2026 Midterm Elections: What’s at Stake for Markets

Although China’s economy faces challenges in terms of debt, demographics and deflation, the right policy approach could ward off a debt deflation loop.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing the journey ahead for China as it faces the triple challenge of debt, demographics and deflation. It's Thursday, August 17, at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. Before we get into China, I want to take you back to the oft-told tale from the 1990s when Japan experienced what we now refer to as the ‘Lost Decade.’ During this period, the combination of economic stagnation and price deflation transformed a bustling economy in the 1980s, into an economy that grew at a little more than 1% annually over a decade. Fast forward to today, where China is confronted with the triple challenge of debt, demographics and deflation, what we are calling the 3Ds. As a result, many investors are now concerned that China will be stuck in a debt deflation loop, just like Japan was in the 1990s. But is China better placed to manage these headwinds even though the risks of falling into debt deflation loop remain high? We think at the starting point, the answer is yes, but with a few historical lessons that I'll get into in a moment. For context, China compares better with the Japan of the 1990s in the following four aspects. First, asset prices in China have not run up as much. Second, per capita incomes are still lower in China, implying a higher potential growth runway. Third, unlike Japan, China has not experienced a big currency appreciation shock. And finally, perhaps the most crucial difference is policy setting. Back in the 90s, the Bank of Japan kept real interest rates higher than real GDP growth between 1991 and 1995. But in contrast to Japan, China's real rates are below real GDP growth currently. To explain, historically, when economies are seeking to stabilize or reduce debt, the key element is to ensure that there is adequate gap between real interest rates and real GDP growth. In Japan's case, real interest rates were maintained about real GDP growth for the first four years. A similar situation occurred in the US post the 1929 stock market crash. As real rates were kept high, it laid the ground for the beginnings of the Great Depression. From both of these examples, the historical track shows two policy missteps. First, policymakers' concern about reigniting misallocation leads them to gravitate towards a hawkish bias. Second, policymakers tend to turn hawkish too quickly at the first signs of a recovery. During the Great Depression, easing of policies had led to recovery from 1933 onwards, but a premature tightening of policies in 1936 led to the double dip in 1937/38. Contrast this with the US after 2008, when the Fed was quick to bring rates to zero and embark on successive rounds of quantitative easing while fiscal policy was deployed in tandem. Sustaining real interest rates 2 percentage points below real GDP growth is key to deleveraging. Why? Because if you think about it, deleveraging will not be possible if the interest rate on your debt is growing faster than the increase in your income. In this context, while China's real interest rates are below real GDP growth currently, we still see the risk that policymakers will not take up reflationary policies to sustain the rates minus growth gap, which keeps the risk of China falling into debt deflation loop alive. So what is the potential outcome? China's policymakers will need to act forcefully. If they don't, the economy could fall into debt deflation loop, persistent deflation would take hold, debt to GDP would keep rising, and GDP per capita in USD terms would stagnate, just as it happened in Japan in the 1990s. But, as history has shown us, that doesn't have to be the outcome. 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 a colleague today.

17 Elo 20234min

Although Congress has avoided previous shutdowns with last-minute resolutions, investors shouldn’t get complacent in assuming the same outcome again in the fall.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about what investors need to know about the risk of the U.S. government shutdown. It's Wednesday, August 16th at 10 a.m. in New York. Congress is in recess until September. When they return, they'll have just a few weeks to pass several funding bills in order to avoid a government shutdown. And while it certainly seems like dramatic deadlines and last minute resolutions are all too common in D.C. these days, investors shouldn't get complacent on this one. Let's start with why investors should take seriously the risk of a government shutdown, which happens when Congress fails to authorize spending to keep most government functions open. When that happens, there are both direct economic impacts, such as government workers and contractors not getting paid on time and indirect impacts, such as the economic activity of those workers and contractors being crimped given that they're going without pay. In the 2019 shutdown, for example, 800,000 government workers were affected by this disruption. Our economists estimate that for every week the government is shut down, we should expect a 0.05% point reduction in GDP, with that impact compounding and increasing over time. While that's not a huge number, in the context of an already softening economic growth and profit outlook for stocks, it doesn't help. So if a shutdown presents economic downside, why is that even a possibility? Here's four reasons why. First, Congress faces several challenging negotiations in September, which elevates the complexity of the legislative process ahead of the shutdown deadline. Second, there are disagreements within the Republican Party on what the right level of funding is for the government, meaning one of the two parties has yet to firm up its position to get negotiations going in earnest. Third, there's also disagreement within the Republican Party on aid levels for Ukraine. Finally, there appears to be greater willingness on the part of lawmakers to engage in policy standoffs, as evidenced by the recent debt ceiling negotiation. While history shows that approval ratings for both parties fared poorly following a shutdown, shutdowns happen nonetheless, and quotes from key members of both parties suggest little concern with the political impact of such an event. So what's an investor to do from here? For the moment, not much. We're not expecting much news on this or market reaction until September. Until then, we'll, of course, keep you updated on anything relevant. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

16 Elo 20232min

With the rupee appreciating, manufacturing and services in a consistent rally and demographic trends on an upswing, India may be better poised for a long-term boom than other markets in Asia.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why India is now our preferred market in Asian equities. It's Tuesday, August 15th at 8am in Singapore. Before we dive into the details of some important changes in view that we've recently published, let's take a step back and set the scene for today's changes in a broader thematic context. Firstly, a reminder that we think we began a new bull market in Asia and EM last October. And from the trough in late October, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index is up around 25%. So the changes we're making are about identifying leadership at the market level as we transition towards a midcycle environment. Secondly, we continue to prefer Japan within our coverage, which remains Morgan Stanley's top pick in global equities but is a developed market. In terms of the changes that we've made on the downgrades side, for Taiwan, it has led the way off the bottom, rising almost 40% since last October. It's a market dominated by technology and export earnings, where the structural trend in return on equity has been positive in recent years as those firms have succeeded globally. Our upgrade last October was a simple cyclical story of distressed valuations at a time of depressed sentiment about underlying demand trends in semiconductors. The situation is very different today. Valuations are back to mid-cycle levels, and while demand remains weak in key areas such as smartphones and conventional cloud, a path to recovery is becoming more evident. Moreover, as has been the case in many prior cycles, a new end use category AI service is generating significant excitement. Our China downgrade, which is linked to our Australia downgrade via the Australian mining stocks, has a different structural set up. The China market, unlike Taiwan, is overwhelmingly dominated by domestic demand stocks and its domestic demand which has failed to recover convincingly in the post-COVID environment. Indeed, the current investor debate is centered on whether China's demographic transition, high domestic debt to GDP ratio and over-investment in property and infrastructure are starting to generate a balance sheet recession. Core inflation is stuck close to zero, with evidence of high unemployment in the young population and weak wages, with households and private firms no longer willing to lever up. Now, recent statements from the Politburo have begun to acknowledge the need to reverse some of the measures that have pressured the property market. But there is no easy way out of the intertwined property and local government financing debt burdens that have built up in the years when the growth model did not transition fast enough. And at the same time, China faces the new challenge of coping with multi-polar world pressures from the US in particular, which is generating new restrictions on inward technology transfers. All that said, we do not rule out moving back to a more positive stance on China, should policy implementation be more aggressive than hitherto. For India, the situation is in stark contrast to that in China, as was borne out to me by a recent visit in June to the Morgan Stanley annual Investment Summit in Mumbai. With GDP per capita, only $2,500 versus $13,000 for China and positive demographic trends, India is arguably at the start of a long wave boom at the same time as China may be ending one. Manufacturing and services PMIs have rallied consistently since the end of COVID restrictions, in contrast to the rapid fade seen in China. Also, real estate transaction volumes in construction have broken out to the upside. Moreover, India's ability to leverage multi-polar world dynamics is a significant advantage. Simply put, India's future looks to a significant extent like China's past, and in this context, it's particularly relevant to note long run trends in exchange rates now show the Indian rupee more stable and actually appreciating whilst the renminbi is depreciating. So considering Indian equities and Chinese equities as a pair in dollar terms, we appear to be at the beginning of a new era of Indian outperformance compared to China. From early 2021, India has broken out dramatically to the upside in performance. And whilst reversion to the mean is often a powerful force in finance, we think this represents a structural break in India's favor. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today.

15 Elo 20234min

While the Fed fights generationally high inflation, the U.S. economy continues to grow, supported by high levels of spending. This has affected both the bond and equity markets.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, August 14, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. At the trough of the pandemic recession in April 2020, we first introduced our thesis that the health care emergency would usher in a new era of fiscal policy. The result would be higher inflation than monetary policy was able to attain on its own over the prior decade. In the first phase of this new policy regime, we referred to it as helicopter money, as described by Milton Friedman in the early 1970s and then highlighted by Ben Bernanke after the tech bubble as a policy that could always be employed to avoid a deflationary bust. Handing out checks to people is a fairly radical policy, however, the COVID pandemic was the perfect emergency to try it. The policy shift worked so well to keep the economy afloat during the lockdowns that the government decided to double down on the strategy by doing an additional $3 trillion of direct fiscal spending in the first quarter of 2021. This excessive fiscal policy is why money supply growth increased to a record level at 25% year-over-year in early 2021, and why we finally got the inflation central banks had been trying so hard to achieve post the great financial crisis. After the financial crisis, the velocity of money collapsed, while the Fed's balance sheet ballooned to levels never seen before. The reason we didn't get inflation in that initial episode of quantitative easing is because the money created remained trapped in bank reserves rather than in a real economy where it could drive excess demand in higher prices, a dynamic that's been obviously very different this time. Fortunately, the Fed is responding to this generationally high inflation with the most aggressive tightening of monetary policy in 40 years. But this is the definition of fiscal dominance, monetary policy is beholden to the whims of fiscal policy. First, it had to be overly supportive and fund the record deficits in 2020 and 21, and then it had to react with historically tighter policy once inflation got out of control. Back in 2020, we turned very bullish on equities on this shift of fiscal dominance and also subsequently indicated it would lead to a period of hotter but shorter economic earning cycles, mainly because the Fed would not have the same flexibility to proactively try to extend economic expansions. We also argued that catching these cycles on both the upside and downside would be critical for equity investors to outperform. From 2020 to 2022, we found ourselves on the right side of that dynamic both up and down, this year, not so much. Part of the reason we found ourselves offsides this year is due to the very large fiscal impulse restarting last year and remaining quite strong in 2023. In fact, we have rarely ever seen such large deficits when the unemployment rate is so low and inflation well above target. If fiscal policy is showing little constraint in good times, what happens to the deficit when the next recession arrives? The main takeaway for the equity market this year is that fiscal policy has allowed the economy to grow faster than forecasted and has given rise to the consensus view that the risk of recession has faded considerably. Furthermore, with the recent lifting of the debt ceiling until 2025, this aggressive fiscal spending could continue. However, the sustainability of such fiscal policy is the primary reason why Fitch recently downgraded the U.S. Treasury debt. Combined with the substantial increase in the supply of Treasury notes and bonds expected to fund these government expenditures, bond markets have sold off considerably this past month. This should start to call into question the valuations of equities, which were already high even before this recent rise in yields. Furthermore, if fiscal spending must be curtailed due to either higher political or funding costs, the unfinished earnings decline that began last year is more likely to resume as our forecast is still predicting. Equity markets seem to have noticed, with many of the best performing stocks correcting by 10% or more. Even if one is bullish on stocks, such a correction was necessary to reset investor exuberance. The challenge will come this fall if growth fails to materialize as now expected. In that case, a healthy 5 to 10% pullback may turn into the much more significant correction we were expecting to occur in the first half of this year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

14 Elo 20234min

While the Fed navigates a soft landing for the U.S. economy and stock valuations remain high, how can investors navigate the risks and rewards of a surprisingly strong equity market? Lisa Shalett is Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Chief Investment Officer. She is not a member of Morgan Stanley Research.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Fixed Income Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing what's been happening year to date in markets and what might lie ahead. It's Friday, August 11th at 1 p.m. in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 8am here in New York City. Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, it's great to have you here. I think it's safe to say that as a strategy group, we at Morgan Stanley have been cautious on this year. But I also think this is a pretty remarkable year. As you look back at your experience with investing, can you kind of help put 2023 in context of just how unusual and maybe surprising this year has been? Lisa Shalett: You know, I think one of the the key attributes of 2023 is, quite frankly, not only the extraordinarily low odds that history would put on the United States Federal Reserve being able to, quote unquote, thread the needle and deliver what appears to be an economic soft landing where the vast and most rapid increase in rates alongside quantitative tightening has exacted essentially no toll on the unemployment rate in the United States or, quite frankly, average economic vigor. United States GDP in the second quarter of this year looked to accelerate from the first quarter and came in at a real rate of 2.4%, which most folks would probably describe as average to slightly above average in terms of the long run real growth of the US economy over the last decade. So, you know, in many ways this was such a low odds event just from the jump. I think the second thing that has been perplexing is for folks that are deeply steeped in, kind of, traditional analytic frameworks and long run correlative and predictive variables, the degree to which the number of models have failed is, quite frankly, the most profound in my career. So we've seen some real differences between how the S&P 500 has been valued, the multiple expansion that we have seen and things like real rates, real rates have traditionally pushed overall valuation multiples down. And that has not been the case. And, you know, I think markets always do, quote unquote climb the wall of worry. But I think as we, you know, get some distance from this period, I think we're also going to understand the unique backdrop against which this cycle is playing out and, you know, perhaps gaining a little bit more of an understanding around how did the crisis and the economic shocks of COVID change the labor markets perhaps permanently. How did the degree to which stimulus came into the system create a sequencing, if you will, between the manufacturing side of the economy and the services side of the economy that has created what we might call rolling slowdowns or rolling recessions, that when mathematically summed together obscure some of those trends and absorb them and kind of create a flat, flattish, or soft landing as we've experienced. Andrew Sheets: How are you thinking about the valuation picture in the market right now? And then I kind of want to get your thoughts about how you think valuations should determine strategy going forward. Lisa Shalett: So this is a fantastic question because, you know, very often I'm sitting in front of clients who are, you know, very anxious about the next quarter, the next year. And while I think you and I can agree that there certainly are these anomalous periods where valuations do appear to be disconnecting from both interest rates and even earnings trends, they don't tend to be persistent states. And so when we look at current valuations just in the United States, if you said you're looking at a market that is trading at 20x earnings the implication is that the earnings yield or your earnings return from that investment is estimated at roughly 5%. In a world where fixed income instruments and credit instruments are delivering that plus at historic volatilities that are potentially half or even a third of what equities are, you can kind of make the argument that on a sharp ratio basis, stocks don't look great. Now, that's not all stocks. Clearly, all stocks are not selling at 20x forward multiples. But the point is we do have to think about valuation because in the long run, it does matter. Andrew Sheets: I guess looking ahead, as you think about the more highly valued parts of the market, where do you think that thinking might most likely apply, as in the current valuation, even if it looks expensive, might be more defendable? And where would you be most concerned? Lisa Shalett: I think we have to, you know, take a step back and think about where some of the richest valuations are sitting. And they're sitting in, you know, some of the megacap consumer tech companies that have really dominated the cycle over the last, you know, 14, 15 years. So we have to think about a couple of things. The first is we have to think about, you know, the law of large numbers and how hard it is, as companies get bigger and bigger, for them to sustain the growth rates that they have. There will never be companies as dominant as, you know, certain banks. There will never be companies that are as dominant as the industrials. There will never be companies that are as dominant as health care. I mean, there's always this view that winners who achieve this kind of incumbent status are incumbent forever. And yet history radically dispels that notion, right? I think the second thing that we need to understand is very often when you get these type of valuations on megacap companies, they become, you know, the increased subject of government and regulatory scrutiny, not only for their market power and their dominance, but quite frankly for things around their pricing power, etc. The last thing that I would say is that, you know, what's unique about some of the megacap consumer tech companies today that I don't hear anyone talking about, is this idea that increasingly they're bumping up against each other. It's one thing when, you know, you are an e-commerce innovator who is rolling up retail against smaller, fragmented operators. It's quite another when it's, you know, three companies own the cloud, seven companies own streaming. And I don't hear anyone really talking about it head on. It's as if these markets grow inexorably and there's, you know, room for everyone to gain share. And I push back on some of those notions.Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, I'd like to ask you in closing about what we think investors should do going forward. And to start, within one's equity portfolio, where do you currently see the better risk reward? Lisa Shalett: So we're looking at where are the areas where earnings have the potential to surprise on the upside, and where perhaps the multiples are a little bit more forgiving. So where are we finding some of that? Number one, we're finding it in energy right now. I think while there's been a lot of high fiving and enthusiasm around the degree to which headline inflation has been tamed, I think that if you, you know, kind of look underneath the surface, dynamics for supply and demand in the energy complex are beginning to stabilize and may in fact be showing some strength, especially if the global economy is stronger in 2024. A second area is in some of the large cap financials. I think that some of the large cap financials are underestimated for not only their diversity, but their ability to actually have some leverage if in fact global growth is somewhat stronger. We also think that there may be opportunities in things like residential REITs. There's been, you know, concern about that area, but we also know that the supply demand dynamics in US housing are in fact quite different this cycle. And last but certainly not least, I think that there are a series of themes around fiscal spending, around infrastructure, around decarbonization, around some of the the reconfiguration of supply chains that involves some of the less glamorous parts of the market, like utilities, like, you know, some of the industrials companies that have some very interesting potential growth attributes to them that that may not be fully priced as well. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. Lisa Shalett: Absolutely, Andrew. Always a pleasure. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

11 Elo 20239min

A recent landmark study around weight-loss medicine could spark near-term growth opportunities in pharmaceuticals.----- Transcript -----Mark Purcell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. Terence Flynn: And I'm Terence Flynn, Head of the U.S. Biopharma Team. Mark Purcell: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll give you an update on the global obesity challenge. It's Thursday, the 10th of August, and it's 1 p.m. in London. Terence Flynn: And 8 a.m. in New York. Terence Flynn: Now, a year ago, we came on the show to discuss our views on the global obesity challenge, and the problem has since received significant media attention. We believe that the narrative around obesity has indeed changed, with a more empathetic media tone, exponential social media growth and increased recognition across health care professionals and policymakers. Mark, what exactly happened over the last year? Mark Purcell: Well, Terence I mean the uptake of obesity medicines in the US has been much stronger than we anticipated. In fact, obesity drug demand has outstripped supply, as you said, driven by social media activity, but also a rapid expansion in reimbursement. When we look back, about 12 million individuals suffering with obesity were covered by insurance and employee opt-ins for the first generation of these appetite suppressing medicines. For newer, higher efficacy GLP-1 medicines, about 40 million lives are covered, and that is more than the estimated number of individuals living with diabetes in the US, which is projected to be about 37 million. Terence Flynn: Great. Thanks, Mark. Now the greater focus on weight management has spilled over into an increasingly weight centric approach to treating diabetes. What changes are you seeing and how are they impacting the industry? Mark Purcell: Terence you're absolutely right. Look, for many years, treatment guidelines for diabetes focused on blood sugar control only. Just before the pandemic, there was an increasing focus on controlling cardiovascular risks as w ell, such as preventing heart attacks. In the past 12 months, there's been increased focus on weight management for diabetes, which can help prevent the progression of diabetes and potentially reverse the course of the disease if you catch it early enough. It's estimated about 40% of GLP-1 prescriptions in the US are for patients early in the course of their disease. These dynamics have driven a profound acceleration in the uptake of GLP-1 medicines in diabetes, and we now project GLP-1 sales in diabetes alone to exceed $56 billion in 2030. Terence Flynn: Mark, I know this SELECT trial has been a focus and this was the first large randomized trial to test whether long term treatment with a weight loss drug can meaningfully improve patients cardiovascular health. Now, this trial appears just to be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to market expansion. Maybe you could walk us through your thoughts on the recent data. Mark Purcell: Yeah, thanks Terence. I mean, SELECT is a really important obesity landmark study. It addresses the question does weight management save lives? The trial was designed to show a 17% reduction in the risk of heart attacks and strokes and cardiovascular deaths in non-diabetic individuals suffering from obesity who are treated with GLP-1 medicines. And we just got the data top line the other day, and in fact, these medicines are showing a 20% reduction in heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular death. As you said, I mean, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to new growth opportunities for weight loss medicines, with positive data to be presented at the American Heart Association meeting in November, the SELECT data and also data in heart failure, and then next year we get exciting data in obstructive sleep apnea, in chronic kidney disease and also in peripheral arterial disease. Back to you, Terence. What is your outlook for the size of the obesity market in the US and globally over the next 5 to 10 years? Terence Flynn: Thanks, Mark. As you mentioned earlier, the uptake of obesity medicines in the US over the last year has been stronger than we anticipated. There have been some supply chain shortages that have capped an acceleration uptake in the US, and delayed the rollout of these medicines outside of the US. But a number of companies are making significant manufacturing investments today which will help improve supply on a global basis, but also create barriers to entry in the future. We're projecting that sales of the new obesity medicines in the US would have exceeded $7 billion this year, if the supply challenges had not been an issue. But if we extrapolate these strong early dynamics in the US, we project the global obesity market could reach over $70 billion in 2030. Our prior estimate was over $50 billion. Mark Purcell: And Terence, are there any regional differences between Europe and the US and possibly other parts of the world? Terence Flynn: Now, the majority of the upgrade, Mark, to our forecasts really centered on our US assumption. And this reflects the limited rollout of these drugs in other countries, in part due to supply constraints I mentioned, but also lack of visibility with respect to demand and payer dynamics across different regions. In the future, we do expect this to change, as I mentioned, given improving supply dynamics, improving reimbursement and the rollout of newer oral options that could also help improve global access. Mark Purcell: So where are we in terms of GLP-1 obesity medicine prices, when it comes to the consumer and when it comes to insurance reimbursement? Terence Flynn: Yeah, thanks, Mark. I mean, the injectable GLP medicines right now for diabetes are priced at about $900 to $1000 per month here in the US, but net prices are more in the $500 per month range. Now, in obesity, these drugs do cost somewhat more, but over time prices could converge lower. Now, insurance coverage, as you mentioned, Mark, is still a work in progress with over 40 million people now covered. But in our view, the SELECT data, in conjunction with legislation, could really help to expand coverage further. Going back to you, Mark, what's next in the pipeline for these GLP-1 medicines? Mark Purcell: The key focus is if the industry's pipeline at the moment are combination approaches and new ways to deliver these medicines. We've previously drawn parallels between how the high blood pressure market evolved in the 1980s and how we expect the obesity market to develop in the future, where combining different mechanisms can lead to better and more consistent treatment approaches. In obesity, targeting liver fat and lean body mass, these are things that can improve the quality of weight loss. There are a number of oral treatment approaches in development as well now, which we expect to broaden the appeal of GLP-1 medicines to a new audience, so really, it's an exciting time in the obesity global challenge. Mark Purcell: Terence, thanks for taking the time to talk. Terence Flynn: Great speaking with you, Mark. Mark Purcell: 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.

10 Elo 20236min

Forthcoming U.S. restrictions on some tech investments in China may present new opportunities as companies adapt to these constraints.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about developments in the US-China economic relationship. It's Wednesday, August 9th at 10 a.m. in New York. News this week broke that the U.S. government is close to finalizing rules that would limit U.S. investment into China related to cutting edge tech sectors, such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence. The long awaited move, which we've discussed many times on this podcast, is yet another sign that the rewiring of the global economic system continues, transitioning from one of globalization to that of a multipolar world. But when news breaks like this, it's helpful to remember that the headlines can sound worse than the reality. Yes, it's likely that the global economy, and therefore markets, would be better off if the U.S. and China could find a way to deepen their economic ties, but the fraying of those ties need not be a substantial negative either. And these new outbound investment restrictions are a great example of that point. The proposed rule will, reportedly, restrict investment in companies who derive more than half their revenue from the sensitive technologies in question. Effectively, that means the U.S. will mostly be concerned with U.S. investors not funding development of new technology through startups. It could potentially leave the door open for more traditional forms of U.S. investment into China, namely through working with larger companies on market access and supply chain solutions. So while many companies are still likely to seek diversification away from China for their supply chains, they still have the ability to do this over time, as opposed to an abrupt decoupling that investors would likely see as carrying much greater risk to the global economy and markets. So, this gives investors a better chance to identify the opportunities that emerge as companies and governments spend money to adopt to these new constraints. Security as an investment theme is something we see potential in, with the defense sector and many industrial subsectors as beneficiaries. Geographically, we see Mexico, India and broader Asia as best positioned to capture investment and jobs from supply chain realignment, given their labor costs and proximity to key end markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

9 Elo 20232min

The profound demographic changes underway in countries around the world will require innovative, socially focused solutions in sectors including health care, finance and infrastructure.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Bryd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Mike Canfield: And I'm Mike Camfield, Head of EMEA Sustainability Research. Stephen Byrd: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the social factors within the environmental, social and governance framework, or ESG, as a source of compelling opportunities for investors. It's Tuesday, August 8th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Mike Canfield: And 3 p.m. in London. Stephen Byrd: At Morgan Stanley Research. We believe that investing in social impact is critical to addressing some of the most pressing challenges facing our world today, such as inequality, poverty, lack of access to health care and education, and the repercussions of climate change. Traditional methods like philanthropy and government aid are a piece of the puzzle, but alone they can't address with the breadth and scale of these issues. So, Mike, looking back over the last couple of decades, investors have sometimes struggled with the social component of ESG investing. Some of the main challenges have been around data availability, the potential for social washing and the capacity to influence systemic change. How are market views on social investing changing right now, and what's driving this shift? Mike Canfield: It has historically been quite easy for investors to dismiss social, it's too subjective, too hard to measure, overly qualitative, and perhaps not even material in moving share prices. Increasingly, we do find investors recognize the vast and intractable social problems we face, whether that's structural shifts in workforces with countries like Korea, Japan and large parts of Europe projecting working age population decline by double digit percentage in the next 15 to 20 years, significant growth in urbanization or growing middle class populations in countries around the world. Investors also increasingly understand the interconnectivity of stakeholders across society, be that supranational organizations or governments or the corporate world, or even citizens themselves. Concurrently, it's becoming clear that corporate purpose and culture are critical considerations for prospective and current employees, as well as end customers themselves who are prepared to vote with both their wallets and their feet. All that said, we do note the overall impact at EM has garnered in 18% kagger over the last five years to nearly $213 billion with the Global Impact Investing Network pointing out that over 60% of impact investors are targeting some of the UN's socially focused SDGs. Notably goal eight around decent growth, goal five, around gender equality, goal ten around reduced inequalities broadly and goal three good health and well-being. In terms of drivers, we're seeing the realization rapidly dawning amongst investors that the profound changes underway in society and the climate will drive the need for innovative, socially focused solutions in a number of sectors, from health care to finance to infrastructure, as well as significant challenges to resilience and adaptation for industries around the world. With huge shifts in demographics coming whether through urbanization or migration, aging populations in some countries or declining fertility rates, the investing landscape is set to change dramatically across sectors, with change manifesting in anything from shifting consumer preferences to education access and outcomes to greater need for assistive technologies, to substantial food production issues, to financial system access and inclusion, or even simply addressing rapidly increasing demand for basic services and clean energy. Stephen Byrd: Thanks, Mike. So what are some of the core themes in social investing? Mike Canfield: Yeah in our recent social skills notes, we did identify five truly global, fast growing and compelling investment themes you can focus on under the broad umbrella of what we would call social investing. Firstly, access to health care, which includes but obviously not limited to pharmaceuticals, vaccines, orthopedics, medical devices, elderly care, sanitation and hygiene, women's health and sexual health. Secondly, nutrition and fitness, which encompasses things like infant nutrition, healthy or healthier food and beverage options, alternative proteins, food safety and food packaging. Thirdly, social infrastructure, which includes mobility, digital and communication systems, connectivity, health care and education facilities, community and affordable housing and access to clean energy. Fourthly, education and reskilling, which includes everything from pre-K, K-12, higher education, corporate and lifelong learning. Our colleague Brenda recently wrote on the potential $8 trillion opportunity in these markets. And finally, right inclusive finance, which encompasses microfinance, financial infrastructure, mobile digital banking, banking for underserved communities, fintech solutions and provision of financial services to SMEs. So Stephen, do you think any industries or regions stand out as leaders or laggards perhaps when it comes to social investing? Stephen Byrd: You know, Mike, when I think about industries leading, I do think education really stands out. And I think we all recognize that education is really one of the pillars of a productive, well-functioning society, but it does face an array of challenges. A quality education can promote democracy, help communities elevate their social and economic status, and drive innovation in the economy, and yet, over the past few years, multiple issues in education, which were really exacerbated by the COVID 19 pandemic, have hampered equitable progress in society across markets, regions and communities. In our note this past May on education innovators, we really focus on these issues as fields of opportunity for investment in innovation. An example would be improving the quality of the learning experience. The pandemic was an especially disruptive period for K-12 education, leaving a learning deficit that could linger for an entire generation, especially for groups that were already disadvantaged. The pandemic also highlighted the need for more robust lifelong learning opportunities beyond the traditional classroom. We expect to see players that are able to service these needs, best meet market demand. And Mike, in terms of reasons that stand out. A key issue that you highlighted before is data availability. And I would note that really Europe has led the way in terms of best in class disclosure. So Mike, social considerations have historically been viewed as overly qualitative rather than quantitative, but our research has shown a variety of ways in which the S-pillar can closely link to company fundamentals. Could you walk through some of these? Mike Canfield: Yeah, absolutely, Stephen, I think the starting point for our research was this notion that you can both do good and do well. The values in value based investing can be combined to deliver alpha and positive social impact at the same time. So one of the ways we think to approach this is to assess the corporate culture and its that that forms the first pillar of our forces social investing framework. At its heart, company culture pertains to the shared values, attitudes, practices and standards that shape a work environment and the strategy for business. In our analysis, we want to establish a holistic view of why a company exists, what it's doing to contribute positively towards society, how it's managed, and where its most material social related opportunities and risks lie. In doing that, we've established a data driven, objective process to evaluate culture using eight core components across five performance linked indicators, which are Glassdoor ratings, shareholder voting against management or proprietary, her school employee turnover and board gender diversity. And three engagement focus indicators. The trend in employee diversity, whether the company has a supplier code of conduct in place, and violations of the UN's Global Compact. These data sets are readily available and repeatable, giving a clear view of companies relationship with both its internal and its external stakeholders. Steven, How do you think investors can think about social investing more systematically, can you elaborate a little more on the 4 C's framework? Stephen Byrd: Yeah happy to Mike, I think you really touched on culture in a very comprehensive way. I really do think it's important that the performance related KPIs that you laid out really do show very clear performance differential between top and bottom quartiles. I want to move on to the second of the C's. This is Cultivate. And here we really focus on three so-called AIM lenses. The first is additionality. This is really the notion of generating positive social outcomes or impacts that otherwise would not have materialized. So finally, Mike, how does A.I play into social investing? Mike Canfield: Everyone's favorite acronym at the moment, clearly something that we can't ignore. We do believe there's a very real potential for us to be at the start of another economic revolution, driven by rapid technological evolution in AI. The so-called third industrial revolution, otherwise known as the digital revolution, brought with it transformational technologies in cell phones and the Internet, increased interconnectivity, greater industrial productivity and vastly greater accessibility of information. AI looks to play a central role in the fourth Industrial Revolution. Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, popularized that term back in 2015 when he suggested that AI and advanced robotics could herald a substantial shift in industrial capitalism and the so-called knowledge economy. This evolution could fundamentally change employment and geopolitical landscapes. Just as in the early 19th century, when Luddites found machines left weaving skills obsolete. AI could well prove just as disruptive, but technology on a grander scale, across everything from manufacturing to search engines to media content creation. We do see significant AI opportunities in areas like drug development, in education outcomes and access and significant benefits across efficiencies and resource management, whether that's in power grid optimization or in weather prediction, for example. We do suggest a three pronged approach to evaluating AI driven opportunities which focus on areas including reducing harm to the environment, enhancing people's lives through biotech, cybersecurity and life sciences, for example, and enabling technological advancements. Simultaneously, given a relative lack of regulation for the industry at the moment, we do think consistent investor engagement is key to driving responsible A.I practices. Stephen Byrd: Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. Mike Canfield: Great to speak to you, Stephen. Stephen Byrd: 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.

8 Elo 20239min