Europe in the Global AI Race

Original Release on June, 6th 2023: Consumers in the U.S. are largely returning to pre-COVID spending levels, but new behaviors related to travel, credit availability and inflation have emerged.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we're taking a look at the state of the U.S. consumer as we approach the midyear mark. It's Tuesday, June 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. Michelle Weaver: In order to talk about where the consumer is right now, let's take it back two and a half years. It's January 2021, and households are slowly emerging from their COVID hibernations, but we're still months away from the broad distribution of the vaccine. Consumers are allocating 5% more of their wallet share to goods than before COVID, driving record consumption of electronics, home furnishings, sporting goods and recreational vehicles. All the things you needed to make staying at home a little bit better. Our U.S. economists at Morgan Stanley made a high conviction call in early 2021 that vaccine distribution would flip the script and drive a surge in services spending and a payback in goods spending. Sara, to what extent has this reversion played out and where do you think the U.S. consumer is now? Sarah Wolfe: The reversion is definitely played out, but there's been some big surprises. Basically, the spending pie has just been greater overall than expected, and that's thanks to unprecedented fiscal stimulus, excess savings and significant supply shortages. So we've not only seen a shift away from goods and toward services, but a much larger spending pie overall. The result has been a 13% surge in goods inflation over nearly three years, an acceleration in services inflation, and a return to pre-COVID spending habits that's much greater in real spending terms than in nominal terms. So if we look in the details, where has the payback been the largest? We've seen the biggest payback in home furnishing, home equipment, jewelry, watches, recreational vehicles, but we've seen the most robust recovery in discretionary services like dining out, going to a hotel, public transportation and recreational services. Michelle Weaver: Sara, has the recent turmoil in the banking sector affected the U.S. consumer and do you think there's a credit crunch going on right now? Sarah Wolfe: Bank funding costs have risen meaningfully and are expected to rise further, leading to tighter lending standards, slower loan growth and wider loan spreads. But let me be clear, this is not a credit crunch, nor do we expect it to be. We think about the pass through from tighter lending standards to the consumer to ways directly and indirectly. The direct channel is tighter lending standards for loans on consumer products, including credit cards and autos, and indirectly through tighter lending standards for businesses, which has knock-on effects for job growth. We've already seen the direct channel of consumer spending in the past year, as interest rates on new consumer loan products hit 20 to 30-year highs, raising overall debt service costs and forcing consumers to reduce purchases of interest sensitive goods. Dwindling supply of credit as banks tighten lending standards is also dampening consumption. Michelle Weaver: Great. And given that credit is getting a little bit tougher to come by, can you tell us what's happening with savings and what's happening with the labor market and labor income? Sarah Wolfe: This is very timely. Just a few days ago, we got a very strong jobs report for May. I think that this really supports our call for a soft landing, and even though consumers are increasingly worried about the economic outlook, about financial prospects, it's clear that we still have momentum in the economy and that the Fed can achieve its 2% inflation target without driving the unemployment rate significantly higher. We are seeing under the details that consumer spending is slowing, there's a pullback in discretionary happening, there's a bit of trade down behavior. But with the labor market remaining robust, it's going to keep spending afloat and prevent this hard landing scenario. Michelle, let me turn it to you now, let's drill down into some specifics. What are the latest spending trends around spending plans you're seeing in your consumer survey? Michelle Weaver: Sure. So consumers expect to pull back on spending for most categories that we asked them about over the next six months. And the only categories where they expect to spend more are necessities like groceries and household products. We also added two new questions to this round of the survey to figure out which discretionary categories are most at risk of a pullback in spending. We asked consumers to order categories based on spending priority and identify categories where they would pull back on spending if forced to reduce household expenses. We found that travel and live entertainment were most at risk of a pull back, and this isn't just a case of income groups having different attitudes towards spending, we saw similar prioritization across income cohorts. Sarah Wolfe: So you mentioned travel, travel's been in a boom state in the post-COVID world. But you're saying now that households are reporting that they would pull back if they needed to. Are we seeing that already? What do we expect for summer travel? What do we expect for the remainder of the year? Michelle Weaver: So the data I was just referencing was if you had to reduce your household expenses, how would you do it? And travel was identified there. So that's not a plan that's currently in place. But summer travel may be a bit softer this year versus last year. In our survey, we asked consumers if they're planning to travel more, the same amount or less than last summer, and we found that a greater proportion of consumers are planning to travel less this year. Budgets are also smaller for summer travel this year, with more than a third of consumers expecting to spend less. We're seeing a mixed picture from the company side. Airlines are seeing very strong results still, and Memorial Day weekend proved to be very strong.. But the data around hotels has started to weaken and the revenue per available room that hotels have been able to generate has been pretty choppy and forward bookings that hotels are seeing have actually been flat to down for the summer. Demand for resorts and economy hotels has fallen but demand for urban market hotels still remained very strong. Sarah, how does this deceleration, both services and goods growth play into your team's long standing argument for a soft landing for the economy? Sarah Wolfe: It's really the key to inflation coming down and avoiding a hard landing. With less pent up demand left for services spending and a strong labor market recovery, supply demand imbalances in the services sector are slowly resolving themselves. We estimate that there's a point three percentage point pass through from services wages to core core services inflation throughout any given year. Core core services, is services excluding housing inflation. So with compensation for services providing industries already decelerating for the past five quarters, we do expect the largest impact of core services inflation to occur in the back half of this year. So that's going to see a more meaningful step down in inflationary pressures later this year. This combined with a rising savings rate, so a shrinking spending pie, means that there's just going to be less demand for goods and services together this year. Altogether, it will enable the Fed to make progress towards its 2% inflation target without driving the economy into a recession. Michelle Weaver: Sarah, thank you for taking the time to talk. Sarah Wolfe: It was great speaking with you, Michelle. Michelle Weaver: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

30 Kesä 20237min

A surprising increase in the sale of new homes doesn’t mean that overall demand for housing is on the rise. Find out what to expect for the rest of the year.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing market. It's Thursday, June 29th at 11am in New York. Jay Bacow: All right, Jim. We put out our mid-year outlook about a month ago, and since we put out that outlook, we've had a breadth of housing data and it feels like you can pick any portion of that housing data, sales, starts, home prices and it's telling a different story. Which one are we supposed to read? Jim Egan: I think that's a really important point. The U.S. housing market right now is not a monolith, and there are different fundamental drivers going on with each of these characteristics, each of these statistics that are pushing them in different directions. Let's start with new home sales. I think that was the most positive, we could say the strongest print from the past month. The consensus expectation, just to put this in context, was a month over month decrease of 1.2%, instead, we got an increase of 12.2%. To put it succinctly, new home sales are basically the only game in town. Existing listings remain incredibly low. We've talked about affordability deterioration on this podcast. We've talked about the lock in effect, the fact that the effective mortgage rate for existing homeowners right now is over three points below the prevailing mortgage rate. That just means there's no inventory. If you want to buy a home right now, there's a much greater likelihood that it's a new home sale than at any point in the past 10 to 15 years. And new home sales were the only housing statistic in our mid-year forecast where we projected a year over year increase in 2023 versus 2022 because of these dynamics. Jay Bacow: All right. So that's the new home sales story. Does that mean that we're just, broadly speaking, supposed to expect more housing activity? Jim Egan: This is the single most frequent question that we've been getting the past two weeks because of this data that's come in. And what we want to be careful to do here is not conflate this growth in new home sales with a swelling in demand for housing. As we stated in the outlook, we expect the recovery in housing activity to be more L-shaped. This behavior is apparent in more higher frequency data points, purchase applications for instance. 2023 remains far weaker than 2022. Average weekly volumes are down 35% year-to-date versus last year, and they're really not showing much sign of inflecting higher. In fact, if we look at just May and June versus 2019 prior to the pandemic, purchase applications are down almost 40%. Now, comps will get easier in the second half of the year. Year-over-year decreases will come down, but total activity is not inflecting higher. This is also showing through existing home sales, which are not showing the same improvement as new home sales. Existing home sales are down 24% year to date versus 2022. Also pending home sales, which missed a little bit to the downside just this morning. Jay Bacow: Okay. So when I think about the process of housing activity at the end, you've got a home sale, existing home sale, a new home sale. At the beginning, you've got either people applying to buy a home or starting to build a home. And the housing start data, that was pretty strong relative expectations as well, right? Jim Egan: It was. And the dynamics that we're discussing here, fewer existing home sales and climbing new home sales, that's leading to new home sales making up a larger share of that total number. And subsequently, homebuilder confidence is growing as a result. We think you can view this large number as perhaps a manifestation of that confidence, but we also want to stress that you need to think about that starch number in terms of single unit starts versus multi-unit starts. And yes, single unit starts were stronger than we anticipated, but they were still down year-over-year and through the first five months of this year, they're down 23%. Again, as with most housing activity data, the year over year comps are going to get easier in the back half of this year. That year over year percent will fall. We think they'll only finish the year down about 12%. But that's still a starch number that looks more L-shaped than a strong recovery. On the other hand, five plus unit starts in May were higher than in any single month since 1986. Multi-unit starts are still really driving the bus here. Jay Bacow: Okay. So with that homebuilder confidence, what are homeowners supposed to be thinking? They just saw the first negative year-on-year print in home prices since 2012. Are we in a repeat of previous things or are things going to get better? Jim Egan: Look, we just actually, in the mid-year outlook process, upgraded our year end home price forecast from -4% in December of 2023 to flat in December of 2023 versus December of 2022. That being said, while making that upgrade, we maintained that home prices were going to turn negative this month for the first time since 2012. We believe it's going to be short lived, largely because of the dynamics that we've already been discussing on this podcast. Current homeowners are not incentivized to list their home for sale. Existing listings continue to be incredibly low. The past few months, they've actually resumed falling year-over-year. When you look at affordability it’s still challenged, but it's not getting worse. When you look at overall inventories, they're still close to multi-decade lows, but we're not setting new historic lows each month. All of that leads to even more support for home prices on a go forward basis. We're still confident in our 0% for the end of the year. We might spend a couple more months here in negative territory before we kind of rebound back towards that flat by the end of 2023. Jay Bacow: All right. So new home sales, surprised to the upside, but we shouldn't conflate that with swelling demand for housing. Home prices just trended negative, but we think that was expected and they're going to end the year flat versus 2022. Jim, always great talking to you. Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcast app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

29 Kesä 20236min

How will corporate credit markets fare as the Fed keeps rates higher for longer? Look for wider spreads, further decompression and muted excess returns. ----- 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'll be talking about the outlook for corporate credit markets. It's Wednesday, June 28th at 11 a.m. in New York. Our economists are calling for one more 25 basis point rate hike in the upcoming Fed meeting in July and pause thereafter until the end of first quarter of next year. They're also calling for continued growth slowdown because of the policy tightening that we have seen over the last 15 months or so. A restrictive pause, which means rates staying higher for longer, and muted growth will weigh more on the performance of the corporate credit markets, especially as refinancing needs pick up. So our call is for wider spreads, further decompression and muted excess returns for corporate grade markets. Within credit we favor higher quality, which means investment grade credit over leveraged credit, both in bonds and in loans. Let's dig into some details. Industrial grade credit looks attractive from a duration lens, and we expect 7% plus total returns over the next 12 months. From a spread perspective, our base case target, a 150 basis point, calls for modest widening. Although risks are skewed to the downside in the recession bear case scenario to 200 basis points. We think the banking space looks cheap versus the market, especially money center banks. We favor single A's or triple B's and shortening of portfolio duration. Our preference is to own the front end of the curve within the investment graded space. Higher for longer puts more pressure on lower quality borrowers. While the macro outlook is not acutely challenging for credit, it progressively erodes debt affordability. For larger and higher quality borrowers, we expect the net impact to be gradual decline in interest coverage ratios and a voluntary focus on right sizing balance sheets. For smaller and lower quality companies, this adjustment could well be disruptive as 2025 maturity walls come into view. So even in leverage credit, we would look to stay up in quality. The layering of leverage and rate sensitivity in loans informs our preference for bonds in general relative to loans. We expect loan only structures to underperform mixed capital structures. We also expect sponsor commitment will be put to test. That said, higher quality names within the loan market are a way to benefit from the shape of the rates curve and generate better near-term carry. In all, we forecast wider spreads and higher default rates in the lower quality segments of the credit markets. Relative to the modest widening in the investment grade space within high yield and leveraged loans, we expect more significant widening in the range of 120 basis points of widening. This will result in marginally negative excess returns for these segments and will screen even worse when adjusted for volatility and downside risk. We forecast default rates pushing above long-run averages with loan defaults outpacing bond defaults, especially after accounting for distressed exchanges. 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 Kesä 20233min

With A.I. rapidly reaching the mass market, investors are pondering the risks and upsides to A.I. diffusion. History may provide some answers.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing ten key lessons from the last hundred years of tech diffusion. It's Tuesday, the 27th of June at 3 p.m. in London. Tech diffusion is one of the three big themes we at Morgan Stanley Research are following in 2023. The other two being the multipolar world and decarbonization. And when we say ‘tech diffusion,’ which has become a term of art, we mean the process by which any transformational technology is adopted widely by consumers and industries. Think of the light bulb, the first power plant, the internet, and now, A.I.. Our recent analysis of the last hundred years of tech diffusion helps to shed light on ten critical questions around how, when and where stocks will be impacted from the development of A.I.. One of the most important issues to consider is how fast A.I. diffusion is happening and whether regulation can restrain this. Since its pivotal moment when it was released in November, the leading generative A.I. tools are on pace to do in one year what the internet took seven years to achieve in spilling over to the mass market, and electricity took around 20 years to do the same thing. The next critical question to consider is whether we tend to see upside or downside happen first for industries being impacted. In examining 80 structural positive and negative adoption curves over the last 50 years, we find that downside disruption often occurs sooner and twice as quickly as upside disruption. So how does the downside play out for stocks perceived to be by investors more at risk from these types of technology disruption? The market typically de-rates and waits. So valuations fall somewhere between 50 to 60% in the years 1 to 3 post-a-disruptive-event with consensus sales and profit downgrades taking anywhere around 5 to 7 years to materialize. This process is shorter for business to consumer, B2B and longer for business to business contracts, B2B. And what about the ways that upside plays out? For perceived winners, upgrades need to arrive within 6 to 12 months post the initial re-rating. However, we find that missing the first year of upside tends to have little impact on long term compound returns for investors. Investors also wonder to what degree A.I. might be a bubble. And this is a fair question considering the market excitement and froth in A.I. at the moment, but we're watching Internet search trends to answer this question. And if you look at image generation tools for A.I., we're already about 50% lower than peak search volumes. So it's a trend we're going to have to continue to watch pretty closely. Given all this, at what point do we expect killer apps to emerge that are built on top of these technologies? Well, our analysis of the last 50 examples of these killer apps emerging suggests that they tend to take a year and a half to emerge. This is why it's often very challenging to find domain specific winners in the public markets because they are still likely to be in venture backed scale up stage at the moment. But when the killer apps do emerge, the next question becomes how much value will accrue to the incumbents versus the disruptors. And on this point, history suggests that diffusion of technologies that are transformational like this have tended to lead to changes in stock market leadership over the last hundred years, with ultimately 2.3% of all companies generating all $75 trillion of net shareholder returns since 1990. In this context, are pure play or diversified stocks the best ways to play these themes? Over the long run, we believe that pure play stocks exposed to themes such as A.I., can be expected to be valued at approximately 25% premium to non pure play stocks on average. And the final two questions we get from investors take a more macro tilt. First, how much and when can we expect to see productivity gains? We are already seeing these productivity gains. The question is, what range? And we've seen anywhere between 20 to 55% for software developers, we've seen 14% for call center workers, and healthcare is also a large focus of academic research in terms of A.I. productivity and efficiency gains. Finally, there is the question of deflation. When and how much can we expect from this kind of technology? This remains the most challenging question to answer. Technology of all kinds has proven consistently deflationary, and we think this is no different. But we do suggest that investors familiarize themselves with the emerging debates on virtual assistance, which could accelerate these deflationary spillover effects. We'll continue to track all these developments around the ten key lessons and questions from history, and we'll provide you timely updates accordingly. 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.

27 Kesä 20235min

While many countries are gearing up to combat climate change, financing these large projects may pose a challenge. ----- Transcript -----Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Morgan Stanley's ESG Fixed-Income Research. Simon Waever: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the credit impact of climate finance in emerging markets. Carolyn Campbell: It's Monday, June 26, at 10 a.m. in New York. Simon Waever: We believe that the ramp up in climate mitigation and adaptation financing from developed markets can be a key credit positive for emerging market countries, if executed correctly. The amounts of financing required in low and middle income countries to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change is likely to be over 1 trillion per year by 2030. Carolyn, let's start with that 1 trillion figure and the scale of the challenge. How are low and middle income countries positioned for climate change? Carolyn Campbell: So when we think about climate change, there's two sides of the coin. There's climate change mitigation, which is everything that will slow or prevent the temperature from rising more than a degree and a half above pre-industrial levels, which is the goal of the Paris Agreement. And on the other side, we've got adaptation, which is financing projects that will build resiliency to physical risks, for example, or to help transform the economy away from dependency on industries that are likely to be harmed by climate change. So on the mitigation side, we've seen energy consumption in emerging markets steadily rise over the past couple of decades as their economies continue to develop and their populations grow often at faster rates than we see in developed countries. Now, while we've seen absolute levels of renewable energy usage tick up in these countries, on a proportional basis we're not seeing a material change, and that's because of this absolute rise in energy usage overall. So that leaves a lot of scope for the expansion of low carbon technologies such as wind and solar and so on, and that's obviously very expensive. On the adaptation side, a lot of the emerging markets are located in areas that will bear the brunt of climate change, whether that's through worsening storms or increased droughts, rising sea levels and so on, and they don't have the same infrastructure or economic diversity to deal with these climate impacts. So it's an immense amount of capital required for both types of projects, as you said, likely to be greater than a trillion dollars per year by 2030. And so far, developed markets have actually come up short on their promise to deliver $100 billion annually in climate finance. So all this being said, I think it begs the question how will they pay for it without incurring an unsustainable debt load? Simon Waever: Yep, that is the question. And I would say the good news so far is that more and more sources are being made available with some being more targeted than others. The first main source is loans. So these generally come from either bilateral agreements, so from other sovereigns, or from multilateral institutions such as the World Bank. An example of a new facility being made available just in the past year is the resilience and sustainability trust from the IMF, which has now already made disbursements to six countries with more on the way. And the advantage of this facility, compared to others from the IMF, is that it comes at a lower cost and a longer maturity. The second main source is the capital markets. The instruments people will be most familiar with here are the labeled bonds, such as green, sustainable or even sustainability linked bonds that see their coupons change depending on various targets being met. But today, there's also an increasing use of the debt for nature swaps such as used in Belize and Ecuador recently and the introduction of climate resilient debt clauses. What this means is that if an adverse event happens like a hurricane, etc., there can be an automatic pause or delay in payments, which in theory should help both the country and creditors because you avoid going into any distress situation on the bonds. But another interesting avenue that's opened up in the last decade or so has been to raise financing by turning carbon into a commodity, whether as a voluntary carbon offset or through direct carbon pricing. Carolyn, how would those be used? Carolyn Campbell: Yeah. So on the voluntary carbon side, a credit represents one tonne of carbon reduced, removed or avoided, and a lot of emerging markets are able to sell these credits, not necessarily at the sovereign level directly, but in some cases, yes, to developed markets, either to the sovereigns or to corporates who are willing to buy those emissions to offset against their own. And so those projects can be anything related to forest preservation or other natural capital projects or linked to renewable energy deployment and so on, and that can help raise the financing to get those projects off the ground. On the other side, there's direct carbon pricing, which is compulsory and includes things like Europe's emissions trading scheme or commonly thought of as cap and trade programs. There's also carbon taxes which raise revenue from businesses that emit and tax every tonne of carbon emitted. And direct carbon pricing is really important because the revenues raised from these schemes don't actually have to be applied to green projects so they can further other local development priorities. Lots of interesting avenues, but not every avenue will be suitable for every country, there's a wide range of emerging markets out there. But let's assume for a moment that all the financing will actually be deployed at a sufficient scale over the near and medium term. What does that mean for the credit quality of these recipient nations? Simon Waever: Yes. So as we've actually covered before on this podcast, developing countries are facing significant financing challenges. And by that I mean they've been used to getting a lot of cheap financing over the last ten years, that's no longer available. So if the result is that more financing is being made available, that is credit positive, especially if it then also comes at lower financing costs and with longer maturities. I would of course say that the magnitude of the impact is going to differ by country, and overall, I would highlight the lower rates of countries as benefiting the most. And just to give two examples of countries that have benefited recently, one is Kenya. They've been under pressure in the markets because they have a 2 billion maturity next year that people were questioning where they were going to get the funds to repay it. Now, through the help of the IMF and their new Resilience Sustainability Trust facility, they've seen larger disbursements and the markets have traded much better. The other example is Ecuador that was able to complete a debt for nature swap that in the end resulted in lower debt burden, fewer bonds outstanding, and at the same time helping conserve the Marine area in Ecuador. But actually, all this is a lot about just a near-term impact. The longer term impacts will eventually turn out to be even more important, I would think. Carolyn, could you give some examples of this? Carolyn Campbell: So on the one side, we've got climate resiliency improvements that can materialize in ways like reduced costs in the face of acute weather events or economic resiliency to slow onset adverse climate events, we mentioned droughts earlier. Another very important avenue is fundamental improvements via the renewable energy transition. So deployment of renewable energy might increase overall levels of electrification in the country, which can boost productivity and so on. If we think about South Africa as an example, South Africa has struggled with lower productivity because of its dependency on aging coal power plants. So there's a real case to be made about the benefits of renewable energy deployment there in terms of economic productivity. So all this sounds great, but there are some real execution risks for this quantity of financing and getting these projects off the ground. Simon can you tell us what that might mean for these countries? Simon Waever: Right. That's a key topic, and it may be that there's actually insufficient climate financing, and that would at best mean that you have other suboptimal financing sources used. But at worst, that we see scaled back, delayed or even canceled climate projects. And actually the risk of this happening isn't low, so it's something we do need to watch. And then another risk is that the debt dispersed but used in the wrong places or used inefficiently, because then you end up with the countries with higher leverage that doesn't actually see the benefits. Simon Waever: But with that, Thanks, Carolyn. Thanks for taking the time to talk. Carolyn Campbell: Great speaking with you, Simon. Simon Waever: And thanks to everyone for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

26 Kesä 20238min

This year, foreign exchange has been even harder than usual to predict. Even so, the outlook for the U.S. Dollar may prove to be a handy asset moving forward.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10 Foreign Exchange Strategy at Morgan Stanley. And today I'll be talking about our outlook for the U.S. dollar and why it may prove an important driver of investor returns this year. It's Friday, June 23rd at 3 p.m. in London. Foreign exchange has long been known as a hard asset class to predict, and this year has proven to be even harder than usual. Consensus trades left and right have missed the mark, and both disagreement and uncertainty are the highest we've seen in years. So where do we go from here? We think the U.S. dollar is going to keep rallying, rising about 5% or so by the end of the year. Central bankers are likely to keep their feet on the brakes in order to tackle inflation. And in doing so, growth is likely to remain anemic, with risks skewed to the downside. Against this backdrop, we think two key themes are going to emerge: demand for carry and demand for defense. Carry is attractive in a slow growth world and is likely to explain a lot more of investor returns if prices don't move very much. And defensiveness is an alluring quality in financial assets when optimism is low, uncertainty is high and risks abound. It's pretty rare to find a financial asset that offers both of these qualities. Typically, insurance costs you money. But the good news is that the US dollar does. The dollar tends to be negatively correlated versus the equity market, meaning that when equities go down, the dollar goes up, and that relationship has only strengthened in recent years. Meanwhile, U.S. rates are elevated versus the rest of the world thanks to Fed rate hikes. Dollar rates are roughly 2% higher than those in Europe and even 5% higher compared to those in Japan.Foreign exchange is a relative game, and if investors are buying the dollar, they're probably selling something. We think in this high uncertainty environment currencies which are most sensitive to growth and risk assets would likely weaken the most. In the G10 space, the Australian dollar and the Swedish krona both look vulnerable here, while in emerging markets that's probably the South African rand and the Chinese renminbi. There are plenty of potential risks on the horizon to keep investors worried; banking sector volatility, geopolitical risks, sticky inflation, just to name a few. As the investment outlook remains cloudy and hazy, the U.S. dollar is a handy asset to keep in the portfolio as a positive carry insurance hedge. 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 a colleague today.

23 Kesä 20232min

As the U.S. Economy still angles for a soft landing, the recent Federal Open Markets Committee meeting may have left more questions than answers.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the outcome of the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting and our outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Thursday, June 22nd at 10 a.m. in New York. Hawks and doves entered the battlefield at the June FOMC meeting, wrangling over the extent to which further rate hikes might be needed and how forcefully to convey that. As expected, the FOMC held rates steady at 5.1% and maintained a tightening bias in the statement. But it's also important to note that the statement included an ever so slight change in language that made further rate hikes seem less certain. So in all, this suggests the Fed could raise rates later this year, although when thinking about the very next meeting we think the bar to hike in July is much higher than market pricing implies. And the new summary of economic projections, which is made up of Federal Open Market Committee participants projections for things like GDP growth, the unemployment rate, inflation and the appropriate policy path, FOMC participants revised up the policy path for this year by a full 50 basis points. So that would imply two more 25 basis point rate hikes. They also lifted their growth projections for this year, they revised down the unemployment rate and they revised upward their core PCE inflation forecast. So all in all, that's a summary of economic projections that skewed very hawkish. Now, we find the upward revision to core PCE most perplexing as incoming data on inflation had been in line with the Fed's forecasts, and especially as key measures of core services inflation have consecutively softened. Now in relation to our forecasts, we think this sets up core inflation to fall faster than the Fed currently projects, which should offset the takeaways from a higher peak rate in the DOT plot. The core inflation projection for this year and the level of the Fed funds rate could get revised downward by the time the FOMC meets in September. In our latest outlook, we continue to see a soft landing for the U.S. economy this year, with inflation and wages slowly easing, as well as job gains. Now consistent with this expectation, we continue to look for the Fed to hold the peak rate at 5.1% for an extended period before making the first .25% cut in March 2024. Like the Fed, we have to be humble here and we do see the effects of banking stresses on the economy as highly uncertain, and we'll hone our expectations for the economy and monetary policy as the incoming data unfold. 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.

22 Kesä 20232min

While high oil prices at the end of last year drove down demand and freed up supply, this year many expect the market to tighten again. So why hasn’t it tightened yet?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the outlook for the global oil market for the rest of 2023. It is Wednesday, June 21st at 3 p.m. in London. Last year saw severe tightness in most commodity markets. Demand still benefited from the post-COVID recovery, and supply was disrupted by the war in Ukraine. In many markets, prices had to rise to a level where demand destruction occurred. In the oil markets, that led Brent crude oil to rise to $130 a barrel, gasoline to $180 and diesel $190 a barrel. Those prices clearly did the trick. In response, the global economy slowed down and oil demand softened towards year end, resulting in a slight oversupply at market earlier this year. In recent months, however, the main narrative in the oil market has been a one of re-tightening into the second half. The market was clearly in surplus in the first quarter, but was widely expected to tighten again by the second half due to a combination of China reopening, continued recovery in aviation and downside risk to supply from Russia. Those factors should see the market balance in the second quarter and reenter a meaningful deficit in the third and fourth quarter, driving prices higher. In fact, that was also our expectation at the start orrf the year. However, if this was indeed to play out, we should see it by now. Given we are currently in June, the most actively traded Brent contract is the one for August delivery. North Sea oil delivered in August will typically arrive at a refinery around about September, with end products made from that crude oil such as gasoline, diesel and jet typically delivered to end customers by October. Therefore, the oil market is already trading the anticipated supply-demand balance deep into the second half. Yet the expected tightness has not yet emerged. This is not due to China's reopening, which has boosted oil demand broadly as expected. Already in March, Chinese refinery runs and its crude oil imports reached all time highs again. The recovery in aviation, and with that jet fuel consumption, is also broadly playing out as expected. Instead, most reasons for the weaker than expected oil market balance lie on the supply side. For starters, Russian exports have been remarkably resilient. The EU sanctions on the imports of Russian oil were widely expected to result in lower oil production from the country, but this has not materialized. On top, oil production from other non-OPEC countries have surprised to the upside. Notwithstanding low investment levels over the last few years, oil production has grown in a wide variety of countries, including the United States, but also Brazil, Canada, Argentina, Guyana, Colombia, Mexico, Oman and even China. As a result, oil production from non-OPEC countries has started to grow faster than global oil demand once again. When that is the case, the balance in the oil market can only be maintained if OPEC cuts production. And that is indeed what the producers group has been doing. OPEC already announced a production cut back in October of last year, and then again in April of this year, and again earlier this month. However, in doing so, OPEC loses market share to non-OPEC producers and it builds up spare capacity, both factors that typically end up weighing on oil markets. We still foresee a small deficit in the oil market in the third and the fourth quarter, but this is mostly a function of seasonality in demand and OPEC cuts. Those factors are not inherently bullish. If second half tightening does not play out, then market participants may need to consider what lies just beyond that. Our balances for early 2024 do not look so tight. Next year, demand will no longer be supported by another year of China reopening and aviation growth. There will still be supply growth in several non-OPEC countries, and seasonality, which is currently a tailwind, will turn into a headwind. There is still likely a period ahead when global GDP growth re-accelerates and the impact of little investment in new production capacity should start to bite. However, the cyclical and the structural outlook do not always align. Over the next six months, we see oil prices broadly stable at about $75 to $80 a barrel for Brent. What market participants find right in front of them is neutral rather than constructive. 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.

21 Kesä 20234min