Europe in the Global AI Race

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist explains why the Federal Reserve’s most recent meeting was so consequential, and the likeliest path ahead for interest rates.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about last week’s FOMC meeting and its impact on fixed income markets. It's Thursday, May 9th at 1pm in New York.Last week’s Fed meeting was consequential. It had a clear and unambiguous messaging about the path ahead for Fed’s monetary policy. Fed’s next move in policy rate is unlikely to be a hike. The Fed’s focus now is on how long the current target range for the fed funds rate will be maintained; and the next move, whenever it happens, is likely a cut. Importantly, the FOMC’s decision was unanimous and their statement maintained an overall easing bias.In the aftermath of recent upside surprises to inflation and the reaction in the rates market, many market participants, yours truly included, were apprehensive that the FOMC’s tone might be overtly hawkish. Turns out, that was not the case. By setting a very high bar for the next move to be a hike, the Fed’s message has meaningfully narrowed the distribution of outcomes for policy rates, at least in 2024 As our economists led by Ellen Zentner note, the two likely policy outcomes now are keeping the rates on hold or cutting. Given the prospect that policy rates may remain in the current target range, the negative carry of an inverted yield curve keeps us from pounding the table to move to outright long in duration, although the direction of travel does suggest that. We would note that Guneet Dhingra, our head of US interest rate strategy, sees better risk/reward in duration longs through 3 month 10 year receivers than in the very crowded curve steepener trade. In general, spread products in fixed income – agency MBS, corporate credit and securitized credit – stand to benefit the most from this notably less hawkish messaging, in our view.As Jay Bacow, our head of agency MBS strategy, observes, the backdrop in which tail risks of higher policy rates are much more remote than they were before the FOMC meeting is supportive for agency MBS. At current valuations, agency MBS offers an attractive expression for investors seeking to play for lower interest rates, lower interest rate volatility or both. Their high all-in yields have bolstered strong inflows and sustained demand for corporate credit across a wide range of investor types. If policy rates remain in the current range, we expect the demand for corporate credit to accelerate. If policy rates stay in the current range or go lower, pressures on interest coverage are unlikely to get worse going forward. Given their high single-digit all-in yields, we see an attractive risk/reward calculus favoring leveraged loans. We like expressing this view directly in loans as well as in securitized credit through CLO tranches. In sum, the message from the Fed was clear and unambiguous. The policy rate path ahead is for rates to remain in the current range or decline, and the bar for the next move to be a hike is very high. This bodes well for a wide range of instruments in fixed income.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.

9 Mai 20243min

Our expert panel explains the U.S. dollar’s current status as the primary global reserve currency and whether the euro and renminbi, or even crypto currencies are positioned to take over that role.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.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research.James Lord: I'm James Lord, Head of FX Strategy for Emerging Markets.David Adams: And I'm Dave Adams, head of G10 FX Strategy.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss whether the US status as the world's major reserve currency can be challenged, and how.It's Wednesday, May 8th, at 3pm in London.Last week, you both joined me to discuss the historic strength of the US dollar and its impact on the global economy. Today, I'd like us to dive into one aspect of the dollar's dominance, namely the fact that the dollar remains the primary global reserve asset.James, let's start with the basics. What is a reserve currency and why should investors care about this?James Lord: The most simplistic and straightforward definition of a reserve currency is simply that central banks around the world hold that currency as part of its foreign currency reserves. So, the set of reserve currencies in the world is defined by the revealed preferences of the world's central banks. They hold around 60 percent of those reserves in U.S. dollars, with the euro around 20 percent, and the rest divided up between the British pound, Japanese yen, Swiss franc, and more recently, the Chinese renminbi.But the true essence of a global reserve currency is broader than this, and it really revolves around which currency is most commonly used for cross border transactions of various kinds internationally. That could be international trade, and the US dollar is the most commonly used currency for trade invoicing, including for commodity prices. It could also be in cross border lending or in the foreign currency debt issuance that global companies and emerging market governments issue. These all involve cross border transactions.But for me, two of the most powerful indications of a currency's global status.One, are third parties using it without the involvement of a home country? So, when Japan imports commodities from abroad, it probably pays for it in US dollars and the exporting country receives US dollars, even though the US is not involved in that transaction. And secondly, I think, which currency tends to strengthen when risk aversion rises in the global economy? That tends to be the US dollar because it remains the highly trusted asset and investors put a premium on safety.So why should investors care? Well, which currency would you want to own when global stock markets start to fall, and the global economy tends to head into recession? You want to be positioning in US dollars because that has historically been the exchange rate reaction to those kinds of events.Michael Zezas: And so, Dave, what's the dollar's current status as a reserve currency?David Adams: The dollar is the most dominant currency and has been for almost a hundred years. We looked at a lot of different ways to measure currency dominance or reserve currency status, and the dollar really does reign supreme in all of them.It is the highest share of global FX reserves, as James mentioned. It is the highest share of usage to invoice global trade. It's got the highest usage for cross border lending by banks. And when corporates or foreign governments borrow in foreign currency, it's usually in dollars. This dominant status has been pretty stable over recent decades and doesn't really show any major signs of abating at this point.Michael Zezas: And the British pound was the first truly global reserve currency. How and when did it lose its position?David Adams: It surprises investors how quick it really was. It only took about 10 years from 1913 to 1923 for the pound to begin losing its crown to king Dollar. But of course, such a quick change requires a shock with the enormity of the First World War.It's worth remembering that the war fundamentally shifted the US' role in the global economy, bringing it from a large but regional second tier financial power to a global financial powerhouse. Shocks like that are pretty rare. But the lesson I really draw from this period is that a necessary condition for a currency like sterling to lose its dominant status is a credible alternative waiting in the wings.In the absence of that credible alternative, changes in dominance are at most gradual and at least minimal.Michael Zezas: This is helpful background about the British pound. Now let's talk about potential challengers to the dollar status as the world's major reserve currency. The currency most often discussed in this regard is the Chinese renminbi. James, what's your view on this?James Lord: It seems unlikely to challenge the US dollar meaningfully any time soon. To do so, we think China would need to relax control of its currency and open the capital account. It doesn't seem likely that Beijing will want to do this any time soon. And global investors remain concerned about the outlook for the Chinese economy, and so are probably unwilling to hold substantial amounts of RNB denominated assets. China may make some progress in denominating more of its bilateral trade in US dollars, but the impact that that has on global metrics of currency dominance is likely to be incremental.David Adams: It’s an interesting point, James, because when we talk to investors, there does seem to be an increasing concern about the end of dollar dominance driven by both a perceived unsustainable fiscal outlook and concerns about sanctions overreach.Mike, what do you think about these in the context of dollar dominance?Michael Zezas: So, I understand the concern, but for the foreseeable future, there's not much to it. Depending on the election outcome in the US, there's some fiscal expansion on the table, but it's not egregious in our view, and unless we think the Fed can't fight inflation -- and our economists definitely think they can -- then it's hard to see a channel toward the dollar becoming an unstable currency, which I believe is what you're saying is one of the very important things here.But James, in your view, are there alternatives to the US led financial system?James Lord: At present, no, not really. I think, as I mentioned in last week's episode, few economies and markets can really match the liquidity and the safety that the US financial system offers. The Eurozone is a possible contender, but that region offers a suboptimal currency union, given the lack of common fiscal policy; and its capital markets there are just simply not deep enough.Michael Zezas: And Dave, could cryptocurrency serve as an alternative reserve currency?David Adams: It's a question we get from time to time. I think a challenge crypto faces as an alternative dominant currency is its store of value function. One of the key functions of a dominant currency is its use for cross border transactions. It greases the wheels of foreign trade. Stability and value is important here. Now, usually when we talk to investors about value stability, they think in terms of downside. What's the risk I lose money holding this asset?But when we think about currencies and trade, asset appreciation is important too. If I'm holding a crypto coin that rises, say, 10 per cent a month, I'm less likely to use that for trade and instead just hoard it in my wallet to benefit from its price appreciation. Now, reasonable people can disagree about whether cryptocurrencies are going to appreciate or depreciate, but I'd argue that the best outcome for a dominant currency is neither. Stability and value that allows it to function as a medium of exchange rather than as an asset.Michael Zezas: So, James, Dave, bottom line, king dollar doesn't really have any challengers.James Lord: Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.Michael Zezas: Well, both of you, thanks for taking the time to talk.David Adams: Thanks much for having us.James Lord: Yeah, great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

8 Mai 20247min

As the U.S. economy continues to send mixed signals, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist explains how markets are likely to oscillate between “soft landing” and “no landing” outcomes. ----- 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 higher-than-normal uncertainty in economic data and its impact on markets. It's Tuesday, May 7th at 1:30 pm in New York. So let’s get after it. In recent research, I’ve discussed how markets are likely to oscillate between the "soft landing" and “no landing" outcomes in today's late cycle environment. Continued mixed and unpredictable macro data should foster that back and forth, and last week was a microcosm in that respect. Tuesday's Employment Cost Index report came in stronger than expected, leading to a rise in the 10-year Treasury yield to nearly 4.7 per cent. Meanwhile, the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index turned down, falling to its lowest level since July of 2022. On Friday, the equity market rose sharply as bond yields fell on the back of a weaker labor report, while the ISM Services headline series fell to its lowest level since December of 2022. In our view, this uncertain economic backdrop warrants an investment approach that can work as market pricing and sector/factor leadership bounces between these potential outcomes. As such, we recommend a barbell of quality cyclicals which should outperform in a "no landing" scenario and quality growth, the relative winner in a "soft landing.” One might even want to consider adding a bit of exposure to defensive sectors like Utilities and Staples in the event that growth slows further. Meanwhile, last week's Fed meeting materialized largely as expected. Chair Powell expressed somewhat lower confidence on the timing of the first cut given recent inflation data, but he pushed back on the notion that the next move would be a hike which eased some concerns going into the meeting. The April Consumer Price Index released on May 15th is the next key macro event informing the path of monetary policy and the market's pricing of that path. As usual, the price reaction on the back of this release may be more important than the data itself given how influential price action has been on investor sentiment amid an uncertain macro set up. On the rate front, our view remains consistent with our recent research—the relationship between the 6-month rate of change on the 10-year yield and the S&P 500 price earnings multiple implies that yields around current levels are about 10 per cent headwind to valuation through the end of June but a tailwind thereafter, all else equal.Given the uncertainty and unpredictability of the economic data more recently, we think it's useful to look at the technicals for insight into what comes next. In early April, we highlighted that the breakdown in the S&P 500 from its well-defined uptrend was an important early warning sign that performance could become more challenged. Based on our analysis, this headwind to valuation is likely to remain with us through the end of June unless yields fall significantly in the near term. Assuming interest rates stay around current levels, stronger valuation support lies closer to 19 times earnings, which would also imply price support closer to the 200-day moving average or 4800.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.

7 Mai 20243min

Lisa Shalett is a member of Morgan Stanley’s Wealth Management Division and 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. Our CIO for Wealth Management, Lisa Shalett, and our Head of Corporate Credit Research continue their discussion of the impact of interest rates on different asset classes, the high concentration of value in equity markets and more.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, and to part two of a conversation with Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer for Morgan Stanley wealth management. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of corporate credit research at Morgan Stanley.Today, we'll be continuing that conversation, focusing on how higher interest rates could impact asset classes, and also some recent work about the unusually high concentration of stocks within the equity market.We begin with Lisa's very topical question about how higher interest rates might impact credit. Lisa Shalett: So, Andrew, let me ask you this. From your perspective as the Global Head of Corporate Credit Research, what happens if we're, in fact, in this new regime of rates being higher for longer? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, thanks, Lisa. It seems more topical by the day as we see yields continuing to march higher. So I think like a lot of things in the market, it kind of depends a little bit on what the fundamental backdrop is that's driving those interest rates higher. Because if I think about the modern era for credit, which I’ll define as maybe the last 40 years, the tightest that we've ever seen corporate credit spreads was not when the Fed or the European central bank was buying bonds. It was not when you had lots of leverage building up in the financial system prior to the financial crisis. It was in the mid 90s when the economy was pretty good. The Fed had hiked rates a lot in [19]94 and then it cut them a little. And, you know, the mid nineties, I think, are one of the poster children for, kind of, a higher for longer rate environment amidst a pretty strong economy. So, if that is what we're looking at, we're looking at rates being higher for longer because the economic output of the US and other regions is generally stronger. I think that's an environment where you can have the overall credit market performing still pretty well. You'll certainly have dispersion around that as not every balance sheet, not every capital structure was planned, was created with that sort of rate environment in mind.Overall, if you had to say, is credit more afraid of a kind of higher for longer scenario or is it more afraid of, growth being a lot weaker than expected, but that would bring low rates. I actually think a lot of credit investors would much rather have a more stable growth environment, even if that brings somewhat fewer rate cuts and higher for longer rates.Lisa Shalett: One other thing, I know that the Global Investment Committee has been debating is this idea between the haves and the have nots that's been somewhat unique to this business cycle where, there's been a portion of the mega cap and large cap universes who have demonstrated, quite frankly, total insensitivity to interest rates because of their cash balances. Or because of their lack of need for actual borrowing. And then there's smaller midsize companies, these smaller cap or unprofitable tech companies, some of the companies that may have been born in the venture capital boom of the early 2020s. How is this have, have not, debate playing out in the credit markets? Are there parts of the credit markets that are starting to worry that there's a tail?Andrew Sheets: Yeah, I think that's just a fascinating question at the moment because we’ve lived in this very macro world where it seemed like big picture questions about central banks: Will we go into recession? What will commodity prices do is driving everything. And even this week, questions about interest rates are dominating the headlines on TV and on the news.But I think if you peel things back a little bit, this is an incredibly micro market, you know, we're seeing some of the lowest correlations and co-movement between individual stocks in the US and Europe that we haven't in 15 years. If I think about the credit market, the credit market is not just sailing into this environment, happy go lucky, no risk on the horizon. It's showing some of the highest tiering that we've seen in a very long time between CCC rated issuers, which is the lowest rated, main part of performing credit and Single-B issuers, which are still below investment grade rated, but are somewhat better. Market is charging a very high price premium between those two, which suggests that it is exactly as you mentioned, differentiating based on business model strength and level of leverage and the likes.So, this environment of differentiation -- where the overall market is kind of okay, but you have lots of churning below the surface -- I think it's a very accurate description of credit. I think it's a very accurate description of the broader market, and it's certainly something that we're seeing investors take advantage of we see it in the data.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, you recently published a special report on the consequences of concentration, which focuses on some of these mega cap stocks and how they may present underappreciated risks for investors. What were the key takeaways from that that we should keep in mind when it comes to market concentration and how should we think about that?Lisa Shalett: The fundamental point we were trying to make -- and it really has to do with some of the unintended risks potentially that passive investors may be embracing that they don't fully appreciate -- is really through the end of 2023, US equity indices became extraordinarily, concentrated; where the top 10 names were accounting for greater than, a third of the market capitalization. And history has shown that such high levels of concentration are rarely sustainable. But what was particularly unique about the era of the Magnificent Seven or these top 10 mega cap tech stocks is not only were they a huge portion of the whole index, but in many ways they had become correlated to one another, right? Both, in terms of their trading dynamics and their valuations, but in terms of their factor exposures, right? They were all momentum oriented. They were all tech stocks. They were all moving on an AI, narrative. In many cases, they had begun competing with each other; one another directly in businesses, like the cloud, like streaming services and media, et cetera.Andrew Sheets: And Lisa, kind of further on that idea, I assume that one counterpoint that you get to this work is that some of these very large mega cap names are just great companies. They've got strong competitive positions; they've got opportunities for future growth. As an investor, how do you think about how much you are supposed to pay up for quality, so to speak? And, you know, maybe you could talk just a little bit more about how you see the valuations of some of these larger names in the market.Lisa Shalett: What we always remind clients is, there is no doubt that, these are great companies and they have cash flows, footprints, dominant positions, and markets that are growing. But the question is twofold. When is that story fully discounted, right?And when do great companies cease to be great stocks? And if you look back in history, history is littered with great companies who cease to be great stocks and very often, clients quote unquote never saw it coming because they hung their hat on this idea, but it's a great company.Andrew Sheets: Any parting thoughts as we move closer to the midpoint for 2024?Lisa Shalett: The line that I'm using most with clients is that, I fundamentally believe that uncertainty in terms of the economic scenarios that could play out from here. Whether we're talking about a no landing, we're talking about a hard landing, we talk about a stagflation. And the policy responses to that, whether it's the timing of the Fed, and what they do. And what's their mix between balance sheet and rates, and then what happens post the presidential elections in the US. And is there a policy change that shifts some of the growth drivers in the economy. I just think overall uncertainty is rising through the end of the year, and that continues to argue, for a position as we've noted, where clients and their advisors are particularly active towards risk management, and where the premium to diversification is above average. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. Hope we can have you back again soon.Lisa Shalett: It's great to speak with you, as always, Andrew.Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts in the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

6 Mai 20248min

Lisa Shalett, our CIO for Wealth Management, and our Head of Corporate Credit Research discuss how to forecast expected returns over the long term, and whether historic cycles can help make sense of the market environment today. ----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: And on part one of this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing long run expected returns across markets, how we think about cross asset correlations and portfolio construction, and what are the special considerations that investors might want to have in mind in the current environment.It's Friday, May 3rd at 4pm in London.Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am here in New York City.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, you and I are both members of Morgan Stanley's Global Investment Committee, which brings together nine of our firm's market, economic, and portfolio management thought leaders to provide a strategic framework for advice that we give to clients.Andrew Sheets: I wanted to touch on a unique aspect of that process because, you know, we're talking about estimating returns over different horizons for markets. And I think there's something that's kind of unique about that challenge. I mean, I think in most aspects of life, it's probably safe to say that the next decade is more uncertain than the next six months or next year. But when we're thinking about asset class returns, it's not quite as simple as that.Lisa Shalett: Not at all. And very often this is where our understanding of history needs to play a big part. When we think about the future, what are the patterns that we think might be persistent? And therefore, encourage us to think about long run trends and mean reversion. And what dynamics might actually be disconnected, or one offs that are characteristic of maybe structural change in the economy or geopolitics or in policymaking stance.Andrew Sheets: How have these latest capital market assumptions changed over the last year?Lisa Shalett: I think one of the most profound changes has been our willingness to embrace the idea that, in fact, we are in a higher for longer inflation regime. And that has a couple of implications. The first has to do, of course, with nominal returns. A higher inflation environment suggests that nominal returns are actually likely to be higher. The second really has to do with where we are in the cycle and its implications for correlations. We've been through periods most recently, where stocks and bonds were, in fact, anti-correlated; or there was a diversifying property, if you will to the 60 40 portfolio. Most recently, as inflation and level of interest rates has had profound importance to both stock valuations and bond valuations, we have found that these correlations have turned positive. And that creates a imperative, really, for clients to have to look elsewhere beyond cash, bonds, and stocks to get appropriate diversification in their portfolios.Andrew Sheets: Well, it's been less than a month since we updated our strategic recommendations. We've recently also published an update to our tactical asset allocation recommendations. So, Lisa, I guess I have two questions. One is, how do you think about these different horizons, the strategic versus the tactical? And can you also summarize what's changed?Lisa Shalett: Sure. You know, we very often talk to clients about the tactical horizon as being in the 12 to 18-month time frame.In our most recent adjustment, we moved from what had been roughly a, year old underweight in US large cap stocks, and we neutralized that, kind of quote unquote, back to benchmark. So, we added some exposure, and we funded that exposure by selling out of two other positions; one that we had had in both small cap value and small cap growth, as well as a position we had, that we had put on as a hedging oriented position and long duration treasuries.Now, some might say well, given the move in interest rates, is now the right time to take that hedge off? Our decision was basically premised on the fact that we're just not seeing the value in holding duration today given the inversion of the yield curve, and we're not getting paid for the risk of duration. And so, you know, we thought redeploying into those large cap stocks was prudent. Now, the other rationale, really has to do with earnings achievability. A lot of our thoughts were premised early in the year on this idea of a soft landing -- and a soft landing that would include deceleration in top line growth. And so, we were skeptical that could produce what consensus was looking for, which was a 10 to 11 per cent bottom line in 2024. As it turns out, it looks like, nominal GDP in the US is going to continue to persist at levels above 5 per cent, and that kind of tailwind, suggested that our skepticism would prove too conservative; and that, in fact, in a, 10 per cent bottom line could be achievable -- especially if it were being driven by manufacturing oriented companies who are seeing a pick up from global growth.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, maybe if I could just ask you kind of one more question related to some of these longer-term assumptions, you know, I imagine you get some skepticism to say, ‘Well, you know, is the market of today really comparable to, say, the stock market of 30 or 40 years ago? Can we really use metrics or mean reversion that's worked in the past when, you know, the world is different.’Lisa Shalett: Yeah, no, that, that's a fantastic question. I mean, some of the bigger variables in the world that we look at have shown over very long periods of time tendencies to cycle, whether those are things around the business cycle, valuations, cost of capital. Those are the types of variables that over long periods of time tend to mean revert. Same thing volatility. There tend to be long term characteristics. And the history book is pretty convincing that even if sometimes mean reversion is delayed, it ultimately plays out. But we do think that there are elements that we need to continue to question, right. One of them is, you know, has monetary policy and central bank intervention fundamentally changed the rules of the game? Where central banks implicitly or explicitly are managing market liquidity as much as they are managing cost of capital; and as a result, the way markets interact with the central bank and the guidance -- is that different?A second, factor has to do with market structure, right? And in a world where market prices were really being determined almost exclusively by fundamentals, right? There was this constant rotational shift between growth style and value style and where value could be determined in the market. As we've moved to a market that is increasingly driven by passive flows; there's a question that many market participants have raised about whether or not markets have gotten more inefficient because price discovery is actually, in the short run, not what's driving prices, but rather flows; passive flows are driving prices.And so, you know, how do we account for these leads and lags in prices being actually remarked to fundamentals? So those are at least two of the things that I know we are constantly tossing around as we think about our methodologies and capital market assumptions.Andrew Sheets: That was part one of my conversation with Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Look out for part two of our conversation, where we'll be discussing the impact of higher interest rates on asset classes. And how investors should think about an unusually concentrated stock market. Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts in the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

3 Mai 20248min

Original release date April 8, 2024: Our Global Chief Economist explains why the rapid hikes, pause and pivot of the current interest rate cycle are reminiscent of the 1990s.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the current interest rate cycle and the parallels we can draw from the 1990s.It's Monday, April 8th, at 10am in New York.Last year, we reiterated the view that the 1990s remain a useful cycle to consider for understanding the current cycle. Our European equity strategy colleagues shared our view, and they've used that episode to inform their ‘out of consensus, bullish initiation on European equities’ in January. No two cycles are identical, but as we move closer to a Fed cut, we reassess the key aspects of that comparison.We had previously argued that the current interest rate cycle and the mid 90s cycle differ from the intervening cycles because the goal now is to bring inflation down, rather than preventing it from rising. Of course, inflation was already falling when the 1994 cycle started, in part, because of the recession in 1991.This cycle -- because much of the inflation was driven by COVID-related shocks, like supply chains for consumer goods and shifts in housing for shelter inflation -- inflation started falling rapidly from its peak before the first hike could have possibly had any effect. In recent months, our economic growth forecasts have been regularly revised upward, even as we have largely hit our expected path for inflation.A labor supply shock appears to be a contributing factor that accounts for some of that forecast deviation, although fiscal policy likely contributed to the real side's strength as well. Supply shocks to the labor market are an interesting point of comparison for the two cycles. In the 1990s, labor force growth was still benefiting from this multi-decade rise in labor force participation among females. The aggregate labor force participation rate did not reach its peak until 2000.Now, as we've noted in several publications, the surge in immigration is providing a similar supply side boost, at least for a couple of years. But the key lesson for me for the policy cycle is that monetary policy is not on a pre-set, predetermined course merely rising, peaking and then falling. Cycles can be nuanced. In 1994, the Fed hiked the funds rate to 6 per cent, paused at that peak and then cut 75 basis points over 1995 and 1996. After that, the next policy move was actually a hike, not a cut.Currently, we think the Fed starts cutting rates in June; and for now, we expect that cutting to continue into next year. But as our US team has noted, the supply side revisions mean that the path for policy next year is just highly uncertain and subject to review. From 1994 to 1996, job gains trended down, much like they have over the past two years.That slowing was reflective of a broader slowing in the economy that prompted the Fed to stop hiking and partially reverse course. So, should we expect the same now, only a very partial reversal? Well, it's too soon to tell, and as we've argued, the faster labor supply growth expands both aggregate demand and aggregate supply -- so a somewhat tighter policy stance could be appropriate.In 1996, inflation stopped falling, and subsequently rose into 1997, and it was that development that supported the Fed's decision to maintain their somewhat restrictive policy. But we can't forget, afterward, inflation resumed its downward trajectory, with core PCE inflation eventually falling below 1.5 per cent, suggesting that that need to stop cutting and resume hiking, well, probably needs to be re-examined.So, no two cycles match, and the comparison may break down. To date, the rapid hikes, pause and pivot, along with a seeming soft landing, keeps that comparison alive. The labor supply shock parallel is notable, but it also points to what might be, just might be, another possible parallel.In the late 1990s, there was a rise in labor productivity, and we've written here many times about the potential contributions that AI might bring to labor productivity in coming years.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

3 Mai 20244min

Our experts discuss U.S. dollar strength and its far-reaching impact on the global economy and the world’s stock markets.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research.James Lord: I'm James Lord, Head of FX Strategy for Emerging Markets.David Adams: And I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10 FX Strategy.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss one of the most debated topics in world markets right now, the strength of the US dollar.It's Wednesday, May 1st, at 3 pm in London.Michael Zezas: Currencies around the world are falling as a strong US dollar continues its reign. This is an unusual situation. So much so that the finance ministers of Japan, South Korea, and the United States released a joint statement last month to address the effects being felt in Asia. The US dollar's dominance can have vast implications for the global economy and the world stock markets.So, I wanted to sit down with my colleagues, James and David, who are Morgan Stanley's currency strategy experts for emerging markets and developed markets. James, just how dominant is the US dollar right now and what's driving the strength?James Lord: So, we should distinguish between the role the US dollar plays as the world's dominant reserve currency and its value, which can go up and down for other reasons.Right now, the dollar remains just as dominant in the international monetary system as it has been over the past several decades, whilst it also happens to be very strong in terms of its value, as you mentioned. That strength in its value is really being driven by the continued outperformance of the US economy and the ongoing rise in US interest rates, while growth in the rest of the world is more subdued.The dollar's international role remains dominant simply because no other economy or market can match the depth of the US capital markets and the liquidity that it provides, both as a means of raising capital, but also as a store of value for investment; while also offering the strong protection of property rights, strong sovereign credit ratings, the rule of law, and an open capital account. There simply isn't another market that can challenge the US in that respect.Michael Zezas: And can you talk a bit more specifically about the various ways in which the dollar impacts the global economy?James Lord: So, one of the strongest impacts is through the price of the dollar, and the price of dollar debt, which have an impact beyond the borders of the US economy. Because the majority of foreign currency denominated debt that corporates outside of the US issue is denominated in US dollars, the interest rate that's set by the US Federal Reserve has a big impact on the cost of borrowing. It's also the same for many emerging market sovereigns that also issue heavily in US dollars. The US dollar is also used heavily in international trade, cross border lending, because the majority of international trade is denominated in US dollars. So, when US interest rates rise, it also tightens monetary conditions for the rest of the world. That is why the US Federal Reserve is often referred to as the world's central bank, even though Fed only sets policy with respect to the US economy.And the US dollar strengthens, as it has been over the past 10 years, it also makes it more challenging for countries that borrow in dollars to repay that debt, unless they have enough dollar assets.Again, that's another tightening of financial conditions for the rest of the world. I think it was a US Treasury Secretary from several decades ago who said that the US dollar is our currency, but your problem. And that neatly sums up the global influence the US dollar has.Michael Zezas: And David, nothing seems to typify the strength of the US dollar recently, like the currency moves we're seeing with the Japanese Yen. It looks very weak at the moment, and yet the Japanese stock market is very strong.David Adams: Yeah, weak is an understatement for the Japanese yen. In nominal terms, the yen is at its weakest level versus the dollar since 1990. And if we look in real terms, it hasn't been this weak since the late 1960s. Why it's weak is pretty easy to explain, though. It's monetary policy divergence. Theory tells us that as long as capital is free to move, a country can't both control its interest rates and control the exchange rate at the same time.G10 economies typically choose to control rates and leave their currencies to float, and the US and Japan are no exception. So, while the while the Fed's policy rate has risen to multi-decade highs, Japan's has been left basically unchanged, consistent with its economic fundamentals.Now, you mentioned Japanese equities, which is also increasingly important to this story. As foreign investors have deployed more cash into the Japanese stock market, a lot of them have hedged their FX [foreign exchange] exposure, which means they're buying back dollars in the forward market. The more that Japanese equities rise, the more hedges they add, increasing dollar demand versus the yen.So, put simply, the best outcome for dollar yen to keep rising is for US rates versus Japan and Japanese equities to both keep marching higher. And for a lot of investors, this seems increasingly like their base case.Michael Zezas: That makes sense. And yet, despite the dollar's clear dominance at the moment, the consensus view on the dollar is that it's going to get weaker. Why is that the case and what's the market missing?James Lord: Yeah, the consensus has been on the wrong side of the dollar call for quite a few years now, with a persistently bearish outlook, which has largely been incorrect. I think for the most part this is because the consensus has underestimated the strength of the US economy. It wasn't that long ago when the consensus was calling for a hard landing in the US economy and a pretty deep easing cycle from the Fed. And yet here we are with GDP growth north of 2 per cent and murmurings of another rate hike entering the narrative. I also wonder whether this debate about de-dollarization, whereby the dollar's global influence starts to wane, has impacted the sentiment of forecasters a bit as well.We have seen over the past three to four years much more noise in the media on this topic, and there appears to be a correlation between the extent to which the consensus is expecting dollar weakness and the number of media articles that are discussing the dollar's status as the world's major reserve currency.Maybe that's coincidence, but it's also consistent with our view that the market generally worries too much about this issue and the impact that it could have on the dollar's outlook.Michael Zezas: Now there've been a few notable changes to Morgan Stanley's macro forecasts over the last few weeks. Our US economist, Ellen Zentner revised up her forecast for US growth and inflation. And she also pushed back our expectations for the first Fed cut. Along with this, our US rate strategy team also revised their 10-year treasury yield expectations higher. Do these updates to the macro-outlook impact your bullish view on the dollar, both near term and longer term?David Adams: So, higher US rates are often helpful for the dollar, but we think some nuance is required. It's not that US rates are moving; it's why they're moving. And our four-regime dollar framework shows that increases or decreases in rates can give us very different dollar outcomes depending on the reason why rates are moving.So far this year, rates have been moving higher in a pretty benign risk environment. And in a world where US real interest rates rise alongside equities; the dollar tends to go nowhere in the aggregate. It gains versus low yielding funders like the Japanese yen, the Swiss franc, and the euro, but it tends to weaken versus those higher beta currencies with positive carry, like the Mexican peso. It's why we've been neutral on the dollar overall since the start of the year, but we still emphasize dollar strength, especially versus the euro.If rising rates were to start weighing on equities, that would lead the dollar to start rallying broadly, what we call Regime 3 of our framework. It's not our base case, but it's a risk we think markets are starting to get more nervous about. It suggests that the balance of risks are increasingly towards a higher dollar rather than a lower one.Michael Zezas: And finally, Dave, I wanted to ask about potential risks to the US dollar's current strength.David Adams: I'd say the clearest dollar negative risk for me is a rebound in European and Chinese growth. It's hard for investors to get excited about selling the dollar without a clear alternative to buy. A big rebound in rest of world growth could easily make those alternatives look more attractive, though how probable that outcome is remains debatable.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, this discussion of risk to the strong dollar may be a good time to pause. There's so much more to talk about here. We've barely scratched the surface. So, let's continue the conversation in the near future when we can talk more about the dollar status as the world's dominant reserve currency and potential challenges to that position.James Lord: This sounds like a great idea, Mike. Talk to you soon.David Adams: Likewise. Thanks for having me on the show and look forward to our next conversation.Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

2 Mai 20248min

Our analysts survey the hurdles, opportunities and investment trends in energy renovation.Please note that Laurel Durkay 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. We make no claim that Ms Durkay’s representations are accurate or complete.----- Transcript -----Cedar Ekblom: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Cedar Ekblom, Equity Research Analyst, covering the European building and construction sector for Morgan Stanley Research.Laurel Durkay: And I'm Laurel Durkay, head of the Global Listed Real Assets Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.Cedar Ekblom: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the opportunities, risks, and latest investment trends when it comes to decarbonizing buildings.It's Tuesday, April 30th, at 2pm in London.Laurel Durkay: And 9am in New York.Cedar Ekblom: So, let's take a step back. Picture the gleaming towers of New York, London, or Hong Kong. Now think about these buildings breathing out carbon dioxide. The built environment is responsible for about a third of all global energy consumption and CO2 emissions. And so, if we want to get to Net Zero by 2050, which means emitting as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we take out of it, decarbonizing the building stock is essential.We've been doing a lot of work in Europe from the research side to try and understand how the investment trends are linked to this topic. But Laurel, I wanted to have you on the podcast because I wanted to understand how you're coming at it from the other side as a real estate investor and portfolio manager.Laurel Durkay: Yeah, Cedar, so I've seen some of your notes and I actually wasn't too surprised by your conclusion that energy renovation is seeing rising investment momentum in Europe. And this is despite the high upfront costs which are driven by government regulation, build cost inflation and higher interest rates.Cedar Ekblom: Yeah, we decided to do this work because we've had a lot of incoming from investors around what's happening from an investment perspective because we have seen a few government policy sidesteps or backtracks in the last 12 to 18 months around this topic. And so, we did some proprietary survey work in the residential, non-residential and providers of capital space. And we had some really interesting outcomes.I think the most interesting was that despite the fact that government subsidies have been dialed back a little bit, and the cost of investment has gone up because of inflation, actually private investment is really robust. And I think it's because there is a clear economic incentive that both homeowners and non-residential building owners are actually talking to.I mean, the first one is that homeowners are telling us that they see a 12 per cent increase in their home equity value if they green that property. And when we look at the non-residential space, what we're seeing is that renovation budgets are up 4 per cent year over year, even in a backdrop of higher interest rates.We see a huge runway of investment to come through on this topic. It is multi-decade. It's not going to happen overnight.You're talking about 2.8 trillion euros of investment by 2030 on our estimates, and that number extending to potentially 5 trillion euros by 2050. And that's just in Europe.Laurel Durkay: So the scope and need for investment really is huge. What do you think are the hurdles to delivering this opportunity?Cedar Ekblom: It's such an interesting question. I mean, there are so many. It's a little bit daunting at points when you think about it, but we're looking at really complicated projects. We're looking at skills bottlenecks. We're looking at upfront costs being really high. We're also looking at energy policy, not necessarily being aligned in every region in Europe.So yes, it's going to cost you a lot, but basically the respondents to the surveys tend to suggest that the benefits are actually starting to outweigh those potential costs.So, Laurel, I think that there's been some really interesting overlaps between what you and I cover, but from different angles. Let me pivot to you. How do you think about sustainability when it comes to real estate investment in your seat?Laurel Durkay: Yeah, bottom line is that understanding and incorporating sustainability and real estate investing really is very important; and we need to be aware not only of the physical risks, but also those transition risks associated with buildings. Taking a step back, what I'm observing is that real estate is seeing the sustainability focus really play out from three different constituents, and that's from investors, from regulators, and from tenants.So, from that investor perspective, we're seeing increasing demand for sustainable linked financing investing. Think green bonds. In some cases, you're actually seeing more favorable spreads for green financing versus traditional -- and ultimately that means better cash flows for companies.We also have that coming from the government. What we see is a continued evolution on regulations, and there have been several real estate specific laws being adopted across the states.All of these have the objective of providing greater transparency on carbon emissions with the ultimate goal of reducing such emissions. Now lastly, for tenants, we're seeing increasing demand for sustainable and best in class buildings.There's actually a growing body of evidence that shows sustainability is impacting leasing decisions and resulting in rent premiumsCedar Ekblom: So, how do we think about integrating ESG into your investment process?Laurel Durkay: So, there's a number of different metrics that we're looking at. We've run a proprietary analysis really trying to identify the most financially material factors. And we've ultimately concluded that the most important factors to be looking at are the absolute level of emissions and then the progress towards reducing those emissions -- water and waste usage, green certified buildings -- among a number of other factors.Ultimately, what we need to do is put together a framework that helps us assess the expenditures in order to really adhere to the regulatory requirements that I was just describing and ultimately allow the buildings to enjoy operational cost savings from implementing sustainability measures.This is really about future proofing buildings and enhancing value.Cedar Ekblom: So, it sounds like really a topic around trying to understand where they may or may not be stranded assets. We've spoken a lot about this topic in Europe, but maybe you could talk a little bit about what's happening from a sort of policy backdrop in the US.Laurel Durkay: Yeah, so government really is driving a lot of this change, both at a federal and at a state level. So, from a federal perspective, it really is more of a carrot as opposed to a stick with regard to implementation and adoption, really rewarding those who embrace sustainability. Now, interestingly, from a state perspective, it's a bit more of a stick than a carrot.Buildings not in compliance will be subject to fines and penalties. I should also mention that the SEC is getting really involved with the adoption of new climate related disclosure requirements.Now this isn't real estate specific, but it is impactful, nonetheless. New requirements mandate companies to disclose material Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions.Right now, less than 30 per cent of US companies even attempt to disclose Scope 3, and that's even less for real estate. Now Cedar, these scope three emissions are really where our worlds intersect most given the built environment.So, for a typical property owner, Scope 1 emissions represent about 25 per cent. Scope 2 is about 55 per cent of their missions. And then the remainder is going to be this Scope 3. But if you look at a developer and an owner, that's where you see Scope 3 emissions range between 80 to 95 per cent of their total emissions.Cedar Ekblom: So, if we look towards the future, what are you hearing from clients and colleagues about where sustainability investment trends go from here?Laurel Durkay: I think the trends have to be towards reducing these Scope 3 emissions, or maybe I just I hope that's where the trend is. You really need for building developers and owners to focus on development processes, building products and materials, and you need to see innovation within that space.Now, how about from your side, Cedar? What are you hearing from various companies you cover about the trends they foresee?Cedar Ekblom: The building materials and products businesses are really bullish on the long-term investment horizon on this topic. And we can see that in some of the data in Europe. The new build environment is under a lot of pressure. Higher interest rates have impacted affordability, and we have some activity in new build down 20 to 30 per cent.And yet when you look at the renovation and the refurbishment sector, we actually have a much more resilient backdrop.So look, our companies are really bullish on this. We ultimately see this manifesting in a higher multiple for businesses linked to this theme over the medium term. In all honesty, we're really just at the beginning of this theme. We think there's a lot of runway of investment still to come and we're keeping an eye on it.So, with that, Laurel, I'd like to say, thanks for taking the time to talk.Laurel Durkay: It was great speaking with you, Cedar.Cedar Ekblom: And as a reminder to our listeners, if you've enjoyed thoughts on the market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to the podcast. It helps more people to find the show.

30 Apr 20249min