Who’s Disrupting — and Funding — the AI Boom

With the generational shift in the US housing market underway, our analysts discuss the impact this trend will have on residential real estate investing.----- Transcript -----Ron Kamdem: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, head of Commercial Real Estate Research and the US Real Estate Investment Trust team within Morgan Stanley Research.Lauren Hochfelder: And I'm Lauren Hochfelder, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Morgan Stanley Real Estate Investing, the global private real estate investment arm of the firm.Ron Kamdem: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we’ll discuss the tangible impact of shifting demographics on the residential real estate investing space.It's Tuesday, September 10th at 10 am in New York.So, Lauren, for several years now, we've been hearing about millennials overtaking the baby boomers. As a reminder, millennials are people between the age of 28 and 43. So someone like me. And there’s about 72 million millennials right now. Baby boomers are around 59 to 78; and there's about 69 million at the moment. This demographic shift will have a profound impact on all sectors of the economy, including residential housing. So, let's lay the foundation first. What are the current needs of baby boomers and millennials when it comes to their homes?Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, this is such an interesting moment, Ron, because as you say, their needs are shifting. Over the last 15 years, what have millennials wanted? They have wanted multifamily. They have wanted rental apartment units. And by the way, they've wanted, generally speaking, small ones in cities.Ron Kamdem: Yup.Boomers? They have been disproportionately residing in single family homes that they own, and that they've owned for a long time. But here we are, as millennials reach peak household formation years and boomers approach their 80-year-old mark. There's a real shift.We have millennials growing up and growing out, and boomers growing older. And that means millennials need more space; boomers need more services. Housing with increased care options. And that really leads to three things.One, pockets of oversupply of multifamily. Developers develop to the rearview mirror; and we have way too much of what they wanted yesterday and too little of what they wanted to what they want tomorrow. The second is increased demand for single family rental in more suburban locations to meet the needs of those millennials. And the third is increased demand for senior housing for the boomers.Ron Kamdem: Excellent. So, when we look at the next five to ten years, let's consider each of these generations. Demand for senior housing is increasing significantly. Where are we in this process, and what's your expectation for the next decade?Lauren Hochfelder: Look, we think this is the golden age for senior housing. The demand wave is upon us, supply is way down. And by the way, labor costs, which have been a real headwind, are finally abating. New construction of senior housing has basically fallen off a cliff. It is down 75 per cent from its peak; if you look at the first quarter of this year, it's basically at GFC levels. And third, the senior wealth effect. Not only do seniors need this product, they can afford it.They have been in those homes, they've owned those homes for a very long time, and over that period, home prices have appreciated. So, seniors are in a position where they can really afford to move into these senior living facilities.Ron Kamdem: And what about millennials? As they get older, how are their housing needs evolving?Lauren Hochfelder: I'd say three things. It's they need more space. So single family rental versus multifamily. The second is migratory shifts, right? It's no longer -- I have to live in San Francisco or New York. You're seeing real growth in the southeast and Texas. And the third is this preference to rent. Now, a lot of that's affordability driven.Ron Kamdem: Right.Lauren Hochfelder: But I think there's also mobility. There's just general preference. I mean, this is a generation that doesn't own a landline, right? So, they want to rent. They don't want to buy.Ron Kamdem: So, given these trends as an actual real estate investor, how do you view the supply and demand dynamics within residential investing? And where do you see the biggest opportunities?Lauren Hochfelder: Look, I think housing in general is attractive to invest in. There's simply too little of it. But you really can't paint a broad brush. You need to invest in the type of housing with the best outlook. And you and I can sit here and debate what's going to happen with interest rates. But what is not debatable is that these two large age groups are going to drive demand disproportionately.And so rather than speculating on interest rates, let's calculate the number of people in these generations. And so that means that we want to invest in single family. We want to invest in seniors housing, and we want to invest in the markets where these groups want to live.So, let's turn it around. We've been talking about this growing senior population and, you know, we and my side of the business. We've been investing in a lot of senior housing communities. But how does this affect your world? You cover the entire US public real estate investment trust universe. How are you thinking about these things?Ron Kamdem: So, our investors are really focused on secular trends that they can invest over a long period of time. And there's really two that I would like to call out. So, the first is the rise of senior housing communities.As you mentioned earlier, if you think about the US population, the population that's 65 and over is really the addressable market. And we do expect that number to rise to about 21 per cent of the population or 71 million people.Lauren Hochfelder: So, think about one in four people being eligible or appropriate for senior housing. It's amazing.Ron Kamdem: That’s an incredible demand function.Now, the second piece of it is historically these seniors have actually shied away from senior housing. So, the first sort of trend and inflection point that I want to call out is we do think there's an opportunity for penetration race -- not only to flatten out, but to start increasing. And that's driven exactly by your earlier comment, which is affordability. Remember, about 75 per cent of seniors actually own their own homes, and they've seen a significant amount of price appreciation. Since 2010, their home prices have gone up 80 per cent, which is about two times the rate of inflation.Second investable trend is the move of outpatient services outside of the hospital setting. So, if you go back to the eighties, only about 16 per cent of services were being done outside of the hospital. In 2020, that number was close to 68 per cent and we think that's going to keep rising. The reason being because of surgical advances, there's a lot of projects that can be done outside of the hospital. Whether it's, you know, knee replacements, trigger finger surgery, cataract surgeries, and so forth. In addition to that, the expansion of Medicare coverage has allowed for reimbursement of these services, again, outside of the hospital.So, we think these are trends that are in place that should continue over the next sort of decade and drive more demand to the healthcare real estate space.Lauren Hochfelder: So, what should we be nervous about? What concerns you?Ron Kamdem: Look, I think on the senior housing side, there's always two factors that we focus on. So, the first is labor. This remains a very labor-intensive industry. But in the US, historically, people coming out of college, they're not necessarily going into the health care space. So, there's been moments of labor shortages. This happened exactly after the pandemic. Luckily, today, the labor situation has abated and you're seeing sort of labor costs back to inflationary type levels.The second piece of it is just the age of the facilities. Now, keep in mind, there's still a lot of facilities with the average age of about 41, right. And everybody has in the back of their mind, these older facilities with older carpets and so forth. So, when we're thinking about investing in the space, we're always focused on the newer assets, the better quality that are going to provide a better experience for the tenant.Lauren Hochfelder: So, given these shifts, what segments of your world are poised to benefit the most?Ron Kamdem: The real estate public market, there's about 160 REITs across 16 different subsectors; and the senior housing subsector is by far the most compelling in our minds. If you think about the REIT market, the average sort of earnings growth is 3 to 4 per cent. However, the senior housing sector, we think you can get 10 per cent or more growth over the next three to five years. The reason being when the pandemic hit, this was an industry that saw occupancy go from 90 per cent to 75 per cent.There was a moment in time where people thought you'd never put any seniors in the facility again. Well, the exact opposite has happened, and now we're seeing occupancy gains of about 300 basis points of about 3 per cent every year. On top of some pricing power, call it 5, 6 or 7 per cent. So, we're looking at a sector where we think organically you can grow sort of high single digits. With a little bit of operating leverage, you can get to a total earning growth of double digits, which is very compelling relative to the rest of the REIT market.Lauren Hochfelder: Let's go back to your generation, as you said. Let's go back to the millennials. How do those shifting needs affect which part of the universe you would invest in?Ron Kamdem: One of the things that I think every real estate owner’s thinking about is how to integrate their platform so that they're more millennial friendly. They're going online. They're using their phones, and I think we're seeing a much bigger investment in marketing dollars on a web presence, on a web platform, and on a mobile friendly app, certainly to be able to interface with that millennial and help with customer acquisitions.So, I would say that's probably the biggest difference -- is how you target that population in a different way than you did historically.Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, I mean we all shop online, shouldn't we get our homes online, right?Ron Kamdem: That's right. All right, Lauren. Well, thanks for taking the time to talk.Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, this been great, Ron. I always enjoy us catching up.Ron Kamdem: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. It helps more people to find the show.*****Lauren Hochfelder is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

10 Syys 202410min

Following weaker-than-expected August jobs data, our CIO and Chief U.S Equity Strategist lays out how the Federal Reserve can ease concerns about a possible hard landing.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the labor market’s impact on equity markets.It's Monday, Sept 9th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.Last week, I wrote a detailed note discussing the importance of the labor data for equity markets. Importantly, I pointed out that since the materially weaker than expected July labor report, the S&P 500 has bounced more than other "macro" markets like rates, currencies and commodities. In the absence of a reacceleration in the labor data, we concluded the S&P 500 was trading out of sync with the fundamentals. Over the past week, we received several labor market data points, which were weaker than expected. First, the Job Openings data for July was softer than expected coming in at 7.7mm versus the consensus expectation of 8.1mm. In addition, June's initial result was revised lower by 274k. This essentially supported the view that the weak payrolls data in July may, in fact, not be related to weather or other temporary issues. Second, the job openings rate fell to 4.6%, which is very close to the 4.5% level Fed Governor Waller has cited as a threshold below which the unemployment rate could rise much faster. Third, the Fed's Beige Book came out last week. It indicated that activity remains sluggish with 9 of the 12 Federal Reserve districts reporting flat or declining activity in August, though commentary on labor markets was more neutral, rather than negative. These data sync nicely with the Conference Board’s Employment Trends Index, which I find to be a very objective aggregate measure of the labor market's direction. This morning, we received the latest release for August Conference Board labor market trends and the trend remains down, but not necessarily recessionary. Of course, the main event last week was Friday's monthly jobs and unemployment reports, where the payroll survey number came in below consensus at 142k. In addition, last month's result was revised lower from 114k to 89k. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell by only a couple of basis points leaving investors unconvinced that July’s labor weakness was overstated. Given much of these labor and other growth data have continued to skew to the downside, the macro markets (like rates, currencies, and Commodities) have been trading with more concern about potential hard landing risks. Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than with 2-year US Treasuries. As of Friday, the spread between the 2-year Treasury yields and the Fed Funds Rate matched the widest levels in the past 40 years. This pricing suggests the bond market believes the Fed is behind the curve from an easing standpoint. On Friday, the equity market started to get in sync with this view and questioned whether a 25bp cut in September would be an adequate policy response to the labor data. In the context of an equity market that is still quite rich and based on well above average earnings growth assumptions, the correction on Friday seems quite appropriate. In my view, until the bond market starts to believe the Fed is no longer behind the curve, labor data reverses course and improves materially or additional policy stimulus is introduced, it will be difficult for equity markets to trade with a more risk on tone. This means valuations are likely to remain challenged for the overall index, while the leadership remains more defensive and in line with our sector and stock recommendations. We see two ways in which the Fed can get ahead of the curve—either faster cutting than expected which is unlikely in the absence of recessionary data; or the labor data starts to improve in a convincing manner and 2-year yields rise. Given the Fed is in the blackout period until next week’s FOMC meeting, and there are not any major labor data reports due for almost a month, volatility will likely remain elevated and valuations under pressure overall. This all brings our previously discussed fair value range for the S&P 500 of 5000-5400 back into view.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

9 Syys 20244min

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, expects a sticky but shallow cycle for defaults on loans, with solid quality overall in high-grade credit.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss some longer-term thoughts on the credit market and the economic cycle.It's Friday, September 6th at 2pm in London.Concerns around US growth have risen, an issue that will probably persist even after today’s US Payrolls report came roughly inline with expectations. At Morgan Stanley, we continue to expect moderate slowing in growth, not a slump. By the middle of next year, our economists see growth slowing to a still respectable 2% growth rate, and a total of seven rate cuts.While growth is set to slow, we think corporate balance sheet metrics are unusually good in the face of this slowing. Indeed, the credit quality of the US investment grade and BB credit markets, which represent the vast majority of corporate credit outstanding, have actually improved since the Fed started hiking rates.Now, looking ahead, there's understandable concern that these currently good credit metrics won't be sustainable as companies will have to refinance the very cheap borrowing that they received immediately after COVID, with the more expensive costs of today's currently higher yields. But we actually think balance sheets will be reasonably robust in light of this reset, and so their ultimate rate sensitivity could be relatively low.One reason is that a wave of refinancing means companies have already tackled a significant portion of their upcoming debt, reducing the so-called rollover or refinancing risk. Interest coverage for floating rate borrowers has stabilized and should actually improve as the Fed starts to lower rates.The debt service costs for higher rated companies will increase as cheaper debt matures and has to be replaced with more expensive borrowing; but we stressed this is a pretty slow process given the long-term nature of a lot of this borrowing. And so, overall, we think the headwinds from higher debt costs are going to be manageable, with the problems largely confined to a smaller cohort of the lowest quality issuers.We think all of that will drive a so-called sticky but shallow default cycle, with defaults driven by higher borrowing costs at select issuers rather than a single problem sector or particularly poor corporate earnings. And there are also some important offsets. Morgan Stanley's forecast suggests that the Fed will be cutting rates, which will reduce overall borrowing costs over the medium term. And another notable theme over the last two years is that more defaults have been becoming so-called restructurings rather than bankruptcies. These restructurings are more likely to leave a company operating -- just under new ownership -- and create less negative feedback into the real economy.Now, against all this, we're mindful that credit spreads are tight, i.e. lower than average. But importantly, we don't think this reflects some sort of euphoria from either the lenders or the borrowers.All-in borrowing costs for corporates remain high, and that's made corporates less likely to be aggressive or increase their leverage. Indeed, since COVID, the overall high yield bond and loan markets have actually shrunk. Leverage buyout activity has been muted and corporate leverage has gone sideways.These are not the types of things you see when corporates are being particularly aggressive and credit unfriendly. Credit markets love moderation and that's very much what Morgan Stanley's economic forecasts over the medium term expect. Spreads may be tight. But we think they're currently supported by strong fundamentals, modest supply, and improving technicals.Today's roughly inline payroll number won’t resolve the uncertainty around growth, but longer term, we think the picture remains encouraging.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

6 Syys 20244min

Our US Public Policy and Global Commodities strategists discuss how the outcome of the election could affect energy markets in the US and around the world.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US public policy strategist.Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Global Commodity Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about a topic that's coming into sharper focus this fall. How will the US presidential election shape energy policy and global energy markets?It's Thursday, September 5th at 10am in New York.Martijn Rats: And 3pm in London.Ariana Salvatore: As we enter the final leg of the US presidential campaign, Harris and Trump are getting ready to go head-to-head on a number of key topics. Healthcare, housing, the state of the economy, foreign policy; and also high on the agenda -- energy policy.So, Martijn, let's set the stage here. Prices at the gas pump in the US have been falling over recent weeks, which is atypical in the summer. What's happening in energy markets right now? And what's your expectation for the rest of the year?Martijn Rats: Yeah, it's a relevant question. Oil prices have been quite volatile recently. I would say that objectively, if you look at the market for crude oil, the crude oil market is tight right now. We can see that in inventories, for example, they are buying large drawing, which tell[s] you, the demand is outstripping supply.But there are two things to say about the tightness in the crude oil market. First of all, we're not quite seeing that tightness merit in the markets for refined products. So, get the market for gasoline, the market for diesel, et cetera. At the moment, the global refining system is running quite hard.But they're also producing a lot of refined product. A lot of gasoline, a lot of diesel. They're pushing that to their customers. Demand is absorbing that, but not quite in a convincing manner. And you can see that in refining margins. They have been steadily trending down all summer.The second thing to say about the tightness and crude is that it's largely driven by a set of factors that will likely to be somewhat temporary. Seasonally demand is at its strongest -- that helps. The OPEC deal is still in place. And as far as we can see in high frequency data, OPEC is still constraining production.And then thirdly, production has been growing in a number of non-OPEC countries. But that absent flows and the last couple of months have seen somewhat of a flat spot in non-OPEC supply growth.Now, those factors have created the tightness that we're seeing currently in the third quarter. But if you start to think about the oil market rolling into the fourth quarter and eventually 2025, a lot of these things going to reverse. The seasonal demand tailwinds that we are currently enjoying; they turn into seasonal demand headwinds in four q[uarter]and one q[uarter] -- seasonally weaker quarters of the year. Non-OPEC production will likely resume its upward trajectory based on the modeling of projects that we've done. That seems likely. And then OPEC has also said that they will start growing production again with the start of the fourth quarter.Now, when you put that all together, the market is in deficit now. It will return to a broadly balanced state in the fourth quarter, but then into a surplus in 2025. Prices look a little into the future. They discount the future a little bitNow, as the US election approaches, investors are increasingly concerned how a Trump versus Harris win would affect energy policy and markets going forward. Ariana, how much and what kind of authority does the US president actually have in terms of energy policy? Can you run us through that?Ariana Salvatore: Presidential authorities with respect to energy policy are actually relatively limited. But they can be impactful at the margin over time. What we tend to see actually is that production and investment levels are reasonably insulated from federal politics.Only about 25 per cent of oil and 10 per cent of natural gas is produced on federal land and waters in the US. You also have this timing factor. So, a lot of these changes are really only incremental; and while they can affect levels at the margin, there's a lag between when that policy is announced and when it could actually flow through in terms of actual changes to supply levels. For example, when we think of things like permitting reform, deregulation and environmental review periods and leasing of federal lands, these are all policy options that do not have immediate impacts; and many times will span across different presidential administrations.So, you might expect that if a new president comes into office, he or she could reverse many of the executive actions taken by his or her predecessor with respect to this policy area.Martijn Rats: And what have Trump and Harris each said so far about energy policy?Ariana Salvatore: So, I would say this topic has been less prevalent in Harris's campaign, unless we're talking about it in the context of the energy transition overall. She hasn't laid out yet specific policy plans when it comes to energy; but we think it's safe to assume that you could see her maintain a lot of the Biden administration's clean energy goals and the continued rollout of bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, which contained a whole host of energy tax credits toward those ends.Now, conversely, Trump has focused on this a lot because he's been tying energy supply to inflation, making the case that we can lower inflation and everyday costs by drilling more. His policy platform, and that of the GOP has been to increase energy production across the board. Mainly done by streamlining, permitting and loosening restrictions on oil, natural gas, and coal.Now, to what I said before, some of that can be accomplished unilaterally through the executive branch. But other times it might require the consent of Congress, and consent from states -- because sometimes these permitting lines cross state borders.So, Martijn, from your side, how quickly can US policy, whether it's driven by Trump or Harris, affect energy markets and change production levels and therefore supply?Martijn Rats: Yeah, like you just outlined, the answer to that question is only gradually. Regulation is important, but economics are more important. If you roll the clock back to, say, early 2021, when President Biden has just took office; on day one, he famously canceled the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.But if you now look back, at the last four years, start to finish; American oil production, grew more under Biden, than any other president in the history of the United States. With the exception of Obama, who, of course, enjoyed the start of the shale revolution.Production is close, to record levels, which were set just before COVID, of course. So, in the end, the measures that President Biden put in place, have had only a very limited impact on oil production. The impact that the American president can have is only -- it's only gradual.Ariana Salvatore: So, as we've mentioned, expanding energy development has been a massive plank of Trump's campaign platform. And listeners will also remember that during his term in office, he supported energy development on federal land. If Trump wins in November, what would it mean for oil supply and demand both in the US and globally?Martijn Rats: Admittedly, it's somewhat of a confusing picture. So, if you look at oil supply, you have to split it in perhaps a domestic impact and an international impact. Domestically, Donald Trump has famously said recently that he would return the oil industry to “Drill baby drill,” which is this, this shorthand metaphor for, abundant drilling in an effort to significantly accelerate oil production.But as just mentioned, there is little to be unleashed because during President Biden, the American oil industry hasn't really been constrained in the first place.A lot of American EMP companies are focused on capital discipline. They're focused on returns on free cashflow on shareholder distributions. With that come constraints to capital expenditure budgets that probably were not in place several years ago with those CapEx constraints, production can only grow so fast.That is a matter of shareholder preference. That is a matter of returns. And regulation can change that a little bit, but not so much.If you look at the perspective outside the United States, it is also worth mentioning that in the first Trump presidency, President Trump famously put secondary sanctions on the export of crude oil from Iran. At the time that significantly constrained crude oil supply from Iran, which in 2018 played a key role in driving oil prices higher.Now, it's an open question, whether that policy can be repeated. The flow of oil around the world has changed since then. Iranian oil isn't quite going to the same customers as it did back then. So, whether that policy can be replicated, remains to be seen. But whilst the domestic perspective -- i.e. an attempt to grow production -- could be interpreted as a potential bearish factor for the price of oil, the risk of sanctions outside the United States could be interpreted as a potential bullish risk for oil.And this is, I think, also why the oil market struggles to incorporate the risks around the presidential election so much. At the moment, we're simply confronted with a set of factors. Some of them bearish, some of them bullish, but it remains hard to see exactly which one of them played out. And, at the moment they don't have a particular skew in one direction.So, we're just confronted with options, but little direction.Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. So, I think that makes this definitely a policy area that we'll be paying very close attention to this fall. I suppose we'll also both be tuning into the upcoming debate, where we might get a better sense of both sides policy plans. If we do learn anything that changes our views, we'll be sure to let you know.Martijn, thanks for taking the time to talkMartijn Rats: Great speaking with you, Ariana.Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

5 Syys 20249min

Despite a flurry of election news, little may have changed for investors weighing the possible outcomes. Our Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research, Michael Zezas, explains why this is the case as we move closer to Election Day.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about recent developments in the US election.It's Wednesday, September 4th at 10:30am in New York. While news headlines might make it seem a lot has changed in recent weeks around the US election, in our view not much has changed at all. And that’s important for investors to understand as they navigate markets between now and Election Day on November 5th. Let me explain. In recent weeks, we've had the Democratic convention, fresh polls, and a third party candidate withdraw from the race and endorse former President Trump. But all appear to reflect only marginal impacts on the probabilities of different electoral outcomes. Take the withdrawal of independent candidate Robert F Kennedy Junior, which does not appear to be a game changer. Historical precedent is that third party candidates rarely have a path to even winning one state's electoral votes. Further, in polls voters tend to overstate their willingness to support third parties ahead of election day. And it's also not clear that Kennedy withdrawing clearly benefits Democrats or Republicans. Kennedy originally ran for President as a Democrat, and so was thought to be pulling from likely Democratic voters. However, polls suggest his supporter’s next most likely choice was nearly split between Trump and Harris. So while it’s possible that Kennedy’s decision to endorse Trump upon dropping out could be meaningful, given how close the race is, we’re unlikely to be able to observe that potentially marginal but meaningful effect until after the election has passed. And such effects could easily be offset by small shifts favoring Democrats, who are showing some polling resiliency in states where just a couple months ago the election was not assumed by experts to be close. For example, Cook Political Report, a site providing non-partisan election analysis, shifted its assessment of the Presidential election outcome in North Carolina from “lean Republican” to a “toss-up.” Similarly, in recent weeks the site has shifted states like Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia into that same category from “lean Republican.” These shifts are mirrored in several other polls released last week showing a close race in the battleground states. So, for all the changes and developments in the last week, we think we’re left with a Presidential race that’s difficult to view as anything other than a tossup. To borrow a term from the world of sport – it’s a game of inches. Small improvements for either side can be decisive, but as observers we may not be able to see them ahead of time. And so that brings us back to our guidance for investors navigating the run up to the election. Let the democratic process unfold and don’t make any major portfolio shifts until more is known about the outcome. That means the economic cycle will drive markets more than the election cycle in the next couple months. In our view, that favors bonds over stocks. Lower inflation enables easier monetary policy and lower interest rates, good for bond prices; but growth concerns should weigh on equities. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

4 Syys 20243min

While venture capital is taking a more cautionary approach with crypto startups, the buzz around GenAI is only increasing.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what private markets can tell us about the viability and investability of disruptive technologies. It’s Tuesday, the 3rd of September, at 2pm in London. For the past three years we have been tracking venture capital funding to help stay one step ahead of emerging technologies and the companies that are aiming to disrupt incumbent public leaders. Private growth equity markets are -- by their very definition – long-duration, and therefore highly susceptible to interest rate cycles. The easy-money bubble of 2021 and [20]22 saw venture funding reach nearly $1.2trillion dollars – more than the previous decade of funding combined. However, what goes up often comes down; and since their peak, venture growth equity capital deployment has fallen by over 60 percent, as interest rates have ratcheted ever higher beyond 5 percent. So as interest rates fall back towards 3.5 percent, which our economists expect to happen over the coming 12 months, we expect M&A and IPO exit bottlenecks to ease. And so too the capital deployment and fundraising environment to improve. However, the current funding market and its recovery over the coming months and years looks more imbalanced, in our view, than at any point since the Internet era. Having seen tens- and hundreds of billions of dollars poured into CleanTech and health innovations and battery start-ups when capital was free; that has all but turned to a trickle now. On the other end of the spectrum, AI start-ups are now receiving nearly half of all venture capital funding in 2024 year-to-date. Nowhere is that shift in investment priorities more pronounced than in the divergence between AI and crypto startups. Over the last decade, $79billion has been spent by venture capitalists trying to find the killer app in crypto – from NFTs to gaming; decentralized finance. As little as three years ago, start-ups building blockchain applications could depend on a near 1-for-1 correlation of funding for their projects with crypto prices. Now though, despite leading crypto prices only around 10 percent below their 2021 peak, funding for blockchain start-ups has fallen by 75 percent. Blockchain has a product-market-fit and a repeat-user problem. GenerativeAI, on the other hand, does not. Both consumer and enterprise adoption levels are high and rising. Generative AI has leap-frogged crypto in all user metrics we track and in a fraction of the time. And capital providers are responding accordingly. Investors have pivoted en-masse towards funding AI start-ups – and we see no reason why that would stop. The same effect is also happening in physical assets and in the publicly traded space. Our colleague Stephen Byrd, for example, has been advocating for some time that it makes increasing financial sense for crypto miners to repurpose their infrastructure into AI training facilities. Many of the publicly listed crypto miners are doing similar maths and coming to the same outcome. For now though, just as questions are being asked of the listed companies, and what the return on invested capital is for all this AI infrastructure spend; so too in private markets, one must ask the difficult question of whether this unprecedented concentration around finding and funding AI killer apps will be money well spent or simply a replay of recent crypto euphoria. It is still not clear where most value is likely to accrue to – across the 3000 odd GenerativeAI start-ups vying for funding. But history tells us the application layer should be the winner. For now though, from our work, we see three likely power-law candidates. The first is breakthroughs in semiconductors and data centre efficiency technologies. The second is in funding foundational model builders. And the third, specifically in that application layer, we think the greatest chance is in the healthcare application space. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.*****Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are a digital representation of a value that function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, but generally do not have legal tender status. Digital assets have no intrinsic value and there is no investment underlying digital assets. The value of digital assets is derived by market forces of supply and demand, and is therefore more volatile than traditional currencies’ value. Investing in digital assets is risky, and transacting in digital assets carries various risks, including but not limited to fraud, theft, market volatility, market manipulation, and cybersecurity failures—such as the risk of hacking, theft, programming bugs, and accidental loss. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any entity that currently accepts digital assets as payment will do so in the future. The volatility and unpredictability of the price of digital assets may lead to significant and immediate losses. It may not be possible to liquidate a digital assets position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.Regulation of digital assets continues to develop globally and, as such, federal, state, or foreign governments may restrict the use and exchange of any or all digital assets, further contributing to their volatility. Digital assets stored online are not insured and do not have the same protections or safeguards of bank deposits in the US or other jurisdictions. Digital assets can be exchanged for US dollars or other currencies, but are not generally backed nor supported by any government or central bank.Before purchasing, investors should note that risks applicable to one digital asset may not be the same risks applicable to other forms of digital assets. Markets and exchanges for digital assets are not currently regulated in the same manner and do not provide the customer protections available in equities, fixed income, options, futures, commodities or foreign exchange markets. Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do business that may relate to some of the digital assets or other related products discussed in Morgan Stanley Research. These could include market making, providing liquidity, fund management, commercial banking, extension of credit, investment services and investment banking.

3 Syys 20244min

Original Release Date August 8, 2024: Our Head of Europe Sustainability Research discusses how rising longevity is revolutionizing our fundamental approach from reactive to proactive treatment.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, we’re bringing you a variety of perspectives; and today we’re focusing on a topic that affects everyone – how much does poor health cost us? And how are ageing populations and longer life expectancy driving a fundamental shift in healthcare? It’s Thursday, August the 8th, at 4pm in London. As populations age across the developed world, health systems need to help people live both longer and healthier. The current system is typically built around to focus on acute conditions and it’s more reactive; so it introduces clinical care or drugs to respond to a condition after it’s already arisen, rather than keeping people healthy in the first instance. So increasingly, with the burden of chronic disease becoming by far the greatest health and economic challenge we face, we need to change the structure of the healthcare system. Essentially, the key question is how much is poor health amongst the ageing population really costing society? To get a true sense of that, we need to keep in mind that workers over 50 already earn one out of every three dollars across the G20 regions. By 2035, they're projected to generate nearly 40 per cent of all household income. So with that in mind, preventable conditions amongst those people aged 50-64 at the moment, are already costing G20 economies over $1 trillion annually in productivity loss. And there’s one more key number: 19 per cent. That's how much age-diverse workforces can raise GDP per capita over the next thirty years, according to estimates from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. So clearly, keeping workers healthier for longer underpins a more productive, more efficient, and a profitable global economy. So it’s clear that [if] the current healthcare system were to shift from sick from care to prevention, the global gains would be substantial.The BioPharma sector is already contributing some targeted novel treatments in areas like smart chemotherapy and in CRISPR – which is a technology that allows for selective DNA modification. While we can credit BioPharma and MedTech for really powerful innovations in diagnostics, in AI deployment for areas like data science and material science, and in sophisticated telemedicine – all these breakthroughs together give a more personalized, targeted health system; which is a big step in the right direction, but honestly they alone can’t solve this much broader longevity challenge we face. Focus on health and prevention, ultimately, could address those underlying causes of ill-health, so that problems don’t arise even in the first instance. Governments around the world are obviously realizing the value of preventive care over sick care. And as a strategy, disease prevention fundamentally aims to promote wellness across the board, whether that’s in things like mental state, nutrition or even in things like sleep and stress. While it might be easy to kind of conflate that with wellness trends – things like green smoothies or meditation – the underlying benefits of boosting health at the cellular level have much broader and deeper implications. Things like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, supporting better health across populations can significantly reduce the incidence of a wide range of chronic conditions. It can lower the burden on health systems overall, and actually increase healthy lifespan at the end of the day. BioPharma advances are significant, but addressing longevity will require a much broader alignment across a myriad of elements; everything really from the food system to sanitation to training healthcare professionals. And of course, all of that will require consistent policy support. Regulators and policymakers are paying very close attention to their ageing population – and so are we. We’ll continue to bring you updates on this topic, which is so important to all of us.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please do leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

30 Elo 20244min

As the US Federal Reserve mulls a forthcoming interest rate cut, our Head of Corporate Credit Research and Global Chief Economist discuss how it is balancing inflationary risks with risks to growth.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the Federal Reserve, whether its policy is behind the curve and what's next.It's Thursday, August 29th at 2pm in London.Seth Carpenter: And it's 9am in New York.Andrew Sheets: Seth, it's always great to talk to you. But that's especially true right now. The Federal Reserve has been front and center in the markets debate over the last month; and I think investors have honestly really gone back and forth about whether interest rates are in line or out of line with the economy. And I was hoping to cover a few big questions about Fed policy that have been coming up with our clients and how you think the Fed thinks about them.And I think this timing is also great because the Federal Reserve has recently had a major policy conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming where you often see the Fed talking about some of its longer-term views and we can get your latest takeaways from that.Seth Carpenter: Yeah, that sounds great, Andrew. Clearly these are some of the key topics in markets right now.Andrew Sheets: Perfect. So, let's dive right into it. I think one of the debates investors have been having -- one of the uncertainties -- is that the Fed has been describing the risk to their outlook as balanced between the risk to growth and risk to inflation. And yet, I think for investors, the view over the last month or two is these risks aren't balanced; that inflation seems well under control and is coming down rapidly. And yet growth looks kind of weak and might be more of a risk going forward.So why do you think the Fed has had this framing? And do you think this framing is still correct in the aftermath of Jackson Hole?Seth Carpenter: My personal view is that what we got out of Jackson hole was not a watershed moment. It was not a change in view. It was an evolution, a continuation in how the Fed's been thinking about things. But let me unpack a few things here.First, markets tend to look at recent data and try to look forward, try to look around the corner, try to extrapolate what's going on. You know as well as I do that just a couple weeks ago, everyone in markets was wondering are we already in recession or not -- and now that view has come back. The Fed, in contrast, tends to be a bit more inertial in their thinking. Their thoughts evolve more slowly, they wait to collect more data before they have a view. So, part of the difference in mindset between the Fed and markets is that difference in frequency with which updates are made.I'd say the other point that's critical here is the starting point. So, the two risks: risks to inflation, risks to growth. We remember the inflation data we're getting in Q1. That surprised us, surprised the market, and it surprised the Fed to the upside. And the question really did have to come into the Fed's mind -- have we hit a patch where inflation is just stubbornly sticky to the upside, and it's going to take a lot more cost to bring that inflation down. So those risks were clearly much bigger in the Fed’s mind than what was going on with growth.Because coming out of last year and for the first half of this year, not only would the Fed have said that the US economy is doing just fine; they would have said growth is actually too fast to be consistent with the long run, potential growth of the US economy. Or reaching their 2 per cent inflation target on a sustained basis. So, as we got through this year, inflation data got better and better and better, and that risk diminished.Now, as you pointed out, the risk on growth started to rise a little bit. We went from clearly growing too fast by some metrics to now some questions -- are we softened so much that we're now in the sweet spot? Or is there a risk that we're slowing too much and going into recession?But that's the sense in which there's balance. We went from far higher risks on inflation. Those have come down to, you know, much more nuanced risks on inflation and some rising risk from a really strong starting point on growth.Andrew Sheets: So, Seth, that kind of leads to my second question that we've been getting from investors, which is, you know, some form of the following. Even if these risks between inflation and growth are balanced, isn't Fed policy very restrictive? The Fed funds rate is still relatively high, relative to where the Fed thinks the rate will average over the long run. How do you think the Fed thinks about the restrictiveness of current policy? And how does that relate to what you expect going forward?Seth Carpenter: So first, and we've heard this from some of the Fed speakers, there's a range of views on how restrictive policy is. But I think all of them would say policy is at least to some degree restrictive right now. Some thinking it's very restrictive. Some thinking only modestly.But when they talk about the restrictiveness of policy in the context of the balance of these risks, they're thinking about the risks -- not just where we are right now and where policy is right now; but given how they're thinking about the evolution of policy over the next year or two. And remember, they all think they're going to be cutting rates this year and all through next year.Then the question is, over that time horizon with policy easing, do we think the risks are still balanced? And I think that's the sense in which they're using the balance of risks. And so, they do think policy is restrictive.They would also say that if policy weren't restrictive, [there would] probably be higher risks to inflation because that's part of what's bringing inflation out of the system is the restrictive stance of policy. But as they ease policy over time, that is part of what is balancing the risks between the two.Andrew Sheets: And that actually leads nicely to the third question that we've been getting a lot of, which is again related to investor concerns -- that maybe policy is moving out of line with the economy. And that's some form of the following: that by even just staying on hold, by not doing anything, keeping the Fed funds rate constant, as inflation comes down, that rate becomes higher relative to inflation. The real policy rate rises. And so that represents more restrictive monetary policy at the very moment, when some of the growth data seems to be decelerating, which would seem to be suboptimal.So, do you think that's the Fed's intention? Do you think that's a fair framing of kind of the real policy rate and that it's getting more restrictive? And again, how do you think the Fed is thinking about those dynamics as they unfold?Seth Carpenter: I do think that's an important framing to think -- not just about the nominal level of interest rates; you know where the policy rate is itself, but that inflation adjusted rate. As you said, the real rate matters a lot. And inside the Fed as an institution there, that's basically how most of the people there think about it as well. And further, I would say that very framing you put out about -- as inflation falls, will policy become more restrictive if no adjustment is made? We've heard over the past couple of years, Federal Reserve policymakers make exactly that same framing.So, it's clearly a relevant question. It's clearly on point right now. My view though, as an economist, is that what's more important than realized inflation, what prices have done over the past 12 months. What really matters is inflation expectations, right? Because if what we're trying to think about is -- how are businesses thinking about their cost of capital relative to the revenues are going to get in the future; it's not about what policy, it's not about what inflation did in the past. It's what they expect in the future.And I have to say, from my perspective, inflation expectations have already fallen. So, all of this passive tightening that you're describing, it's already baked in. It's already part of why, in my view, you know, the economy is starting to slow down. So, it's a relevant question; but I'm personally less convinced that the fall in inflation we've seen over the past couple of months is really doing that much to tighten the stance of policy.Andrew Sheets: So, Seth, you know, bringing this all together, both your answers to these questions that are at the forefront of investors' minds, what we heard at the Jackson Hole Policy Conference and what we've heard from the latest FOMC minutes -- what does Morgan Stanley Economics think the Fed's policy path going forward is going to be?Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So, you know, it's funny. I always have to separate in my brain what I think should happen with policy -- and that used to be my job. But now we're talking about what I think will happen with policy. And our view is the Fed's about to start cutting interest rates.The market believes that now. The Fed seems from their communication to believe that. We've got written down a path of 25 basis point reduction in the policy rate in September, in November, in December. So, a string of these going all the way through to the middle of next year to really ease the stance of policy, to get away from being extremely restrictive, to being at best only moderately restrictive -- to try to extend this cycle.I will say though, that if we're wrong, and if the economy is a bit slower than we think, a 50 basis point cut has to be possible.And so let me turn the tables on you, Andrew, because we're expecting that string of 25 basis point cuts, but the market is pricing in about 100 basis points of cuts this year with only three meetings left. So that has to imply at least one of those meetings having a 50 basis point cut somewhere.So, is that a good thing? Would the market see a 50 basis point cut as the Fed catching up from being behind the curve? Or would the market worry that a bigger cut implies a greater recession risk that could spook risk assets?Andrew Sheets: Yeah, Seth, I think that's a great question because it's also one where I think views across investors in the market genuinely diverge. So, you know, I'll give you our view and others might have a different take.But I think what you have is a really interesting dynamic where kind of two things can be true. You know, on the one hand, I think if you talk to 50 investors and ask them, you know, would they rather for equities or credit have lower rates or higher rates, all else equal -- I think probably 50 would tell you they would rather have lower rates.And yet I think if you look back at history, and you look at the periods where the Federal Reserve has been cutting rates the most and cutting most aggressively, those have been some of the worst environments for credit and equities in the modern era. Things like 2001, 2008, you know, kind of February of 2020. And I think the reason for that is that the economic backdrop -- while the Fed is cutting -- matters enormously for how the market interprets it.And so, conditions where growth is weakening rapidly, and the Fed is cutting a lot to respond to that, are generally periods that the market does not like. Because they see the weaker data right now. They see the weakness that could affect earnings and credit quality immediately. And the help from those lower rates because policy works with lag may not arrive for six or nine or twelve months. It's a long time to wait for the cavalry.And so, you know, the way that we think about that is that it's really, I think the growth environment that’s going to determine how markets view this rate cutting balance. And I think if we see better growth and somewhat fewer rate cuts, the base case that you and your team at Morgan Stanley Economics have -- which is a bit fewer cuts than the market, but growth holding up -- which we think is a very good combination for credit. A scenario where growth is weaker than expected and the Fed cuts more aggressively, I think history would suggest, that's more unfriendly and something we should be more worried about.So, I do think the growth data remains extremely important here. I think that's what the market will focus most on and I think it's a very much good is good regime that I think is going to determine how the market views cuts. And fewer is fine as long as the data holds up.Seth Carpenter: That make a lot of sense, and thanks for letting me turn the tables on you and ask questions. And for the listeners, thank you for listening. If you enjoy this show, leave us a review wherever you listen to podcast. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

29 Elo 202411min