Europe in the Global AI Race

Moves by the Bank of Japan, the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and new economic data may all have contributed to a spike in bond yields and fall in stock prices.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Fixed Income 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 Friday, August 4th at 2 p.m. in London. After a placid July, August has opened with a bout of volatility. In one sense, this isn't unusual. July is historically one of the best months of the year for global equity performance, August and September are two of the worst. But the way markets have weakened has been more striking. Long term bond yields rose sharply this week, with the U.S. 30 year bond yield rising 27 basis points over the course of the last five days. Long term rates in the UK and Germany also rose sharply. Equity markets fell. Those facts are clear and indisputable. But why interest rates rose so much, and whether they're responsible for equity weakness? That, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is a lot less clear. Indeed, there's more than one driver of last week's events. Maybe it's the Bank of Japan, which late last week raised the effective cap on Japanese government bond yields, which went on to rise sharply over the course of this week. Maybe it's the Fitch rating agency, which on Tuesday downgraded the credit rating of the United States by one notch to AA+. And maybe it's the US economic data, which has been quite strong, something that usually corresponds to higher rates. There's also the way that yields have risen. While long term U.S. interest rates rose sharply, shorter two year yields barely budged over the last week and in the UK and Germany, those two year yields actually fell. The large move higher in U.S. rates has also occurred while the market's actually lowered its assumption about long run inflation, another unusual occurrence. In reality, the drivers of these recent events might be all of the above. The initial rise in U.S. yields matched the move higher in Japanese rates, almost one for one. But we do think that move in Japanese rates is now mostly complete. The timing of Fitch's downgrade, which was somewhat unusual, given that there hasn't been any recent legislation to change fiscal policy and the fact that it happened at the start of August, a month that often sees less liquidity, might have given it an outsized impact. And the economic data has been good, suggesting that the U.S. economy for now is handling higher rates, a development that would generally support higher yields and a steeper curve. And in terms of the global equity reaction, some perspective is probably helpful. While last week saw higher yields and lower prices, since early April, both nominal yields, real yields and global stock prices have all risen together and by quite a bit. Now, it's possible that this relationship between stocks and bonds shifted some this week based on simply how much equity valuations have appreciated, as my colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's Chief Equity Strategist, has noted recently. Higher yields make a focus on valuation more important and also make it more essential that good data, the best version of that higher yield story, continues to come through. In bonds, meanwhile, the recent rise in yields is boosting expected returns going forward. On Morgan Stanley's base case forecast, the U.S. ten year Treasury through the middle of 2024 will return over 10%. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts of the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

4 Elo 20233min

While rate hikes and work from home are depressing office real estate in the U.S., the market is vast globally, and there are clear differences across regions and asset types, ranging from occupancy to design to financing.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, Head of Morgan Stanley's U.S. Real Estate Investment Trust and Commercial Real Estate Research. Today, I'll be talking about our outlook for the future of the global office real estate market. It's Thursday, August 3rd at 10 a.m. in New York. There is more than 6 billion square feet of office space across the globe with value of more than 4 trillion U.S. dollars. Within this vast market, there are clear differences across the regions, ranging from occupancy to design to financing. In the U.S., office real estate fundamentals this cycle appear worse than they were during the great financial crisis of 2008 in terms of occupancy, subleasing activity and office utilization. In fact, overall, U.S. office utilization seems to be stalling at 20 to 55% compared to other regional markets in the 60 to 80% range. This trend will likely remain in place as key U.S. tenants are looking to reduce office space by about 10% over the next three years. Work from home and hybrid arrangements are the biggest drivers, particularly with business services and technology focused firms on the West Coast. In addition, sharp rate hikes and regional bank weakness have driven up loan-to-value ratios in the U.S. versus global peers. Looking at other countries, Australia and Mexico may be having similar problems as far as work from home is concerned, but average loan-to-value ratios are much lower, which lenders typically consider a good sign. Mainland China is unique among our coverage markets for having declining rates. Hong Kong seems to be the most undervalued and closer to bottoming, and we prefer it over Singapore, Japan and Australia. In Latin America, we remain on the sidelines. Despite the increase in net absorption growth, the office real estate market is still showing a slow paced recovery from pandemic levels, especially in Mexico. All in all, global office markets remain 10 to 15% oversupplied. While higher vacancy is an issue impacting all countries, an important emerging theme across the various region as a bias towards newer and greener buildings. Our channel checks with tenants and landlords suggests that as employees, especially the younger cohorts, choose to work for organizations with strong climate change values, employers will seek to establish offices and more energy efficient buildings. Also, in an effort to encourage office attendance and in-person collaboration, occupiers are gravitating toward younger buildings with more attractive amenities. Overall, as we look across regions and countries, one common thread is what we call "bifurcation", that is a widening gap between the class-A prime assets and the rest of the commodity B&C space, which is happening at an accelerating pace. We believe it would take 5 to 13 years for the global office market to return to pre-COVID occupancy levels. However, the class A prime assets can recover in half the time as the rest of the market and newer, greener buildings in particular are likely to be most favored. Bottom line for the U.S looking at fundamentals is that New York and Boston on the East Coast are showing the most resilient trends. Downtown L.A., downtown San Francisco, downtown Seattle and even Chicago are showing the most headwinds, sunbelt markets are somewhere in between but have been lowing. 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.

3 Elo 20233min

The recent downgrade to Fitch's U.S. credit rating should have less of an impact on demand for bonds than the ongoing trajectory of inflation.----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the U.S. downgrade to bond markets. It's Wednesday, August 2nd at 11 a.m. in New York. Yesterday, one of the three main rating agencies, Fitch, downgraded the U.S's credit rating to AA+ from AAA. The U.S. now only has one AAA rating left. Fitch attributed the change to the US's growing debt burden and a, quote, "erosion of governance", unquote, specifically referring to debt ceiling standoffs over the past decade as a cause for concern. The tone of this language may understandably elicit concern from investors, but practically speaking, does it actually matter? In our view, in the short term, probably not. First off, the downgrade doesn't communicate anything investors didn't already know about the level and trajectory of U.S. debt and deficits. Second, it doesn't tell us anything forward looking about arguably the biggest factor influencing whether or not investors want to own bonds at their current prices, inflation. Third, a ratings downgrade doesn't appear to trigger any structural change in bond demand. Unpacking that last point a bit more, let's look at the main holders of U.S. Treasuries, the Fed, banks, overseas holders and households. The Fed is under no obligation to adjust Treasury holdings based on credit ratings. It's a similar situation for banks whose incentive to own treasuries is based on risk weightings determined by U.S. regulators, we view as very unlikely to adjust regulations to align with a ratings opinion they likely don't agree with. Overseas holders typically own treasuries because they have U.S. dollars from doing business with U.S. customers, and we don't see their desire to do business with U.S. companies and consumers changing because of a ratings opinion. As for households, it's possible that some mutual funds and separately managed accounts could want to sell treasuries if they're under a mandate to only own assets rated AAA, but we suspect this type of vulnerability is small and easily absorbable by the market. It's also possible there could be some selling of lower rated bonds, given some portfolios have to maintain an average credit rating, which could be lessened on this downgrade if they own treasuries. But those portfolios could just as easily restore an average credit rating by buying more treasuries versus selling lower rated bonds. Bottom line, we think investors should look beyond the downgrade and stay focused on the U.S. macro debates that have and continue to matter to markets this year, the trajectory of inflation and whether or not the Fed can control it without a recession resulting. 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.

3 Elo 20232min

While the U.S. economy appears on track to avoid a recession, investors should still consider the implications of an upcoming wave of maturities in corporate credit.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I will be talking about potential risk to the economy. It's Tuesday, August 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. Another FOMC meeting came and went. To nobody's surprise the Fed hiked the target Fed funds rate by 25 basis points. Beyond the hike, the July FOMC statement had nearly no changes. While data on inflation and jobs are moving in the right direction, the Fed remains far from its 2% inflation goal. That said, Fed Chair Powell stressed that the Fed is closer to its destination, that monetary policies is in restrictive territory and is likely to stay there for some time. Broadly, the outcome of the market was in line with our economists expectation that the federal funds rate has peaked, will remain unchanged for an extended period, and the first 25 basis point cut will be delivered in March 2024. Powell sounded more confident in a soft landing, citing the gradual adjustment in the labor market and noting that despite 525 basis point policy tightening, the unemployment rate remains at the same level it was pre-COVID. The fact that the Fed has been able to bring inflation down without a meaningful rise in unemployment, he described as quote unquote "blessing". He noted that the Fed staff are no longer forecasting a recession, given the resilience in the economy. This specter of soft landing, meaning a recession is not imminent, is something our economists have been calling for some time. This has now become more broadly accepted across market participants, albeit somewhat reluctantly. The obvious question, therefore, is what are the risks ahead and what are the paths for such risks to materialize? One such potential risk emanates from the rising wave of credit maturities from the corporate credit markets. While company balance sheets, by and large, are in a good shape now, given how far interest rates have risen and how quickly they have done so, as that debt begins to mature and needs to be refinanced, it will happen at sharply higher rates. From now through the end of 2024, almost a trillion of corporate debt will mature. Sim ply by holding rates constant, that refinancing will represent a tightening of financial conditions. Fortunately, a high proportion of the debt comes from investment grade borrowers and does not appear to be particularly challenging. However, below investment grade debt has a tougher path ahead for refinancing. As we continue through 2024 and get into 2025, more and more high yield bonds and leveraged loans will need to be refinanced. All else equal, the default rates in high yield bonds and leveraged loans currently hovering around 2.5% may double to over 5% in the next 12 months. The forecasts of our economists point to a further slowdown in the economy from here, as the rest of the standard lags of policy are felt. We continue to think that such a slowing could necessitate a re-examination of the lower end of the credit spectrum. The ongoing challenges in the regional banking sector only add to this problem. In our view, in the list of risks to the U.S. economy, the rising wave of maturities in the corporate debt markets is notable. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

1 Elo 20233min

With uncertainty around the effects of new central bank policy, investors should be on the lookout for sales growth, cost cutting and sectors that might be turning a corner on performance.----- 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, July 31st, 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. This past week was an extremely busy one for global central banks, with the Fed and European Central Bank raising interest rates again by 25 basis points, while leaving the door open to either more hikes or pausing indefinitely. They remain data dependent. However, the biggest change may have come from the Bank of Japan. More specifically, the Bank of Japan decided to get the ball rolling on ending its long standing policy of yield curve control, a policy under which it maintains a cap on interest rates across the curve. This is an important pivot in our view, as it signals the Bank of Japan's willingness to join the fight against inflation. In short, it's incrementally hawkish for global bond markets. For U.S. equity investors, the main focus has been on the Fed getting closer to the end of its tightening campaign. The key question from investors is whether that means the Fed has orchestrated a soft landing or if a recession is unavoidable. While many investors remain skeptical of the soft landing outcome, equity markets have traded so well this year that these same investors have been swayed into thinking a soft landing is now the highest probability outcome. We believe equity markets are in a classic policy driven late cycle rally. Furthermore, the excitement over a Fed pause has been supported by very strong fiscal impulse and a still supportive global liquidity backdrop, even with central banks tightening. The latest example of a similar late cycle period occurred in 2019. Back then, a robust rally in equities was driven almost exclusively by valuations rather than earnings, like this year. Both then and now, Mega- cap growth stocks were the best performers as equity market internals processed a path to easier monetary policy and lower interest rates. The 2019 analogy suggests more index level upside from here, however, we would note that the Fed was already cutting interest rates for a good portion of 2019, leaving ten year Treasury yields 200 basis points lower than they are today. Nevertheless, equity valuations are 5% higher now than in 2019. The other scenario is that we are in a new cyclical upturn and growth is about to reaccelerate sharply for both the economy and earnings. While we're open minded to this new view materializing next year, we'd like to see a broader swath of business cycle indicators inflect, higher, breadth improve and short term interest rates come down before adjusting our stance in this regard. In other words, the current progression of these factors does not yet look like prior new cyclical upturns. Meanwhile, earnings season has been a fade the news so far, with the average stock down about 1% post results. This is worse than the past eight quarters where stocks are flat to up. While hardly a disaster, we think companies will have to start delivering better sales growth to outperform from here. On that score, even the large cap growth stocks have been mostly cost cutting stories to date. Another interesting observation over the past month is that the worst performing sectors are starting to exhibit the best breadth of performance, namely energy, utilities and health care. Industrials is the only leading sector with improving breath. Given the uncertainty there remains about the economic outcome in central bank policy, investors should look to the laggards with good breadth for relative performance catch up. Our top picks are healthcare, utilities and energy. 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.

31 Heinä 20233min

Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets explains why it’s increasingly more favorable to be a lender than an asset owner.----- 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 Friday, July 28th at 2 p.m. in London. Markets have been stronger than we expected. Some of the story is straight forward, some of it is not. Indeed across asset classes, the capital structure increasingly looks upside down. Our investment strategy has been based on the assumption that strong developed market growth was set to slow sharply as post-COVID stimulus waned and policy tightened at the fastest pace in 40 years. Sharp slowing, from an elevated base, has often rewarded more defensive investment positioning. But our assumption about this growth backdrop has simply been wrong. Growth has been good, with the U.S. printing yet another set of better than expected economic data this week. 20 years from now, an investor looking back on the first half of 2023 might find nothing particularly out of place. The economic data was good and surprisingly so, stocks, especially more cyclical ones, outperform bonds. Yet that straightforward story has happened alongside something more unusual. Across markets, we can observe a capital structure, that is how much investors are expected to earn as the owner of an asset, a company, an office building and so on, relative to being the lender to the asset. The lender should get a lower return since they're taking less risk, and over the last decade, very low borrowing rates have meant that that very much is the case. But it's been shifting. To varying degrees, the capital structure now looks almost upside down, with high yields on debt relative to more junior exposure, or the yield on the underlying asset. And we see this in several areas. In U.S. corporates, higher equity valuations have meant that the forward earnings yield for the Russell 1000, at about 4.8%, is now below the yield on US investment grade corporate debt at about 5.5%, and the difference between these two is only been more extreme in about 2% of observations over the last 20 years. In real estate, yields on debt have risen much faster than capitalization rates, that is the yield on the underlying real estate asset, and that's happened across both commercial and residential segments. And across leveraged loans and collateralized loan obligations, or CLO's, the so-called CLO ARB, which is the difference between the yield on the CLO loan collateral and the weighted cost of its liabilities, are unusually low. And we've also seen this in the loan market.For much of the last decade, the economics of borrowing to buy assets has been attractive. As the examples I've mentioned try to show, these economics are changing. Across scenarios where growth stays solid or especially if it slows, we think being the lender to an asset rather than its owner, is now often the better risk/reward. 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 Heinä 20233min

With higher quality and lower costs, China’s electric vehicles could lead a shift in the global auto industry.----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan Stanley's Global Autos and Share Mobility Team. Tim Hsaio: And Tim Hsaio Greater China Auto Analyst. Adam Jonas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we're going to discuss how China Electric vehicles are reshaping the global auto market. It's Thursday, July 27th at 8 a.m. in New York. Tim Hsaio: And 8 p.m in Hong Kong. Adam Jonas: For decades, global autos have been dominated by established, developed market brands with little focus on electric vehicles or EVs, particularly for the mass market. As things stand today, affordable EVs are few and far between, and this undersupply presents a major global challenge. At Morgan Stanley Equity Research, we think the auto industry will undergo a major reshuffling in the next decade as affordable EVs from emerging markets capture significant global market share. Tim, you believe China made EVs will be at the center of this upcoming shakeup of the global auto industry, are we at an inflection point and how did we get here? Tim Hsaio: Thanks, Adam. Yeah, we are definitely at a very critical inflection point at the moment. Firstly, since last year, as you may notice that China has outsized Germany car export and soon surpassed Japan in the first half of this year as the world's largest auto exporter. So now we believe China made EVs infiltrating the West, challenging their global peers, backed by not just cheaper prices but the improving variety and quality. And separately, we believe that affordability remains the key mitigating factors to global EV adoption, as Rastan brands have been slow to advance their EV strategy for their mass market. A lack of affordable models actually challenged global adoption, but we believe that that creates a great opportunity to EV from China where a lot of affordable EVs will soon fill in the vacuum and effectively meet the need for cheaper EV. So we believe that we are definitely at an inflection point. Adam Jonas: So Tim, it's safe to say that the expansionary strategy of China EVs is not just a fad, but real solid trend here? Tim Hsaio: Totally agree. We think it's going to be a long lasting trend because you think about what's happened over the past ten years. China has been a major growth engine to curb auto demands, contributing more than 300% of a sales increment. And now we believe China will transport itself into the key supply driver to the world, they initially by exporting cheaper EV and over time shifting course to transplant and foreign production just similar to Japan and Korea autos back to 1970 to 1990. And we believe China EVs are making inroads into more than 40 countries globally. Just a few years ago, the products made by China were poorly designed, but today they surpass rival foreign models on affordability, quality and even detector event user experience. So Adam, essentially, we are trying to forecast the future of EVs in China and the rest of the world, and this topic sits right at the heart of all three big things Morgan Stanley Research is exploring this year, the multipolar world, decarbonization and technology diffusion. So if we take a step back to look at the broader picture of what happens to supply chain, what potential scenarios for an auto industry realignment do you foresee? And which regions other than China stand to benefit or be negatively impacted? Adam Jonas: So, Tim, look, I think there's certainly room to diversify and rebalance at the margin away from China, which has such a dominant position in electric vehicles today, and it was their strategy to fulfill that. But you also got to make room for them. Okay. And there's precedent here because, you know, we saw with the Japanese auto manufacturers in the 1970s and 1980s, a lot of people doubted them and they became dominant in foreign markets. Then you had the Korean auto companies in the 1990s and 2000s. So, again, China's lead is going to be long lasting, but room for on-shoring and near-shoring, friend shoring. And we would look to regions like ASEAN, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, also the Middle East, such as Morocco, which has an FTA agreement with the U.S. and Saudi, parts of Scandinavia and Central Europe, and of course our trade partners in North America, Mexico and Canada. So, we’ re witnessing an historic re-industrialization of some parts of the world that where we thought we lost some of our heavy industry. Tim Hsaio: So in a context of a multipolar trends, we are discussing Adam, how do you think a global original equipment manufacturers or OEM or the car makers and the policymakers will react to China's growing importance in the auto industry? Adam Jonas: So I think the challenge is how do you re-architect supply chains and still have skin in the game and still be relevant in these markets? It's going to take time. We think you're going to see the established auto companies, the so-called legacy car companies, seek partnerships in areas where they would otherwise struggle to bring scale. Look to diversify and de-risk their supply chains by having a dual source both on-shore and near-shore, in addition to their established China exposed supply chains. Some might choose to vertically integrate, and we've seen some striking partners upstream with mining companies and direct investments. Others might find that futile and work with battery firms and other structures without necessarily owning the technology. But we think most importantly, the theme is you're not going to be cutting out the world's second largest GDP, which already has such a dominant position in this important market, so the Western firms are going to work with the Chinese players. And the ones that can do that we think will be successful. And I'd bring our listeners attention to a recent precedent of a large German OEM and a state sponsored Chinese car company that are working together on electric vehicle architecture, which is predominantly the Chinese architecture. We think that's quite telling and you're going to see more of that kind of thing. Tim Hsaio: So Adam, is there anything the market is missing right now? Adam Jonas: A few things, Tim, but I think the most obvious one to me is just how good these Chinese EVs are. We think the market's really underestimating that, in terms of quality safety features, design. You know, you're seeing Chinese car companies hiring the best engineers from the German automakers coming, making these beautiful, beautiful vehicles, high quality. Another thing that we think is underestimated are the environmental externalities from battery manufacturing, batteries are an important technology for decarbonization. But the supply chain itself has some very inconvenient ESG externalities, labor to emissions and others. And I would say, final thing that we think the market is missing is there's an assumption that just because the electric vehicle and the supporting battery business, because it's a large and fast growing, that it has to be a high return business. And we are skeptical of that. Precedents from the solar polysilicon and LED TVs and others where when you get capital working and you've got state governments all around the world providing incentives that you get the growth, but you don't necessarily get great returns for shareholders, so it's a bit of a warning to investors to be cautious, be opportunistic, but growth doesn't necessarily mean great returns. Tim, let's return to China for a minute and as I ask you one final question, where will growing China's EV exports go and what is your outlook for the next one or two years as well as the next decade? Tim Hsaio: Eventually, I think China EVs will definitely want to grow their presence worldwide. But initially, we believe that there are two major markets they want to focus on. First one would be Europe. I think the China's export or the local brands there will want to leverage their BEV portfolio, battery EV, to grow their presence in Europe. And the other key market would be ASEAN country, Southeast Asia. I think the Chinese brands where the China EV can leverage their plug-in hybrid models to grow their presence in ASEAN. The major reason is that we noticed that in Southeast Asia the charging infrastructure is still underdeveloped, so the plug-in hybrid would be the more ideal solution to that market. And for the next 1 to 2 years, we are currently looking for the China the EV export to grow by like 50 to 60% every year. And in that long-terms, as you may notice that currently China made vehicles account for only 3% of cars sold outside China. But in the next decade we are looking for one third of EVs sold in overseas would be China made, so they are going to be the leader of the EV sold globally. Adam Jonas: Tim, thanks for taking the time to talk. Tim Hsaio: Great speaking with you Adam.Adam Jonas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

27 Heinä 20239min

Investors are questioning what new policy changes the 2024 election might bring, how the changes could affect markets and when they should start paying attention.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed-Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about what investors need to know about the 2024 U.S. election. It's Wednesday, July 26th at 11 a.m. in New York. As the press starts to focus more and more on the 2024 election, so have our clients leading many questions to come our way about who we think will be the next president and what we think they might do that could influence markets. As listeners of this podcast are surely aware, here at Morgan Stanley Research, we obviously care a great deal about elections and their consequences for markets. So then you might be surprised to know that our response so far to 2024 election questions has been, 'Nothing to see here, at least not yet'. There's two reasons behind this thinking. First, there's no data out there that can tell us much about what the election outcome will be. Polls are, in our view, better predictive tools and they've recently gotten credit for, but polls taken today about presidential candidates over a year away from the election have no track record of predicting anything. The same is true for polls about who the challenging party's nominee will be. And modern U.S. electoral history is full of examples where party nomination frontrunners have either faded or won the nomination, so there's no pattern to rely on there. In short, if you're interested in knowing who will win the election, there's not much to do but watch and wait. Second, the policy consequences of the election that might matter to markets could evolve greatly over the next 12 months in unpredictable ways. For example, in 2019, the 2020 election seemed set to be all about health care policy, and investors were intensely focused on the potential impact to the pharma sector. But when the pandemic hit, the election's importance to the market became more macro, it was all about the potential for more fiscal stimulus, shifting the election from an equity sector story to one that mattered to the overall stock index and bond yields. In 2007, the 2008 election seemed poised to be all about foreign policy, but then the financial crisis hit and markets again cared about how the outcome would affect potential fiscal stimulus and bank regulation. We could go on, but the point is this, history tells us this election will matter greatly to markets, but it's way too early to reliably know how it will matter. Now, rest assured, while we're suggesting investors don't have to pay close attention to the US election yet, we are paying attention and putting plenty of time into assessing the various plausible impacts the election could have. In particular around tax policy, tech regulation, defense spending, and refreshing our framework for how fiscal policy in the U.S. reacts to political conditions and party control in Congress. Of course, we'll flag for you when we think it's a productive time to join us in this early preparation, so that when the election and its consequences come more into focus, you'll be front footed. 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.

26 Heinä 20233min