflation rates and inflation markets? The Google dictionary, using definitions from Oxford languages, defines the adjective ‘meta’ as "self-referential, referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre." A great example would be a website that doesn't review movies, it reviews the reviewers who review movies.Rates markets can get pretty meta as well. Commodity prices, inflation rates reported by the government and inflation rates traded in the market often mirror each other in a self-referential loop. When investors see commodity prices going up, they think that inflation rates will go up, so they buy inflation linked bonds. That drives inflation rates in the market higher, which makes othes investors believe that inflation will be a problem, and so they buy commodities as a hedge for higher inflation, which drives commodity prices even higher. And so, the loop continues.This self-referencing loop wouldn't be as problematic if actual inflation reported by the government, which looks at price changes in the past, didn't have a big impact over market-based measures of inflation, which look at what inflation might average in the future. But they do have an impact, especially when movements in actual inflation have been big, like they have been recently.Another check on the self-referencing loop is supposed to be how central bankers react to movements in inflation rates in the marketplace, especially those that relate to inflation over a longer period of time, like five to 10 years in the future. Central bankers know that inflation rates in the market include both expectations and risk premiums. And because central bankers are primarily interested in inflation expectations, they use surveys of consumers and professional forecasters, as well as statistical models, to extract those expectations from market prices.Still, when inflation rates in the market move to extremes, central bankers get nervous, just like investors. And therein form something else that's very ‘meta,’ the self-referential loop that includes investor fears, central banker fears, market pricing of central bank policy and central bank policy itself.It's no wonder that the markets which price the most hawkish central bank policy paths are also the markets that priced the highest inflation rates in the future, and we can't blame investors for allowing this market behavior to persist. I'll give you an example. Looking back to the second half of 2014, the dramatic decline in oil prices allowed the market in Europe to price much lower inflation rates in the future, and the European Central Bank responded by announcing its quantitative easing policy in January 2015.But what goes up – in this case, commodity prices, inflation rates in the market and the pricing of more hawkish central bank policies – can also come down. And given the meta nature of these markets, investors may want to pay close attention to what is happening to commodity prices today.For example, some of the recent supply chain and commodity disruptions have peaked in futures markets like lumber, thermal coal, and natural gas. In addition, the cost of shipping many commodities, such as coal and iron ore, have also peaked.This leaves us feeling that the pricing of central bank policy in markets is increasingly at risk of reversing somewhat. We flag today's FOMC meeting as possibly the last major central bank meeting that could spur even more hawkish pricing of central bank policy.In other words, investors should realize that markets are pricing the high rates of inflation we've experienced – in part driven by higher commodity prices – to continue for some time. And markets are priced for central banks to respond aggressively. But what if commodity prices fall from here? Investors should be prepared for the "meta" nature of these markets to reprice central bank policies again, but this time in a more dovish direction.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate in reviews on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

4 Marras 20214min

‘Build Back Better’ has gained support from all corners of the Democratic Party, but questions remain over how the framework is paid for. For investors, a look at short term dynamics may provide clarity.----- Transcript -----Welcome to 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 Tuesday, November 2nd at noon in New York.Over the past few days, the "Build Back Better" framework has gained increasing support from all corners of the Democratic Party. And although Senator Joe Manchin put his support for the framework in question yesterday, and there are still some questions on items such as prescription drug reform, our base case is still that "Build Back Better" and the bipartisan infrastructure bill will likely be enacted before year end.However, still up for debate is whether "Build Back Better" is fully paid for by things like stronger IRS tax enforcement and tax increases on corporations. In its current form, the framework proposes fiscal balance, but over 10 years. In the short term, it doesn't mean zero fiscal expansion.Rather as structured, we think the bill would add to deficits over the first five years but get to balance by having surpluses over the remaining years. This distinction is important, and we argue that investors should focus on the early-year deficit dynamic instead of the 10-year deficit language that Congress generally uses to communicate deficit impact.One reason is that policy uncertainty usually increases with time. For example, several spending and contra-revenue programs including a child tax credit, expanded Affordable Care Act subsidies, and state and local tax cap relief, roll off well before the 10-year look-ahead period ends. And U.S. elections in 2022 and 2024 could conceivably result in changes to government that could mean the continuation or discontinuation of programs and new tax items.Given this uncertainty and the estimated $256 billion dollar deficit for the bipartisan infrastructure bill -- the takeaway for investors is that we expect bond markets will focus on this early-year dynamic since this is the time frame that ultimately impacts GDP forecast horizons, impacts the Treasury supply forecast horizon and is reliable from a policy standpoint.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.

2 Marras 20212min

Original Release on October 11th, 2021: As the weather chills and we head towards the end of the mid-cycle transition, the S&P 500 continues to avoid a correction. How long until equities markets cool off?----- Transcript -----In case you missed it, today we are bringing you a special encore release of a recent episode. We’ll be back tomorrow with a brand new episode. 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, October 11th at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So, let's get after it. With the turning of the calendar from summer to fall, we are treated with the best weather of the year - cool nights, warm days and clear skies. In contrast, the S&P 500 has become much more volatile and choppy than the steady pattern it enjoyed for most of the year. This makes sense as it's just catching up to the rotations and rolling corrections that have been going on under the surface. While the average stock has already experienced a 10-20% correction this year, the S&P 500 has avoided it, at least so far. In our view, the S&P 500's more erratic behavior since the beginning of September coincided with the Fed's more aggressive pivot towards tapering of asset purchases. It also fits neatly with our mid-cycle transition narrative. In short, our Fire and Ice thesis is playing out. Rates are moving higher, both real and nominal, and that is weighing disproportionately on the Nasdaq and consequently the S&P 500, which is heavily weighted to these longer duration stocks. This is how the mid-cycle transition typically ends - multiples compressed for the quality stocks that lead during most of the transition. Once that de-rating is finished, we can move forward again in the bull market with improving breadth. With the Fire outcome clearly playing out over the last month due to a more hawkish Fed and higher rates, the downside risk from here will depend on how much earnings growth cools off. Decelerating growth is normal during the mid-cycle transition. However, this time the deceleration in growth may be greater than normal, especially for earnings. First, the amplitude of this cycle has been much larger than average. The recession was the fastest and steepest on record. Meanwhile, the V-shaped recovery that followed was also a record in terms of speed and acceleration. Finally, as we argued last year, operating leverage would surprise on the upside in this recovery due to the unprecedented government support that acted like a direct subsidy to corporations. Fast forward to today, and there is little doubt companies over earned in the first half of 2021. Furthermore, our analysis suggests those record earnings and margins have been extrapolated into forecasts, which is now a risk for stocks. The good news is that many stocks have already performed poorly over the past six months as the market recognized this risk. Valuations have come down in many cases, even though we see further valuation risk at the index level. The bad news is that earnings revisions and growth may actually decline for many companies. The primary culprits for these declines are threefold: payback in demand, rising costs, supply chain issues and taxes. At the end of the day, forward earnings estimates will only outright decline if management teams reduce guidance, and most will resist it until they are forced to do it. We suspect many will blame costs and even sales shortfalls on supply constraints rather than demand, thereby giving investors an excuse to look through it. As for taxes, we continue to think what ultimately passes will amount to an approximate 5% hit to 2022 S&P 500 EPS forecasts. However, the delay in the infrastructure bill to later this year has likely delayed these adjustments to earnings. The bottom line is that we are getting more confident earnings estimates will need to come down over the next several months, but we are uncertain about the timing. It could very well be right now as the third quarter earnings season brings enough margin pressure and supply chain disruption that companies decide to lower the bar. Conversely, it may take another few months to play out. Either way, we think the risk/reward still skews negatively over the next three months, even though the exact timing of cooler weather is unclear. Bottom line, one should stay more defensive in equity positioning until the winter arrives. 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.

1 Marras 20214min

Investors have had a lot to take in over the past few weeks, but corporate credit markets remain calm despite turbulence elsewhere. Vishy Tirupattur explains. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Global Director of Fixed Income Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the current calm in the corporate credit markets. It's Friday, October 29th at 1:00 p.m. in New York.Over the past few weeks, risk markets have been buffeted by volatility from a wide array of sources. It was around a month ago that the regulatory reset in China and the near-term funding pressures on select property developers roiled global markets, as investors fretted all the systemic implications for global growth.Then, a mixed U.S. jobs report, along with sharply higher commodity prices, intensified the debate around stagflation. And the rhetoric from multiple central banks has been increasingly hawkish. So, a lot for investors to take in.The combination of these concerns has resulted in substantial market gyrations. The S&P 500 index declined by about 4% before recovering to all-time highs. The shape of the Treasury yield curve has twisted and turned. The benchmark 10-year Treasury interest rate went from around 1.3% to around 1.7% and back down to 1.56%. The market pricing of the timing of a Fed rate hike has come in sharply.But amidst all these substantial moves, corporate credit markets on both sides of the Atlantic have largely stayed calm. Credit spreads, which are the risk premium investors demand to hold corporate debt or U.S. treasuries, have hovered near 52-week tights in investment grade, high yield and leveraged loans across the U.S. and Europe. And with surprisingly limited volatility.Credit market volatility relative to equity markets remains very low. Market access for companies across the credit spectrum has remained robust, as indicated by strong issuance trends, running at or ahead of the pace of a year ago. So, what explains this stark difference between credit and other markets? The answer boils down to meaningfully improved credit fundamentals and elevated company balance sheet liquidity, leading to a decidedly benign outlook for defaults over the next 12 months, if not longer.Morgan Stanley's credit strategists Srikanth Sankaran and Vishwas Patkar have highlighted that the balance sheet damage from COVID has been reversed. At the end of the second quarter this year, gross leverage in U.S. investment grade credit has declined sharply back to pre-COVID levels. Net leverage is now below pre-COVID levels, while interest coverage has risen sharply to a seven-year high. The trends in the high yield sector are even more impressive, driven not just by the rebound in earnings but also negative debt growth. After four consecutive quarters of declines from the second quarter 2020 peak, median leverage now sits below the pre-COVID trough. That 71% of the issuers are now reporting lower growth levels quarter over quarter, reflects the broad-based improvement we are seeing in the market.Even in the leveraged buyout world, while 2021 has been a bumper year for acquisition activity, unprecedented equity cushions have resulted in a much better alignment of sponsor and lender interests, helping to alleviate concerns.So, what are the implications for investors? A lot, of course, is already in the price. With credit spreads near the tight end of the spectrum, we are more likely to see them widen than tighten. Indeed, the base case expectation of our credit strategists is more modestly wider splits. However, the strength in credit fundamentals suggests that the outlook for defaults is benign, and likely below long term average default levels. Thus, we prefer taking default risk to spread risk here, leading us to favor high yield credit or investment grade credit and, within high yield, loans over bonds.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts on share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

29 Loka 20214min

One of the great conundrums of finance is predicting what markets will return over the long run. But with some historical research and the power of math, the future can become a bit clearer.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, chief cross 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 Thursday, October 28th at 2 p.m. in London.The question of what markets will return over the next decade is a conundrum. It's complicated because of just how much can change in a given year, let alone a decade, but also simple because over longer horizons, valuation measures such as bond yields or stock price-to-earnings ratios tend to matter a lot more for how well a market does. A 10-year horizon really matters to investors saving for the future. But most investors, and also this podcast tend to focus on events happening in the much more immediate future.So what do we think this return picture holds?When estimating what a market will return over the long run, there are really two basic approaches. The first, sometimes called the demand approach, assumes that markets are efficient, and that investors will always demand that the market is priced to deliver an average historical return. In this approach, future returns for the market are simply assumed to be the long run average. We don't use this approach, but others do, and it is appealing for being relatively straightforward.An alternative, which we favor, could be called the supply approach. This attempts to quantify just how much return a given asset can supply. So, for bonds with a fixed yield, this approach is attractively simple. On a 10-year horizon, the return for a broad bond index should be pretty similar to its yield today, regardless of the path that interest rates take between now and then. That might sound somewhat counterintuitive, but there's some pretty good math, we think, to back it up. After making a few minor adjustments, we think the U.S. Aggregate Bond Index may be able to supply a return of about 2% per year, over the next decade.For stocks... now there are more moving parts and more assumptions that can ultimately be proven right or wrong. The long run return of a stock market can be broken down into three parts: the dividends of the stock market pace, the growth in the market's earnings, and the change in the valuation that's applied to those earnings. The dividend yield is relatively easy to estimate, but earnings and valuations create a lot more debate.For earnings, our starting point is to assume that they grow, at least with the rate of inflation. We see a good argument for this, if prices everywhere are rising, companies should book higher sales and profits. This is one reason why equities tend to be a better asset class in higher inflation because they can grow their cash flows much more easily than, say, a bond can.So how much do earnings grow over and above the rate of inflation? We average two trend lines: a very long run trend of historical earnings growth and one that only focuses on more recent history. There are pros and cons of each. For example, only using the recent historical trend may better reflect current conditions in the market, but it also might overstate what's been an unusually favorable environment for companies. By taking the average, we split the difference. Now, with stock market earnings are above trend. We assume that there is some convergence down. And if earnings are depressed, we assume some normalization up. We think there's some good historical arguments for this, as earnings do tend to oscillate around these trend lines over time.Finally, what about those valuations? Well, we assume that valuations move back to long run averages, but do so only gradually, as we believe history says this gravitational pull takes time.Putting all of this together, we think the U.S. stock market could return about 5.2% per year over the next decade. The bad news is that's roughly half the long run average. The good news? It's still two and a half times higher than the return from that broad bond index.So where can investors find higher returns, especially relative to inflation? For equities, our framework suggests the highest so-called real returns are in Europe, where we think stocks could beat inflation by about six percent per year. In fixed income markets, we see the highest inflation adjusted returns in emerging market bonds.Finally, where could our assumptions be wrong? The return for bonds should be pretty well anchored by their yields, but for stock markets, there are several swing factors. Higher corporate taxes, for example, or higher interest rates could mean we're too optimistic about our assumptions for earnings growth and valuations. On the other hand, a stronger economy and importantly, a more permanent shift higher in market profitability could mean that our assumptions for mean reversion back to historical averages are simply too pessimistic. Either way, time will tell.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.

28 Loka 20214min

Autonomous trucking may sound like science fiction, but its impacts on transportation costs, the labor market and a breadth of industries may be closer than we think.----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, head of Morgan Stanley's Global Auto and shared mobility research team. Ravi Shanker And I'm Ravi Shankar, equity analyst covering the North American freight transportation industry. Adam Jonas And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be talking autonomous. Specifically, the road ahead for autonomous trucking. It's Wednesday, October 27th at 10 a.m. in New York. Adam Jonas Ravi, before we get into the autonomy topic, specifically, your sector really sits at the epicenter of labor inflation and driver shortage. So, just help set the scene for us. How big of a problem is this? Ravi Shanker It's pretty difficult right now. It has been the case for a while. We've had a demographic problem in trucking for pretty much the last two decades and counting. In fact, you can find news stories going back to 1910 talking about a driver shortage in the industry. But it's particularly acute right now. A lot of it is structural, not cyclical. So we think we need to find unconventional solutions to the problem. Adam Jonas So remind us why autonomy progresses faster in trucking than in cars. You and I have had this debate over many years but tell us why it's faster in trucking. Ravi Shanker It's a slightly different problem to solve with trucking. I mean, it's still a very difficult problem to solve. But the fact that 93% of miles driven of a truck are on the highway and autonomous driving is slightly easier to solve on the highway than it is in the middle of Manhattan for instance. That really helps. The fact that this is an industry that's really driven by unit economics and labor accounts for 35-40% of the cost of trucking, and if you can substitute a driver at least partially or maybe completely even, that will significantly reduce the cost of trucking. And obviously, there's a safety aspect; the fact that a truck accident can cause significant damage. And if you can have technology solve that problem and step in, that can save countless lives over time. So we think it's a slightly easier problem to solve. The economic savings may be better or easier to quantify with trucking than with passenger cars. Adam Jonas And that's a really good point, because I find in my conversations with investors that people tend to think of autonomy as this blanket homogeneous technology. But I want to understand a bit more about the economics of autonomy, payback periods, cost benefit. What are some of the highlights from the numbers that you've been running? Ravi Shanker So we think that autonomy can reduce the cost of trucking by 60%, six zero. If you can electrify the truck, that's probably another 10% on top of that. Obviously, if you take a truck company today and reduce their cost of operations by 60%, that's significant savings. On top of that, because you don't have to deal with hours of service regulations for a driver, you can significantly improve your productivity of the truck and hopefully you can gain some market share as well. So, we think that these new technology trucks cost roughly 50 to 70 thousand dollars more than a regular truck today, but the payback period can be measured in weeks and not years. Ravi Shanker So Adam, again, to me, it's relatively clear what the use case is for autonomy in trucking. Where are we with pass cars, where are those passenger robotaxis that we were promised a few years ago? Adam Jonas Well, I actually had the opportunity to ask the chair and CEO of General Motors, Mary Barra, on a Morgan Stanley video series that we published that exact question. And her response, pretty confidently was we're going to see major development in quarters, not years. Now that mission is focused on robotaxi in dense urban cities like San Francisco and other cities. Ravi, I think the definition of success there isn't that they've solved autonomy in two years because that's not something we're going to solve. We think that the definition of success there will be; are they able to fleet many tens or maybe even a couple of hundred robotaxis in a major city or a collection of major U.S. cities with driver out? Even if it's a simple mission doing a giant rectangle on a geofence or, you know, something that can resemble a streetcar without cables or a streetcar without wires. Just that proof point, even if it doesn't completely remove your driving license and substitute your commute entirely, will go a long way to convincing policymakers, investors and the general public that this is not science fiction, we're going to get there, right? Just like the barnstorming age of early aviation, these bigger and bigger feats every week, every month, we think we'll see something similar in autonomy. Ravi Shanker And maybe some of the key benefits of autonomy can be realized even with these kind of small early use cases. But I was thinking like maybe a pretty nice commonality in both our worlds, maybe the center sliver of the Venn diagram, if you will, between autonomous trucking, autonomous pass cars, is autonomous delivery vans. We've done a lot of work on what this means the last mile. Obviously, GM, Ford other OEMs have been talking about this. Where do you think we stand there in terms of these OEMs entering that market again? Adam Jonas Yeah, especially post-COVID. I mean, the growth of e-commerce and our obvious dependency, increasing dependency on final mile. That use case is perfect for electrification and autonomy. And I would just make the point that advancing the state of the art of connected car and connected car ecosystems and electric ecosystems accelerates the development of the autonomous economy too because electric cars make better AVs. And then autonomous cars make better electric cars because you can optimize the utilization and the use case and the inter workings with the infrastructure. So, I think that is a very hot area and I would agree with you there is middle ground that we're going to see in your neighborhood, perhaps sooner than people think, even if it's still at a slow speed or not all the time in all neighborhoods, in all weather conditions. Adam Jonas Before I let you go, I wanted to ask you a question that's always on people's minds and that's the impact on the workforce and jobs. How are your companies talking to current drivers about this autonomy subject? Ravi Shanker This is a really good question and obviously somewhat of a sensitive topic. I think the truck fleet operators want to be very careful and very clear that trucking is not going to displace every truck driver or like hundreds of thousands of truck jobs any time soon. In fact, we had a report that was commissioned and published by the Department of Transportation a few months ago, it was earlier this year that basically said that even with a bullish base of adoption of autonomous trucking, they did not see risk to significant job losses in the trucking space just given the extreme truck driver shortage that we already have and the limited new labor supply that's going into this industry. So, it's something to be very cognizant of, something to be very sensitive about, but at the same time, we think the technology can actually help the industry and not be a hindrance. Ravi Shanker So Adam, taking everything we've discussed today into account, what are the investment implications of this? Adam Jonas There's really lots of different ways you could express an investment opinion. I think Apple CEO Tim Cook once described autonomy as the mother of all AI. In the auto industry, many of our clients see it, as you know, the ultimate internet of things, internet of cars. And so, there are a variety of adjacent industries, both within auto and transportation, but also technology enablers, sensor companies, semiconductors, processors, A.I. companies, network operators, data. There's all sorts of ways to express it across industries. And interestingly, according to your work, the beneficiaries of autonomy ultimately extend across multiple industries, right? Fleet operators and frankly, ultimately, the consumer, too. So, the question might be what sector isn't exposed to this technological revolution? Adam Jonas All right, Ravi, thanks for taking the time to chat. Ravi Shanker Absolutely, Adam. Great speaking with you. Adam Jonas 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.

28 Loka 20218min

Debates in D.C. continue to make headlines, but even with lowered expectations for the Biden agenda, we find a robust set of climate-focused provisions likely to survive the process and benefit the clean tech sector. ----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, head of U.S. public policy research and municipal strategy for Morgan Stanley.Stephen Byrd And I'm Stephen Byrd, head of Morgan Stanley's North American Research for the Power and Utilities and Clean Energy Industries.Michael Zezas And on this edition of the podcast, we'll be talking about clean energy and the latest developments for the bipartisan infrastructure deal and President Biden's build back better agenda. It's Tuesday, October 26th at 10 a.m. in New York.Michael Zezas So Steven, with the negotiations winding down on the legislation Congress is considering around the president's economic agenda, I wanted to speak with you because you cover a sector, clean tech, that's really at the nexus of many things Congress and the White House are trying to achieve. In particular, even as the size of the economic and climate package has been cut from $6 trillion dollars to $3.5 trillion dollars now, perhaps as low as $1.5 trillion dollars, one constant has been a potentially large amount earmarked for clean energy infrastructure. By our estimate, there could be roughly $500 billion of new money allocated towards this goal. So, last month on the podcast, you outlined eight headline proposals, maybe we could start by updating everyone on those proposals as they stand now in the scaled back version of the bill.Stephen Byrd Yeah, thanks, Mike. There is still a lot of support for clean energy in the draft legislation. Let me walk through the eight elements that investors have been most focused on to give you a sense for just how broad that support is.Stephen Byrd Number one, and the boldest of these proposals is a clean electricity performance program or CEPP. This would essentially push all utilities and load serving entities to adopt clean energy and phase out fossil fuels. Number two is a new tax credit for energy storage and biofuels. Number three is a major extension of tax credits for wind, solar, fuel cells and carbon capture, and the payment for many of these technologies is higher than they've been in the past. Number four is significant incentives for domestic manufacturing of clean energy equipment. Number five is what's often referred to as direct pay for tax credits. This essentially provides owners with the immediate cash benefit of tax losses; that avoids these companies needing to go monetize those tax losses via the tax equity market to the same extent that they do now. Number six is support for nuclear power. There's a production tax credit for nuclear power output. Number seven is a major clean hydrogen tax credit. And number eight is significant capital to reduce the risk of wildfires. So it is very broad, very far reaching. It has impacts across the board.Michael Zezas So, which kinds of companies do you think stand to benefit the most from this funding?Stephen Byrd It's really interesting, quite a few subsectors that I cover would receive significant benefit here, I'll highlight the biggest beneficiary. So first, any company involved in green hydrogen, I see quite a bit of benefit here. The tax credit for green hydrogen is $3 a kilogram. That is a very large amount. And we think will incent customers to adopt green hydrogen more quickly. It will incent developers to build out the infrastructure needed to both produce and distribute green hydrogen. So, a number of companies from fuel cell companies to those involved in the industrial gas business to clean energy developers, I think will see a significant benefit there. Another category would be renewable development companies. So, the tax credit for wind and solar and storage is increased. In the case of storage, this is the first time energy storage would get a tax credit, and this further lowers the cost of clean energy. Another category that could be quite significant is carbon capture and sequestration. This technology would receive a significant benefit in terms of the payment per ton of hydrogen. And we believe in many cases, this is going to be really the amount needed to get essentially over the finish line. That is, to provide enough support for those big carbon capture projects to actually get built, which is really quite exciting. Biofuels gets a big benefit. Anyone who wants nuclear power would receive a significant benefit. And also, companies that are working to reduce the risk of wildfires would receive significant government support. So, you can tell it's just very broad and touches on really every subsector that we cover.Michael Zezas Now, the Clean Electricity Performance Program, or CEPP, will likely end up on the cutting room floor. Why is this program's exclusion not a bigger problem in your mind?Stephen Byrd The CEPP, it's really interesting. It certainly is a very bold effort to reduce fossil fuel usage. What we find here, though, is that all of the other provisions are so significant that we believe the adoption of clean energy will continue at a rapid rate. To give you a sense, in 2020 renewable energy in the United States was about 11 percent of power output. By 2030, we project that that can approach around 40 percent. That is a huge increase in just a decade. That is predominantly driven by economics. The cost of wind, solar and energy storage is dropping so quickly that many customers are adopting clean energy based purely on economic grounds, and the elements of support in this draft legislation would further enhance those economics and push customers in that direction anyway. So, we do see a big shift occurring, with or without the CEPP. Fortunately, there are many other elements of support in this draft legislation that we think is going to really provide a boost to many clean tech technologies, many business models, and we're excited about the growth that that would bring.Michael Zezas What about the other types of companies you cover, utilities? This government investment seems like a step toward developing a very different type of business model for them. What do you think the outlook for the sector is?Stephen Byrd I'd say the government support for clean energy that's in this draft legislation does have a number of benefits for utilities. So, we see in parts of the country a virtuous cycle that's been forming. And let me walk through how this is playing out. The coal power plants in many parts of the U.S. are quite expensive compared to renewable energy. So, for example, in the Midwest, the cash cost to run a coal plant could be three times as high as it costs to build a new wind farm. And so what utilities are doing is they are in a very careful, measured way shutting down coal, replacing that coal typically with a combination of wind and solar and energy storage. And typically, customer bills are not going up as a result, because of the benefit from avoiding the cost of running those coal plants. That virtuous cycle is resulting in better earnings per share growth. Now, with the government support that we're seeing in this draft legislation, that shift will accelerate. We will see more transmission spending, for example, more energy storage spending. It will boost the economics of wind and solar, which is fantastic. Also, in terms of risk mitigation, the capital that's in the bill that would help with dealing with the physical damage from climate change, such as wildfires, is another area of benefit. The cost from climate change to our sector is rising. And so government support there will help essentially defray a cost that's becoming quite significant for some of our utilities. So, you know, I think you're right to point this out. The utility sector is quite a big beneficiary here. And, you know, many of our best-in-class utilities can achieve, we think 7%, sometimes 8% EPS growth over a very long time period. By very long, I mean, a multi-decade time period. That to us is quite exciting because risk adjusted, that growth is quite excellent. For many of our utilities, the risk to achieve that is fairly low because the economics of what they're doing is so clear and so compelling. So, we are excited about the impacts to the utility sector.Michael Zezas Steven, thanks for taking the time to talk.Stephen Byrd Great talking with you, Michael.Michael Zezas As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

26 Loka 20218min