Europe in the Global AI Race

As regional banks contend with sector volatility, commercial real estate could face challenges in securing new loans and refinancing debt when it matures.----- 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 some of the challenges facing the commercial real estate markets. It's Thursday, March 30th at 11 a.m. in New York. Commercial real estate market, or CRE in short, is a hot topic, especially in the context of recent developments in the banking sector. As we have discussed on this podcast, even though banks were already tightening lending standards, given recent events their ability and willingness to make loans is diminished. Besides making loans, banks enable credit formation as buyers of senior tranches of securitizations. A regulatory response to recent events will likely decrease the ability of regional banks to be buyers of such tranches, if risk rates and liquidity capital ratio requirements are revised to reflect duration in addition to credit risk. It's against this backdrop that we think about the exposure of regional banks to CRE. Understanding the nature of CRE financing and getting some numbers is useful to put this issue in context. First, commercial real estate mortgage financing is different from, say, residential real estate mortgage financing in that they are generally non-amortizing mortgages with terms usually 5 or 10 years. That means at term there is a balloon payment due which needs to be refinanced into another 5 or 10 year term loan. Second, there is a heightened degree of imminence to the refinancing issue for CRE. $450 billion of CRE debt matures this year and needs to be refinanced. It doesn't really get easier in the next few years, with CRE debt maturing and needing to be refinanced of about $550 billion per year until 2027. In all, between 2023 and 2027, $2.5 trillion of CRE debt is set to mature, about 40% of which was originated by the banking sector. Third, retail banks' exposure to CRE lending is substantial and their share of lending volumes has been growing in recent years. 70% of the core CRE debt in the banking sector was originated by regional banks. These loans are distributed across major CRE sub-sectors and majority of these loans are under $10 million loans. That the share of the digital banks in CRE debt has ramped up meaningfully in the last few years is actually very notable. That means the growth in their CRE lending has come during a period of peaking valuations. Even in sub-sectors such as multifamily, where lending has predominantly come from other sources, such as the GSEs, banks play a critical role in that they are the buyers of senior tranches of agency commercial mortgage backed securities. As I said earlier, if banks' ability to buy such securities decreases because of new regulations, this indirectly impacts the prospects for refinancing maturing debt in the sector as well. So what is the bottom line? Imminent refinancing needs of commercial real estate are a risk and the current banking sector turmoil adds to this challenge. We believe CRE needs to reprice and alternatives to refinance debt are very much needed. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

30 Mar 20233min

Many investors are questioning if the online dating market has become saturated and, in turn, if there is still a growth runway for the industry.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lauren Schenk, Equity Analyst covering Small and Mid-Cap Internet stocks. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the next leg of growth for the online dating industry. It's Wednesday, March 29th at noon in New York. Investors are understandably focused on turmoil in banking, but today we'll be taking a break from banks to cover a hot topic in any macro environment, online dating. Almost every investor call I get includes the question, "Is online dating just becoming saturated, mature or over-monetized?" Several data points have driven this market view. First, revenue growth at the top dating apps slowed in 2022 and provided more modest fiscal year 2023 guides and expected. Second, survey data suggests U.S. online dating adoption slowed over COVID. Third, app data implies U.S. monthly active users have been flat for five plus years, suggesting that monetization has driven all the growth and may slow from here. This data prompted us to dig deeper into the multiple growth drivers of online dating revenue growth to see if investor concerns are well founded. And we found that online dating is not just about users and user growth. Today, roughly 32% of the U.S. addressable single population uses online dating and 26% of that 32% pay for online dating either through a subscription or a la carte purchase. In fact, our analysis suggests there's still plenty of growth runway. There are effectively four key drivers of online dating growth between users and monetization, potential users, or total addressable market, online dating usage, payer penetration and revenue per payer. Most dating apps employ a "Freemium" model, meaning the service and platform are free to use, but the experience and success rate can be improved via a monthly subscription of bundled features or one-off a la carte purchases. To be sure, user growth has provided a solid boost to revenue growth over the last many years as mobile swipe apps expanded usage among young users. However, we see slowing U.S. single population growth and a slowing of user penetration from here. We estimate that user growth will likely contribute only 3% of industry revenue growth from 2022 to 2030, while the bulk of online dating revenue growth will increasingly come from monetization. With that said, compared to user growth, monetization growth is far more dependent on execution, which could make the industry growth inherently more volatile going forward, supporting our thesis that the leading apps' steep recent slowdown is not a function of oversaturation so much as mis-execution. Given all this, we believe the U.S. online dating industry will see durable, above consensus revenue growth medium to long term. We think the 2022 slowdown was due to mis-execution and monetization, with almost no payer growth and macro challenges, rather than saturation, as three of the four primary industry growth drivers, online dating usage, payer penetration and revenue per payer, are still on a growth path. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

29 Mar 20233min

If you're a listener to Thoughts on the Market you may be interested in our new podcast: What Should I Do With My Money? ----------------Managing our money can be ... a lot. It's one of the most important aspects of our lives, and yet, many of us just muddle through, without any help, hoping that we haven’t made a mistake. It doesn’t have to be that way. At Morgan Stanley, we help people manage their money at all stages of their lives, whether a young person just starting out or an executive planning their retirement. And while each person's situation is unique, many of their concerns are common. On this podcast, we match real people, asking real questions about their money, with experienced Financial Advisors. You’ll hear answers to important questions like: Is now the right time to buy a house? What to do if your business fails? How should I be saving to cover the cost of college? How much do I really need to retire and am I on track? Having an experienced Financial Advisor on your side can go a long way. Someone who you can trust, who gets you, who has tackled these same issues before and who has the expertise to develop a plan that fits your goals. Join us as our guests share their stories around life's major moments. And hear the difference a conversation can make. Hosted by Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Jamie Roô. For more information visit morganstanley.com/mymoney.

29 Mar 20232min

Amid uncertainty in the global banking sector, are European equities a safe haven for investors to weather the storm?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the implications on European equities from the increased uncertainty surrounding the global banking sector. It's Tuesday, March 28th at 3 p.m. in London. After the turbulence of mid-March, a degree of calm has descended over markets recently, which has lifted European equities back to within 3% of their prior high and pushed equity volatility down to more normal levels. In effect, we think investors are now in 'wait and see' mode as they try to assess the forthcoming consequences and investment implications of recent events within the global banking sector. Our recent discussions with investors suggests a potential lack of willingness to get too bearish at this time, with some still hopeful the markets can navigate a path of modestly weaker growth, with lower inflation and less hawkish central banks. For us, we view this outcome as a possibility rather than a probability and reflective of the fact that investors have been positively surprised by the general resilience of economies and equity markets to date. However, this viewpoint ignores the fact that something has changed in the overall macro environment. First, yield curves are starting to steepen from very inverted levels, a backdrop that has traditionally been negative for risk markets as it reflects lower interest rate expectations due to rising recession risk. And second, we now have clear evidence, we think, that tighter monetary policy is beginning to bite. Over the coming weeks, we may see anecdotal stories emerge of problems around credit availability, followed thereafter by weaker economic data and ultimately lower earnings estimates. We also suspect that more financial problems or accidents will emerge over the coming months as a result of the combination of higher interest rates and lower credit availability. These issues may not necessarily manifest themselves in the mainstream European banking sector this time, however asset markets will still be vulnerable if risks emerge from other areas such as U.S. banks, commercial real estate or other financial entities. As a result of this increased uncertainty, we have taken a more cautious view on European equities in the near-term and forecast the region's prior outperformance of U.S. stocks to pause for a while. Within the European market, we see a trickier outlook for banks, given crowded positioning and less upside risk to earnings estimates than previously thought. However, the area of greatest caution for us is cyclicals, with the group most exposed to rising recession risk and weaker equity markets, and we are particularly cautious on those sectors most sensitive to credit dynamics such as autos. On the more positive side, we continue to like longer duration sectors such as luxury goods and technology, and believe they will continue to act as safe havens while market uncertainty remains high. In addition, we think the telecom sector offers an attractive mix of low valuation, healthy earnings resilience and the potential for more corporate activity and increased policy support from regulators going forward. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

28 Mar 20233min

After the events of the past few weeks, earnings estimates look increasingly unrealistic and the bear market may finally be ready to appropriately factor-in elevated earning risks.----- 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, March 27th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Back in October, when we turned tactically bullish, we wrote that markets often need the engraved invitation from a higher power to tell them what's really going on. For bond markets, that higher power is the Fed, and for stocks it's company earnings guidance. Our assumption at the time was that we were unlikely to get the negative messaging on earnings from companies necessary for the final bear market low. Instead, our view is that it would likely take another quarter for business conditions to deteriorate enough for companies to finally change their minds on the recovery that is still baked into consensus forecasts. Fast forward to today and we are seeing yet another quarter where estimates are being lowered to the same degree we have witnessed over the past two. In other words, it doesn't appear that the earnings picture is bottoming as many investors were starting to think last month. In fact, these downward revisions are progressing right in line with our earnings model, that suggests bottoms up estimates remain 15 to 20% too high. More specifically, consensus estimates still assume a strong recovery in profitability. This flies directly in the face of our negative operating leverage thesis that is playing out. Our contention that inflation increases operating leverage and operating leverage cuts both ways, is a concept that is still under appreciated. We think that helps to explain why we are so far below the consensus now on earnings. More importantly, it doesn't necessarily require an economic recession to play out, although that risk is more elevated too. This leads us to the main point of this week's podcast. With the events of the past few weeks, we think it's becoming more obvious that earnings estimates are unrealistic. As we have said, most bear markets end with some kind of an event that is just too significant to ignore any longer. We think recent banking stress and the effects they are likely to have on credit availability is a risk that the market must consider and price more appropriately. Three weeks ago, the bond market did a striking reversal that caught many market participants flat footed. In short, the bond market appeared to have decided that the recent bank failures were the beginning of the end for this cycle. More specifically, the yield curve bull steepened by 60 basis points in a matter of days. Importantly, it was the first time we can remember the bond market trading this far away from the Fed's dot-plot. It was dismissing the higher powers guidance. We think this is important because now in our view it's likely to be the stock market's turn to think for itself, too. To date, the bear market has been driven almost entirely by higher interest rates and the impact that it has had on valuations. More specifically, when the bear market started, the price earnings multiple was 21.5x versus today's 17.5x. Importantly, this multiple troughed at 15.5x in mid-October, the lows of this bear market to date. Well, that's a relatively attractive multiple and one of the reasons we turned tactically bullish at the time, we think it never reflected the growth concerns that should now dominate the market and investor sentiment. Our evidence for that claim is based on the fact that the equity risk premium is actually lower by 110 basis points than it was at the start of this bear market. In other words, the portion of the price earnings multiple related to growth expectations is far from flashing concern. Based on our analysis, the equity risk premium is approximately 150 to 200 basis points too low, which translates into stock prices that are 15 to 20% lower at the index level. The good news is that the average stock is getting cheaper as small cap stocks have underperformed, along with banks and other areas most affected by recent events. Areas that appear most vulnerable to the further correction we expect include technology, consumer goods and services and industrials. Remain patient until the market has appropriately discounted the earnings risk that we think has moved center stage. 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.

27 Mar 20233min

As markets contend with the recent volatility in the banking sector, global central banks face the challenge of continuing to combat inflation against this updated backdrop. Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast we'll be talking about Global Central Bank policy and what's next amidst significant market volatility. It's Friday, March 24th at 4 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: And it's noon here in New York. Andrew Sheets: So Seth I know that both of us have been running around over the last week speaking with clients, but it's really great to catch up with you because we're coming to the end of the first quarter and yet I feel like a year's worth of things have happened in global central banks and the economic narrative. Maybe just take a step back and help us understand how you're thinking about the global economy right now. Seth Carpenter: You're absolutely right, Andrew. There is so much going on this year, so it's worth taking a step back. Coming into this year, we were looking for the economy to slow down. And I think it's just critical to remember why, central banks everywhere that are fighting inflation are raising interest rates intentionally to tighten financial conditions in order to slow their economies down and thereby bring down inflationary pressures. The trick, of course, is not slowing things down so much that they actively cause a recession. So the Fed having hiked interest rates already, we came into the year expecting a few more hikes, but then the data got stronger and Chair Powell opened the door to maybe going back to 50 basis point hikes. And now we've got this development in the banking sector. But it's not as if so far the central banks have seen evidence that things have gone so far that they're going to cause a recession. So all of this sounds a little bit simple maybe, but the key thing here is how can they calibrate whether or not they've done enough in terms of tightening financial conditions or if they've gone too far. Andrew Sheets: That's a really important point, because if you look at what the market is now pricing from the Federal Reserve, it's expecting significant rate cuts through the end of the year. And it's pricing in a scenario where the Fed has effectively gone far enough or maybe they've even gone too far and has to reverse their policy pretty quickly. How do you think about the path forward from here and how likely is it that central banks will ease as much as markets are currently pricing? Seth Carpenter: I mean, I do think there is a path for central banks to ease, but that is not and let me just start off with that is not our baseline scenario for this year. You led off with inflation and I think that's an appropriate place to start because what we heard clearly from central bankers in all of the developed markets was they are still hyper focused on inflation being too high and the need to bring it down. So one way of thinking about what's going on is that there's just a continuation of the normal tightening of monetary policy, so bank funding costs have gone up. If you read the the publications that our colleague Betsy Graseck, who runs Bank Equity Research in North America, she's pointed out that there's been a clear increase in bank funding costs that compresses net interest margins and that should, as a result, have an effect on what's going on with credit extension. In that version of the world, the Fed is in this fine tuning version of the world where they have to feel their way to the right degree of tightness and maybe they overdo it a little bit and then eventually pull back. I think the other version of the world that's very hard to get your mind around it is absolutely not our best case scenario right now, is that there's just a wholesale pulling back in terms of the availability and willingness of banks to make credit, either because of what's going on with their own funding or because of risk in the economy. And if there's an immediate cessation of lending, well, then I think you're talking about small and medium sized businesses that rely on bank loans not being able to say cover payrolls, or not being able to cover working capital. I think that version of the world is very, very different and that would lead to a much sharper slowdown in the economy and I think, again, would elicit some reaction from the Fed. Andrew Sheets: So Seth, I'm really glad you brought the banking sector and its uncertain impact on the economy, because it goes to this broader question of lags and how that impacts some of the big debates that investors are having in the market. You have central banks that are looking at inflation and labor market data, that's arguably some of the more lagging economic data we have, by which I mean it historically tends to show weakness later than other economic indicators. So how do you think about those lags in inflation, in monetary policy and in bank credit when you're thinking about both Morgan Stanley's forecasts, but also how central banks navigate the picture here? Seth Carpenter: Very key part of what's going on is to try to understand that lag structure. I would say the best estimates are changes in monetary policy that tighten financial conditions, probably affect the real economy with a lag of two, three, maybe four quarters. And then from the real side of the economy to inflation, there's probably another lag of two or three or maybe four quarters. So we're talking about at least a year from policy to inflation and maybe as much as two years. One thing to keep in mind though, about those lags is we can look at the Fed and what they tell us about their own projections for how the economy would evolve under what they consider appropriate policy. And the answer is the median member of the Federal Open Market Committee sees core inflation at about 2.1%, so almost, but not quite back to target at the end of 2025. So if you think about when they started hiking rates until the end of 2025, they're thinking it's an appropriate time horizon for it to take well over three years. I think that's the kind of time horizon we should be thinking about in general, when everything goes, shall we say, roughly according to plan. Now, the banking system developments throw a big monkey wrench into everything. And to be clear, confounding all of this, even before we had any of the volatility in the banking sector, we were already seeing slowing, that always happens when interest rates rise. Deposits were coming down in the United States, even before any of the recent developments, the rate of growth of loans was coming down. We had on a three month basis, C&I loan growth slowed to about zero. So we were already seeing the slowing happening in the banking sector. I think the real question is, are we going to see just incrementally more or is there something more discontinuous? Our baseline view relies on this being sort of an incremental additional tightness in conditions, but we have to keep monitoring to make sure we know what happens. Andrew Sheets: Seth maybe my last question would be, given everything that's been going on, what do you think is something that is most misunderstood by the market or least understood by the market? Seth Carpenter: I definitely hear in conversations with clients and others this idea that there might be a dichotomy. Are central banks going to give up their concern about inflation and instead turn their focus to financial stability? And I always try to push back on that and say that that's a bit of a bit of a false dichotomy. Why do I say that? Because, remember, fundamentally, central banks are trying to tighten financial conditions in order to slow the economy, in order to bring inflation down. And so if what we're seeing now is just further tightening of financial conditions, that will help them slow the economy down, there's no trade off to be made. And in fact, Chair Powell, at the last press conference said what's going on in banking system is something like the equivalent of one or two interest rate hikes. So in that sense, there's clearly no dichotomy to be had. So I would say that's for me, the biggest misunderstanding in the way the debate is going on is whether central banks have to focus either on financial stability or on inflation. But if I can, let me turn the tables and ask a question of you. We came into this year with our outlook called the year of Yield, but now the world is very different. You've talked about how much volatility there is. So when you're talking to clients, how are they supposed to navigate these very turbulent waters with lots of cross-currents going in different directions? Andrew Sheets: One thing that I hope listeners understand is that when we set our views from the strategy side at Morgan Stanley, we work very closely with you and the Global Economics Team. And I think one of the core themes this year is that even though we've seen a lot of volatility in the narrative and in the data, the core message is that 2023 is a year where growth is decelerating meaningfully in the U.S and Europe and the 2023 is a year where growth is decelerating meaningfully in the U.S and Europe, and that's the case if you have a recession, which is not our base case, or if you avoid a recession, which is. And I think we've seen developments in the banking sector since we've and I think the developments that we've seen in the banking sector only reinforce this view, only reinforce the idea that growth is going to slow, given how hot it was coming in, given the effect of higher rates and now given the additional impact of a more conservative bank of a more conservative banking sector. I think you make a great point that there's a lot we don't know about how banks will react or how consumers will react to tighter credit conditions. Regardless, I still think at the core we should be investing for a decelerating growth environment. And I think that's an environment that argues for more conservatism in portfolios, owning less equities than normal and owning more bonds than normal. And that's very much premised on the idea that growth will decelerate from here and strategies will and that investing will follow a pattern similar to other periods of significant deceleration. Well, Seth, it was great talking with you. Seth Carpenter: It's great speaking with you Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

25 Mar 20239min

Original Release on February 6th, 2023: As new gene therapies are researched, developed and begin clinical trials, what hurdles must genetic medicine overcome before these therapies are commonly available? Head of U.S. Pharmaceuticals Terence Flynn and Head of U.S. Biotech Matthew Harrison discuss. ----- Transcript -----Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Head of U.S. Pharma for Morgan Stanley Research. Matthew Harrison: And I'm Matthew Harrison, Head of U.S. Biotech. Terence Flynn: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be discussing the bold promise of genetic medicine. It's Monday, February 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Terence Flynn: 2023 marks 20 years since the completion of the Human Genome Project. The unprecedented global scientific collaboration that generated the first sequence of the human genome. The pace of research in molecular biology and human genetics has not relented since 2003, and today we're at the start of a real revolution in the practice of medicine. Matthew what exactly is genetic medicine and what's the difference between gene therapy and gene editing? Matthew Harrison: As I think about this, I think it's important to talk about context. And so as we've thought about medical developments and drug development over the last many decades, you started with pills. And then we moved into drugs from living cells. These are more complicated drugs. And now we're moving on to editing actual pieces of our genome to deliver potentially long lasting cures. And so this opens up a huge range of new treatments and new opportunities. And so in general, as we think about it, they're basically two approaches to genetic medicine. The first is called gene therapy, and the second is called gene editing. The major difference here is that in gene therapy you just deliver a snippet of a gene or pre-programmed message to the body that then allows the body to make the protein that's missing, With gene editing, instead what you do is you go in and you directly edit the genes in the person's body, potentially giving a long lasting cure to that person. So obviously two different approaches, but both could be very effective. And so, Terence, as you think about what's happening in research and development right now, you know, how long do you think it's going to be before some of these new therapies make it to market? Terence Flynn: As we think about some of the other technologies you mentioned, Matthew, those took, you know, decades in some cases to really refine them and broaden their applicability to a number of diseases. So we think the same is likely to play out here with genetic medicine, where you're likely to see an iterative approach over time as companies work to optimize different features of these technologies. So as we think about where it's focused right now, it's being primarily on the rare genetic disease side. So diseases such as hemophilia, spinal muscular atrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which affect a very small percentage of the population, but the risk benefit is very favorable for these new medicines. Now, there are currently five gene therapies approved in the U.S. and several more on the horizon in later stage development. No gene editing therapies have been approved yet, but there is one for sickle cell disease that could actually be approved next year, which would be a pretty big milestone. And the majority of the other gene editing therapies are actually in earlier stages of development. So it's likely going to be several years before those reach the market. As, again as we've seen happen time and time again in biopharma as these new therapies and new platforms are rolled out they have very broad potential. And obviously there's a lot of excitement here around these genetic medicines and thinking about where these could be applied. But I think before we go there, Matthew, obviously there are still some hurdles that needs to be addressed before we see a broader rollout here. So maybe you could touch on that for us. Matthew Harrison: You're right, there are some issues that we're still working through as we think about applying these technologies. The first one is really delivery. You obviously can't just inject some genes into the body and they'll know what to do. So you have to package them somehow. And there are a variety of techniques that are in development, whether using particles of fat to shield them or using inert viruses to send them into the body. But right now, we can't deliver to every tissue in every organ, and so that limits where you can send these medicines and how they can be effective. So there's still a lot of work to be done on delivery. And the second is when you go in and you edit a gene, even if you're very precise about where you want to edit, you might cause some what we call off target effects on the edges of where you've edited. And so there's concern about could those off target effects lead to safety issues. And then the third thing which we've touched on previously is durability. There's potentially a difference between gene therapy and gene editing, where gene editing may lead to a very long lasting cure, where different kinds of gene therapies may have longer term potential, but some may need to be redosed. Terence, as we turn back to thinking about the progress of the pipeline here, you know, what are the key catalysts you're watching over 23 and 24? Terence Flynn: You know, as everyone probably knows, biopharma is a highly regulated industry. We have the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration here in the U.S., and we have the EMA in Europe. Those are the bodies that, you know, evaluate risk benefit of every therapy that's entering clinical trials and ultimately will reach the market. So this year we're expecting much of the focus for the gene editing companies to be broadly on regulatory progress. So again, this includes completion of regulatory filings here in the U.S. and Europe for the sickle cell disease drug that I mentioned before. And then something that's known as an IND filing. So essentially what companies are required to do is file that before they conduct clinical trials in humans in the U.S. There are companies that are pursuing this for hereditary angioedema and TTR amyloidosis. Those, if successful, would allow clinical trials to be conducted here in the U.S. and include U.S. patients. The other big thing we're watching is additional clinical data related to durability of efficacy. So, I think we've seen already with some of the gene therapies for hemophilia that we have durable efficacy out to five years, which is very exciting and promising. But the question is, will that last even longer? And how to think about gene therapy relative to gene editing on the durability side. And then lastly, I'd say safety. Obviously that's important for any therapy, but given some of the hurdles still that you mentioned, Matthew, that's obviously an important focus here as we look out over the longer term and something that the companies and the regulators are going to be following pretty closely. So again, as we think about the development of the field, one of the other key questions is access to patients. And so pricing reimbursement plays a key role here for any new therapy. There are some differences here, obviously, because we're talking about cures versus traditional chronic therapies. So maybe Matthew you could elaborate on that topic. Matthew Harrison: So as you think about these genetic medicines, the ones that we've seen approved have pretty broad price ranges, anywhere from a million to a few million dollars per patient, but you're talking about a potential cure here. And as I think about many of the chronic therapies, especially the more sophisticated ones that patients take, they can cost anywhere between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So you can see over a decade or more of use how they can actually eclipse what seems like a very high upfront price of these genetic medicines. Now, one of the issues obviously, is that the way the payers are set up is different in different parts of the world. So in Europe, for example, there are single payer systems for the patient never switches between health insurance carriers. And so therefore you can capture that value very easily. In the U.S., obviously it's a much more complicated system, many people move between payers as they switch jobs, as you change from, you know, commercial payers when you're younger to a government payer as you move into Medicare. And so there needs to be a mechanism worked out on how to spread that value out. And so I think that's one of the things that will need to evolve. But, you know, it's a very exciting time here in genetic medicine. There's significant opportunity and I think we're on the cusp of really seeing a robust expansion of this field and leading to many potential therapies in the years to come. Terence Flynn: That's great, Matthew. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk today. Matthew Harrison: Great speaking with you, Terrence. Terence Flynn: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

23 Mar 20238min

As investors focus on the risks of debt, can Emerging Markets combat pressure from wide fiscal deficits? Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas, Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy Simon Waever and Global Economics Analyst Diego Anzoategui discuss.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Simon Waever: I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the Global Economics Team. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss how emerging markets are facing the pressures from rising debt levels and tougher external financing conditions. It's Wednesday, March 22nd at 10 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: The bank backdrop that's been unfolding over the last couple of weeks has led investors in the U.S. and globally to focus on the risks of debt right now. Emerging markets, which have seen sovereign debt levels rise in part due to the COVID pandemic, is one place where debt concerns are intensifying. But our economists and strategists here at Morgan Stanley Research believe this concern is overdone and that there might be opportunities in EM. Diego, can you maybe start by giving us a sense of where debt levels are in emerging markets, post-COVID, especially amidst rising interest rates globally? Diego Anzoategui: The overall EM debt to GDP ratio increased 11% from 2019, reaching levels above the 60% mark in 2022. Just a level, leveled by some economists, that's a warning sign because of its potential effects on the growth outlook. But without entering the debate on where this threshold is relevant or not, there is no doubt that the increase is meaningful and widespread because nearly every team has higher debt levels now. And broadly speaking, there are two factors explaining the rise in EM debt. The first one is a COVID, which was a hit on fiscal expenditure and revenues, overall. Many economies implemented expansionary fiscal policies and lockdowns caused depressed economic activity and lower fiscal revenues. The second one is the war in Ukraine, that caused a rise in oil and food commodity prices, hitting fiscals in economies with government subsidies to energy or food. Michael Zezas: And, Simon, while most emerging markets continue to have fiscal deficits wider than their pre-COVID trends, you argue that there's still a viable path to normalization against the backdrop of global economic conditions. What are some risks to this outlook and what catalysts and signposts are you watching closely? Simon Waever: Sure. I'm looking at three key points. First, the degree of fiscal adjustment. I think markets will reward those countries with a clear plan to return to pre-pandemic fiscal balances. That's, of course, easier said than done, but at least for energy exporters, it is easier. Second market focus will also be on the broader policy response. Again, I think markets will reward reforms that help boost growth, and inbound investment. It's also important as central banks respond to the inflation concerns, which for the most part they have done. And then I think having a strong sustainability plan also increasingly plays a role in achieving both more and cheaper financing. Third and lastly, we can't avoid talking about the global financial conditions. While, of course that's not something individual countries can control, it does impact the availability and cost of financing. In 2022, that was very difficult, but we do expect 2023 to be more supportive for EM sovereigns. Michael Zezas: And with all that said, you believe there may be some opportunities in emerging markets. Can you walk us through your thinking there? Simon Waever: Right. So building on all the work Diego and his team did, we think solvency is actually okay for the majority of the asset class, even if it has worsened compared to pre-COVID. Liquidity is instead the weak spot. So, for instance, some countries have lost access to the market and that's been a key driver of why sovereign defaults have picked up already. But looking ahead, three points are worth keeping in mind. One, 73% of the asset class is investment grade or double B rated, and they do have adequate liquidity. Two, for the lower rated countries valuations have already adjusted. For instance, if I look at the probability of default price for single B's, it's around double historical levels already. And then three, positioning to EM is very light. It actually has been for the last three years. So these are all reasons why we're more upbeat on EM longer term, even if near-term, it'll be driven more by a broader risk appetite. Michael Zezas: And Simon, what happens to emerging markets if, say, developed market interest rates move far beyond current expectations and what we in Morgan Stanley research are currently forecasting? Simon Waever: In short, it would be very difficult for EM and I would say especially high yield to handle another significant move higher in either U.S. yields or the U.S. dollar. As I mentioned earlier, market access for single B's needs to return at some point in 2023 as countries already drew down on alternative funding sources. And even within the IG universe, it would make debt servicing costs much higher. Michael Zezas: And Diego, when you look beyond 2023, what are you focused on from an economics perspective? Diego Anzoategui: Beyond 2023, we're going to focus on fiscal balances mainly. The expenditure side of the equation has broadly normalized after COVID. So it's currently at pre-COVID levels. But the revenue side of the economy is lagging, so its revenues are below pre-COVID trends. So we're going to be focused on the economic cycle to check where revenue picks up again to pre-COVID levels. Michael Zezas: And, last question Simon, which countries within emerging markets are you watching particularly closely? Simon Waever: So overall, the investment grade and double B rated countries are largely priced for a more benign outlook already, which we agree with. But I would highlight Brazil as an exception, as one place that's not pricing the fiscal risks ahead. For the lower rated credits, I would highlight Egypt, Nigeria and Kenya as key countries to watch. They are large index constituents, still have relatively high prices and they all have upcoming maturities. Pakistan and Tunisia are at even higher risk of being the next countries to see a missed payment, but the difference here is that they're also priced much more conservatively. Michael Zezas: Well, Simon, Diego, thanks for taking the time to talk. Simon Waever: Great speaking with you, Mike. Diego Anzoategui: Great talking to you, Mike. Michael Zezas: As a reminder, 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 find the show.

22 Mar 20236min