Andrew Sheets: Can Central Banks Keep Up with Market Expectations?

In the first of a two- part episode, our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach discuss the outcome of the Jackson Hole meeting and the outlook for the U.S. economy and the Fed rate path during the rest of the year. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Last Friday, the Jackson Hole meeting delivered a big surprise to markets. Both stocks and bonds reacted decisively.Today, the first of a two-part episode. We'll discuss Michael's reaction to Chair Powell's Jackson Hole comments and what they mean for his view on the outlook for monetary policy. Tomorrow, the outlook for interest rate markets and the US dollar. It's Thursday, August 28th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, here we are after Jackson Hole. The mood this year felt a lot more hawkish, or at least patient than what we saw last week. And Chair Powell really caught my attention when he said, “with policy and restrictive territory, the baseline outlook for the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance.” That line has been on my mind ever since. So, let's dig into it. What's your gut reaction?Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, it was a surprise to me, and I think I would highlight three aspects of his Jackson Hole comments that were important to me. So, I think what happened here, of course, is the Fed became much more worried about downside risk to the labor market after the July employment report, right? So, at the July FOMC meeting, which came before that report, Powell had said, ‘Well, you know, slow payroll growth is fine as long as the unemployment rate stays low.’ And that's very much in line with our view. But sometimes these things are easier said than done. And I think the July employment report told them perhaps there's more weakness in the labor market now than they thought.So, I think the messaging here is about a shift towards risk management mode. Maybe we need to put in a couple policy rate cuts to shore up the labor market. And I think that was the big change and I think that's what drove the overall message in the statement. But there were two other parts of it that I think were interesting, you know. From the economist’s point of view, when the chair explicitly writes in a speech that ‘the economy now may warrant adjustments in our policy stance,’ right? I mean, that's a big deal. It suggests that the decision has been largely made, and I think anytime the Fed is taking a change of direction, either easing or tightening, they're not just going to do one move. So, they're signaling that they're likely prepared to do a series of moves, and we can debate about what that means. And the third thing that struck me is right before the line that you mentioned he did qualify the need to adjust rates by saying, well, whatever we do, we should, “Proceed cautiously.” So, a year ago, as you recall, the Fed opened up with a big 50 basis point rate cut, which was a surprise. And cut at three successive meetings. So, a hundred basis points of cuts over three meetings, starting with a 50 basis point cut. I think the phraseology ‘proceeds carefully’ is a signal to markets that, ‘Hey, don't expect that this time around.’ The world's different. This is a risk management discussion. And so, we think, two rate cuts before year end would be most likely. Maybe you get three. But I don't think we should expect a large 50 basis point cut at the September meeting. So those would be my thoughts. Downside risk to the labor market – putting this into words says something important to me. And the ‘proceed cautiously’ language I think is something markets also need to take into account.Matthew Hornbach: So how do you translate that into a forecasted path for the Fed? I mean, in terms of your baseline outlook, how many rate cuts are you forecasting this year? And what about in 2026?Michael Gapen: Right. So, we previously; we thought what the Fed was doing was leaning against risks that inflation would be persistent. They moved into that camp because of how fast tariffs were going up and the overall level of the effective tariff rate. So, we thought they would stay on hold for longer and when they move, move more rapidly. What they're saying now in a risk management sense, right; they still think risk to inflation is to the upside, but the unemployment rate is also to the upside. And they're looking at both of those as about equally weighted. So, in a baseline outlook where the Fed's not assuming a recession and neither are we, you get a maybe a dip in growth and a rise in inflation. But growth recovers and inflation comes down next year. In that world, and with the idea that you're proceeding cautiously, they're kind of moving and evaluating, moving and evaluating.So, I think the translation here is: a path of quarterly rate cuts between now and the end of 2026. So, six rate cuts, but moving quarterly, like September and December this year; March, June, September, and December next year; which would take us to a terminal target range of 2.75 to 3. So rather than moving later and more rapidly, you move earlier, but more gradually. That's how we're thinking about it now.Matthew Hornbach: And that's about a 25 basis point upward adjustment to the trough policy rate that you were forecasting previously…Michael Gapen: That's right. So, the prior thought was a Fed that moves later may have to cut more, right? Because you're – by holding policy tighter for longer – you're putting more downward weight on the economy from a cyclical perspective. So, you may end up cutting more to essentially reverse that in 2026. So, by moving earlier, maybe a Fed that moves a little earlier, cuts a little less.Matthew Hornbach: In terms of the alternative outcomes. Obviously, in any given forecast, things can go not as expected. And so, if the path turns out to be something other than what you're forecasting today, what would be some of the more likely outcomes in your mind?Michael Gapen: Yeah, as we like to say in economics, we forecast so we know where we're wrong. So, you're right, the world can evolve very differently. So just a couple thoughts. You know, one, now that we're thinking the Fed does cut in September, what gets them not to cut? You'd need a – I think, a really strong August employment report; something around 225,000 jobs, which would bring the three-month moving average back to around 150, right. That would be a signal that the May-June downdraft was just a post Liberation Day pothole and not trend deterioration in the labor market. So that, you know, would be one potential alternative. Another is – although we've projected quarterly paths in this kind of nice gradual pace of cuts, we could get a repeat of last year where the Fed cuts 50 to 75 basis points by year end but realizes the labor market has not rolled over. And then we get some tariff pass through into inflation. And maybe residual seasonality and inflation in Q1. And then the Fed goes on hold again, then cuts could resume later in the year. And I also think in the backdrop here, when the Fed is saying we are easing in a risk management sense and we're easing maybe earlier than we otherwise would – that suggests the Fed has greater tolerance for inflation. So, understanding how much tolerance this Fed or the next one has for above target inflation, I think could influence how many rate cuts you eventually get in in 2026. So, we could even see a deeper trough through greater inflation tolerance. And finally, of course, we're not out of the woods with respect to recession risk. We could be wrong. Maybe the labor market is trend weakening and we're about to find that out. Growth is slowing. Growth was about 1.3 percent in the first half of the year. Final sales is softer. Of course, in a recession alternative scenario, the Fed's probably cutting much deeper, maybe down to 1 50 to 175 on the funds rate.So, I mean, Matt, you make a good point. There's still many different ways the economy can evolve and many different ways that the Fed's path for policy rates can evolve.Matthew Hornbach: Well, that's a good place to bring this Part 1 episode to an end. Tune in tomorrow, for my reaction to the market price action that followed Chair Powell's speech -- and what it means for our outlook for interest rate markets and the U.S. dollar.Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk.Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

28 Aug 9min

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses why a potential start of monetary easing by the Federal Reserve might be a cause for concern for credit markets. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – could interest rate cuts by the Fed unleash more corporate aggressiveness? It's Wednesday, August 27th at 2pm in London. Last week, the Fed chair, Jerome Powell hinted strongly that the Central Bank was set to cut interest rates at next month's meeting. While this outcome was the market's expectation, it was by no means a given.The Fed is tasked with keeping unemployment and inflation low. The US unemployment rate is low, but inflation is not only above the Fed's target, it's recently been trending in the wrong direction. And to bring inflation down the Fed would typically raise interest rates, not lower them. But that is not what the Fed appears likely to do; based importantly on a belief that these inflationary pressures are more temporary, while the job market may soon weaken. It is a tricky, unusual position for the Fed to be in, made even more unusual by what is going on around them. You see, the Fed tries to keep the economy in balance; neither too hot or too cold. And in this regard, its interest rate acts a bit like taps on a faucet. But there are other things besides this rate that also affect the temperature of the economic water. How easy is it to borrow money? Is the currency stronger or weaker? Are energy prices high or low? Is the equity market rising or falling? Collectively these measures are often referred to as financial conditions. And so, while it is unusual for the Federal Reserve to be lowering interest rates while inflation is above its target and moving higher, it's probably even more unusual for them to do so while these other governors of economic activity, these financial conditions are so accommodative. Equity valuations are high. Credit spreads are tight. Energy prices are low. The US dollar is weak. Bond yields have been going down, and the US government is running a large deficit. These are all dynamics that tend to heat the economy up. They are more hot water in our proverbial sink. Lowering interest rates could now raise that temperature further. For credit, this is mildly concerning, for two rather specific reasons. Credit is currently sitting with an outstanding year. And part of this good year has been because companies have generally been quite conservative, with merger activity modest and companies borrowing less than the governments against which they are commonly measured. All this moderation is a great thing for credit. But the backdrop I just described would appear to offer less moderation. If the Fed is going to add more accommodation into an already easy set of financial conditions, how long will companies really be able to resist the temptation to let the good times roll? Recently merger activity has started to pick up. And historically, this higher level of corporate aggressiveness can be good for shareholders. But it's often more challenging to lenders. But it's also possible that the Fed's caution is correct. That the US job market really is set to weaken further despite all of these other supportive tailwinds. And if this is the case, well, that also looks like less moderation. When the Fed has been cutting interest rates as the labor market weakens, these have often been some of the most challenging periods for credit, given the risk to the overall economy. So much now rests on the data. What the Fed does and how even new Fed leadership next year could tip the balance. But after significant outperformance and with signs pointing to less moderation ahead, credit may now be set to lag its fixed income peers. Thank you as always for listening. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

27 Aug 4min

Our analysts Adam Jonas and Alex Straton discuss how tech-savvy young professionals are influencing retail, brand loyalty, mobility trends, and the broader technology landscape through their evolving consumer choices. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Embodied AI and Humanoid Robotics Analyst. Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Softlines Retail and Brands Analyst. Adam Jonas: Today we're unpacking our annual summer intern survey, a snapshot of how emerging professionals view fashion retail, brands, and mobility – amid all the AI advances.It is Tuesday, August 26th at 9am in New York.They may not manage billions of dollars yet, but Morgan Stanley's summer interns certainly shape sentiment on the street, including Wall Street. From sock heights to sneaker trends, Gen Z has thoughts. So, for the seventh year, we ran a survey of our summer interns in the U.S. and Europe. The survey involved more than 500 interns based in the U.S., and about 150 based in Europe. So, Alex, let’s start with what these interns think about fashion and athletic footwear. What was your biggest takeaway from the intern survey? Alex Straton: So, across the three categories we track in the survey – that's apparel, athletic footwear, and handbags – there was one clear theme, and that's market fragmentation. So, for each category specifically, we observed share of the top three to five brands falling over time. And what that means is these once dominant brands, as consumer mind share is falling – and it likely makes them lower growth margin and multiple businesses over time. At the same time, you have smaller brands being able to captivate consumer attention more effectively, and they have staying power in a way that they haven't necessarily historically. I think one other piece I would just add; the rise of e-commerce and social media against a low barrier to entry space like apparel and footwear means it's easier to build a brand than it has been in the past. And the intern survey shows us this likely continues as this generation is increasingly inclined to shop online. Their social media usage is heavy, and they heavily rely on AI to inform, you know, their purchases.So, the big takeaway for me here isn't that the big are getting bigger in my space. It's actually that the big are probably getting smaller as new players have easier avenues to exist. Adam Jonas: Net apparel spending intentions rose versus the last survey, despite some concern around deteriorating demand for this category into the back half. What do you make of that result? Alex Straton: I think there were a bit conflicting takes from the survey when I look at all the answers together. So yes, apparel spending intentions are higher year-over-year, but at the same time, clothing and footwear also ranked as the second most category that interns would pull back on should prices go up. So let me break this down. On the higher spending intentions, I think timing played a huge role and a huge factor in the results. So, we ran this in July when spending in our space clearly accelerated. That to me was a function of better weather, pent up demand from earlier in the quarter, a potential tariff pull forward as headlines were intensifying, and then also typical back to school spending. So, in short, I think intention data is always very heavily tethered to the moment that it's collected and think that these factors mean, you know, it would've been better no matter what we've seen it in our space. I think on the second piece, which is interns pulling back spend should prices go up. That to me speaks to the high elasticity in this category, some of the highest in all of consumer discretionary. And that's one of the few drivers informing our cautious demand view on this space as we head into the back half. So, in summary on that piece, we think prices going higher will become more apparent this month onwards, which in tandem with high inventory and a competitive setup means sales could falter in the group. So, we still maintain this cautious demand view as we head into the back half, though our interns were pretty rosy in the survey. Adam Jonas: Interesting. So, interns continue to invest in tech ecosystems with more than 90 percent owning multiple devices. What does this interconnectedness mean for companies in your space? Alex Straton: This somewhat connects to the fragmentation theme I mentioned where I think digital shopping has somewhat functioned as a great equalizer in the space and big picture. I interpret device reliance as a leading indicator that this market diversification likely continues as brands fight to capture mobile mind share. The second read I'd have on this development is that it means brands must evolve to have an omnichannel presence. So that's both in store and online, and preferably one that's experiential focus such that this generation can create content around it. That's really the holy grail. And then maybe lastly, the third takeaway on this is that it's going to come at a cost. You, you can't keep eyeballs without spend. And historical brick and mortar retailers spend maybe 5 to 10 percent of sales on marketing, with digital requiring more than physical. So now I think what's interesting is that brands in my space with momentum seem to have to spend more than 10 percent of sales on marketing just to maintain popularity. So that's a cost pressure. We're not sure where these businesses will necessarily recoup if all of them end up getting the joke and continuing to invest just to drive mind share. Adam, turning to a topic that's been very hot this year in your area of expertise. That's humanoid robots. Interns were optimistic here with more than 60 percent believing they'll have many viable use cases and about the same number thinking they'll replace many human jobs. Yet fewer expect wide scale adoption within five years. What do you think explains this cautious enthusiasm? Adam Jonas: Well actually Alex, I think it's pretty smart. There is room to be optimistic. But there's definitely room to be cautious in terms of the scale of adoption, particularly over five years. And we're talking about humanoid robots. We're talking about a new species that's being created, right? This is bigger than just – will it replace our job? I mean, I don't think it's an exaggeration to ask what does this do to the concept of being human? You know, how does this affect our children and future generations? This is major generational planetary technology that I think is very much comparable to electricity, the internet. Some people say the wheel, fire, I don't know. We're going to see it happen and start to propagate over the next few years, where even if we don't have widespread adoption in terms of dealing with it on average hour of a day or an average day throughout the planet, you're going to see the technology go from zero to one as these machines learn by watching human behavior. Going from teleoperated instruction to then fully autonomous instruction, as the simulation stack and the compute gets more and more advanced. We're now seeing some industry leaders say that robots are able to learn by watching videos. And so, this is all happening right now, and it's happening at the pace of geopolitical rivalry, Sino-U.S. rivalry and terra cap, you know, big, big corporate competitive rivalry as well, for capital in the human brain. So, we are entering an unprecedented – maybe precedented in the last century – perhaps unprecedented era of technological and scientific discovery that I think you got to go back to the European and American Enlightenment or the Italian Renaissance to have any real comparisons to what we're about to see. Alex Straton: So, keeping with this same theme, interns showed strong interest in household robots with 61 percent expressing some interest and 24 percent saying they're very or extremely interested. I'm going to take you back to your prior coverage here, Adam. Could this translate into demand for AI driven mobility or smart infrastructure? Adam Jonas: Well, Alex, you were part of my prior coverage once upon a time. We were blessed with having you on our team for a year, and then you left me… Alex Straton: My golden era. Adam Jonas: But you came back, you came back. And you've done pretty well. So, so look, imagine it's 1903, the Wright Brothers just achieved first flight over the sands at Kitty Hawk. And then I were to tell you, ‘Oh yeah, in a few years we're going to have these planes used in World War I. And then in 1914, we'd have the first airline going between Tampa and St. Petersburg.’ You'd say, ‘You're crazy,’ right? The beauty of the intern survey is it gives the Morgan Stanley research department and our clients an opportunity to engage that surface area with that arising – not just the business leader – but that arising tech adopter. These are the people, these are the men and women that are going to kind of really adopt this much, much faster. And then, you know, our generation will get dragged into it eventually. So, I think it says; I think 61 percent expressing even some interest. And then 24 [percent], I guess, you know… The vast majority, three quarters saying, ‘Yeah, this is happening.’ That's a sign I think, to our clients and capital market providers and regulators to say, ‘This won't be stopped. And if we don't do it, someone else will.’ Alex Straton: So, another topic, Generative AI. It should come as no surprise really, that 95 percent of interns use that tool monthly, far ahead of the general population. How do you see this shaping future expectations for mobility and automation? Adam Jonas: So, this is what's interesting is people have asked kinda, ‘What's that Gen AI moment,’ if you will, for mobility? Well, it really is Gen AI. Large Language Models and the technologies that develop the Large Language Models and that recursive learning, don't just affect the knowledge economy, right. Or writing or research report generation or intelligence search. It actually also turns video clips and physical information into tokens that can then create and take what would be a normal suburban city street and beautiful weather with smiling faces or whatever, and turn it into a chaotic scene of, you know, traffic and weather and all sorts of infrastructure issues and potholes. And that can be done in this digital twin, in an omniverse. A CEO recently told me when you drive a car with advanced, you know, Level 2+ autonomy, like full self-driving, you're not just driving in three-dimensional space. You're also playing a video game training a robot in a digital avatar. So again, I think that there is quite a lot of overlap between Gen AI and the fact that our interns are so much further down that curve of adoption than the broader public – is probably a hint to us is we got to keep listening to them, when we move into the physical realm of AI too. Alex Straton: So, no more driving tests for the 16-year-olds of the future... Adam Jonas: If you want to. Like, I tell my kids, if you want to drive, that's cool. Manual transmission, Italian sports cars, that's great. People still ride horses too. But it's just for the privileged few that can kind of keep these things in stables. Alex Straton: So, let me turn this into implications for companies here. Gen Z is tech fluent, open to disruption? How should autos and shared mobility providers rethink their engagement strategies with this generation? Adam Jonas: Well, that's a huge question. And think of the irony here. As we bring in this world of fake humans and humanoid robots, the scarcest resource is the human brain, right? So, this battle for the human mind is – it’s incredible. And we haven't seen this really since like the Sputnik era or real height of the Cold War. We're seeing it now play out and our clients can read about some of these signing bonuses for these top AI and robotics talent being paid by many companies. It kind of makes, you know, your eyes water, even if you're used to the world of sports and soccer, . I think we're going to keep seeing more of that for the next few years because we need more brains, we need more stem. I think it's going to do; it has the potential to do a lot for our education system in the United States and in the West broadly. Alex Straton: So, we've covered a lot around what the next generation is interested in and, and their opinion. I know we do this every year, so it'll be exciting to see how this evolves over time. And how they adapt. It's been great speaking with you today, Adam. Adam Jonas: Absolutely. Alex, thanks for your insights. And to our listeners, stay curious, stay disruptive, and we'll catch you next time. 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.

26 Aug 12min

Opinions by market pundits have been flying since Fed Chair Powell’s remarks at Jackson Hole last week, leaving the door open for interest rate cuts as soon as in September. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains his continued call for a bullish outlook on U.S. stocks.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the Fed’s new signaling on policy and what it means for stocks. It's Monday, August 25th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. Over the past few months, the markets started to anticipate a Fed pivot to a more dovish stance this fall. More specifically, the bond market started to price in a very high likelihood for the Fed to start cutting interest rates again in September. Equities have taken their cues from this signaling in the bond market by trading higher through most of the summer – despite lingering concerns about tariffs, international conflicts and valuation. I have remained bullish throughout this period given our focus on historically strong earnings revisions and the view that the Fed’s next move would be to cut rates even if the timing remained uncertain. Last week, the Fed held its annual symposium in Jackson Hole where they typically discuss near term policy intentions as well as larger considerations for their strategic policy framework. We learned two key things. First, the Fed seems closer to cutting rates in September than the last time Chair Powell spoke publicly. This change also comes after a week in which the markets were left wondering if he would remain more hawkish until inflation data confirmed what markets have already figured out. Clearly, Powell leaned more dovish. And with markets a bit nervous going into his speech on Friday morning, equities rallied sharply the rest of the day. Second, the Fed also indicated that it will no longer target average inflation at 2 percent. Instead, it will make 2 percent the target at all times. This means the Fed will not tolerate inflation above or below target to manage the average like it did in 2021-22. It also suggests a more hawkish Fed should the economy recover more strongly than is currently expected or inflation reaccelerates. From my standpoint, this is bullish for stocks over the next few weeks and markets can now fully anticipate Fed cuts in September. However, I see a few risks for September and October worth thinking about as the S&P 500 approaches our longstanding 6500 target. The first risk is the Fed decides to not cut after all because either growth is better or inflation is higher than expected. That would be worth a small correction in stocks given the high likelihood of a cut that is now priced in. The second risk is the Fed cuts but the bond market decides it’s being too carefree about inflation and longer term bonds sell off. A sharp rise in 10-year Treasury yields would likely elicit a bigger correction in stocks until the Treasury and Fed regain control. Here’s the important message I want to leave you with. A major bear market ended in April, and a new bull market began. It’s rare for new bull markets to last only four months and more likely they last one-to-two years, at a minimum. What that means is that any dips we get this fall are likely to be buying opportunities for longer term investors. What gives us even more confidence in that statement is that earnings revisions continue to move sharply higher. The Fed uses economic data to make its decisions and that data is generally backward looking. Equity investors look at company data and guidance which is forward looking. This fact alone explains the wide divergence between equity prices and Fed decisions, which tend to be late and after equity markets have already figured out what’s going to happen rather than what’s in the past. Bottom line, I remain bullish on the next 12 months given what companies and equity markets are telling us. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

25 Aug 4min

Credit spreads are at the lowest levels in more than two decades, indicating health of the corporate sector. However, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets highlights two forces investors should monitor moving forward.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – what to make of credit spreads as they hit some of their lowest levels in over 20 years? And what could change that? It's Friday, August 22nd at 2pm in London. The credit spread is the difference between the higher yield an investor gets for lending to a company relative to the government. This difference in yield is a reflection of perceived differences in risk. And bond investors spend a lot of time thinking, debating, and trading what they think it should be. It increases as the rating of a company falls and usually increases for bonds with longer maturities relative to shorter ones. The reason one invests in credit is to hopefully pick up some extra yield relative to buying a government bond and do so without taking too much additional risk. The challenge today is that these spreads are very low – or tight, in market parlance. In the U.S. corporate bonds with Investment Grade ratings only pay about three-quarters of a percent more than U.S. government bonds of the same maturity. It's a similar difference between the yield on companies in Europe and the yield on German debt, the safest benchmark in Europe. And so, in the U.S. these are the lowest spread levels since 1998, and in Europe, they're the lowest levels since 2007. The relevant question would seem to be, well, what changes this? One way of thinking about valuations in investing – and spreads are certainly a measure of valuation – is whether levels are so extreme that there's not really any precedent for them being sustained for an extended period of time. But for credit, this is a tricky argument. Spreads have been lower than their current levels. They were that way in the mid 1990s in the U.S., and they were that way in the mid 2000s in Europe, and they stayed that way for several years. And if we go back even further in time to the 1950s? Well, it looks like U.S. spreads were lower still. Another way to think about risk premiums – and spreads are also certainly a measure of risk premium – is: does it compensate you for the extra risk? And again, even with spreads quite low, this is tricky. Only making an extra three-quarters of a percent to invest in corporate bonds feels like a pretty miserly amount to both the casual observer and yours truly, a seasoned credit professional. But when we run the numbers, the extra losses that you've actually experienced for investing in Investment Grade bonds over time relative to governments, it's actually been about half of that. And that holds up over a relatively long period of time. And so, while spreads are very low by historical standards, extreme valuations don't always correct quickly. They often need another force to impact them. With credit currently benefiting from strong investor demand, good overall yields, and a better borrowing trajectory than governments, we'd be watching two dynamics for this to change. First weaker growth than we have at the moment would argue strongly that the risk premium and corporate debt needs to be higher. While the levels have varied, credit spreads have always been significantly wider than current levels in a U.S. recession; and that's looking out over a century of data. And so, if the odds of a recession were to go up, credit, we think, would have to take notice. Second, the fiscal trajectory for governments is currently worse than corporates, which argues for a tighter than normal corporate spread. And the recent U.S. budget bill only further reinforced this by increasing long-term borrowing for the U.S. government, while extending corporate tax cuts to the private sector. But the risk would be that companies start to take these benefits and throw caution to the wind and start to borrow more again – to invest or buy other companies. We haven't seen this type of animal spirit yet. But history would suggest that if growth holds up, it's usually just a matter of time. Thank you as always for listening. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, please let us know by leaving a review wherever you found us. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

22 Aug 4min

From China’s rapid electric vehicle adoption to the rise of robotaxis, humanoids, and flying vehicles, our analysts Adam Jonas and Tim Hsiao discuss how AI is revolutionizing the global auto industry.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas. I lead Morgan Stanley's Research Department's efforts on embodied AI and humanoid robots. Tim Hsiao: And I'm Tim Hsiao, Greater China Auto Analyst. Adam Jonas: Today – how the global auto industry is evolving from horsepower to brainpower with the help of AI. It's Thursday, August 21st at 9am in New York. Tim Hsiao: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Adam Jonas: From Detroit to Stuttgart to Shanghai, automakers are making big investments in AI. In fact, AI is the engine behind what we think will be a $200 billion self-driving vehicle market by 2030. Tim, you believe that nearly 30 percent of vehicles sold globally by 2030 will be equipped with Level 2+ smart driving features that can control steering, acceleration, braking, and even some hands-off driving. We expect China to account for 60 percent of these vehicles by 2030. What's driving this rapid adoption in China and how does it compare to the rest of the world? Tim Hsiao: China has the largest EV market globally, and the country’s EV sales are not only making up over 50 percent of the new car sales locally in China but also accounting for over 50 percent of the global EV sales. As a result, the market is experiencing intense competition. And the car makers are keen to differentiate with the technological innovation, to which smart driving serve[s] as the most effective means. This together with the AI breakthrough enables China to aggressively roll out Level 2+ urban navigation on autopilot. In the meantime, Chinese government support, and cost competitive supply chains also helps. So, we are looking for China's the adoption of Level 2+ smart driving on passenger vehicle to reach 25 percent by end of this year, and 60 percent by 2030 versus 6 percent and 17 percent for the rest of the world during the same period. Adam Jonas: How is China balancing an aggressive rollout with safety and compliance, especially as it moves towards even greater vehicle automation going forward? Tim Hsiao: Right. That's a great and a relevant question because over the years, China has made significant strides in developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. For example, China was already implementing its strategies for innovation and the development of autonomous vehicles in 2022 and had proved several auto OEM to roll out Level 3 pilot programs in 2023. Although China has been implementing stricter requirements since early this year; for example, banning terms like autonomous driving in advertisement and requiring stricter testing, we still believe more detailed industry standard and regulatory measures will facilitate development and adoption of Level 2+ Smart driving. And this is important to prevent, you know, the bad money from driving out goods. Adam Jonas: One way people might encounter this technology is through robotaxis. Now, robotaxis are gaining traction in China's major cities, as you've been reporting. What's the outlook for Level 4 adoption and how would this reshape urban mobility? Tim Hsiao: The size of Level 4+ robotaxi fleet stays small at the moment in China, with less than 1 percent penetration rate. But we've started seeing accelerating roll out of robotaxi operation in major cities since early this year. So, by 2030, we are looking for Level 4+ robotaxis to account for 8 percent of China's total taxi and ride sharing fleet size by 2030. So, this adoption is facilitated by robust regulatory frameworks, including designated test zones and the clear safety guidance. We believe the proliferation of a Level 4 robotaxi will eventually reshape the urban mobility by meaningfully reducing transportation costs, alleviating traffic congestion through optimized routing and potentially reducing accidents. So, Adam, that's the outlook for China. But looking at the global trends beyond China, what are the biggest global revenue opportunities in your view? Is that going to be hardware, software, or something else? Adam Jonas: We are entering a new scientific era where the AI world, the software world is coming into far greater mental contact, and physical contact, with the hardware world and the physical world of manufacturing. And it's being driven by corporate rivalry amongst not just the terra cap, you know, super large cap companies, but also between public and private companies and competition. And then it's being also fueled by geopolitical rivalry and social issues as well, on a global scale. So, we're actually creating an entirely new species. This robotic species that yes, is expressed in many ways on our roads in China and globally – but it's just the beginning. In terms of whether it's hardware, software, or something else – it’s all the above. What we've done with a across 40 sectors at Morgan Stanley is to divide the robot, whether it flies, drives, walks, crawls, whatever – we divide it into the brain and the body. And the brain can be divided into sensors and memory and compute and foundational models and simulation. The body can be broken up into actuators, the kind of motor neuron capability, the connective tissue, the batteries. And then there's integrators, that kind of do it all – the hardware, the software, the integration, the training, the data, the compute, the energy, the infrastructure. And so, what's so exciting about this opportunity for our clients is there's no one way to do it. There's no one region to do it. So, stick with us folks. There's a lot of – not just revenue opportunities – but alpha-generating opportunities as well. Tim Hsiao: We are seeing OEMs pivot from cars to humanoids and the electric vertical takeoff in the landing vehicles or EVOTL. Our listeners may have seen videos of these vehicles, which are like helicopters and are designed for urban air mobility. How realistic is this transition and what's the timeline for commercialization in your view? Adam Jonas: Anything that can be electrified will be electrified. Anything that can be automated will be automated. And the advancement of the state of the art in robotaxis and Level 2, Level 3, Level 4+ autonomy is directly transferrable to aviation. There's obviously different regulatory and safety aspects of aviation, the air traffic control and the FAA and the equivalent regulatory bodies in Europe and in China that we will have to navigate, pun intended. But we will get there. We will get there ultimately because taking these technologies of automation and electronic and software defined technology into the low altitude economy will be a superior experience and a vastly cheaper experience. Point to point, on a per person, per passenger, per ton, per mile basis. So the Wright brothers can finally get excited that their invention from 1903, quite a long time ago, could finally, really change how humans live and move around the surface of the earth; even beyond, few tens of thousands of commercial and private aircraft that exist today. Tim Hsiao: The other key questions or key focus for investors is about the business model. So, until now, the auto industry has centered on the car ownership model. But with this new technology, we've been hearing a new model, as you just mentioned, the shared mobility and the autonomous driving fleet. Experts say it could be major disruptor in this sector. So, what's your take on how this will evolve in developed and emerging markets? Adam Jonas: Well, we think when you take autonomous and shared and electric mobility all the way – that transportation starts to resemble a utility like electricity or water or telecom; where the incremental mile traveled is maybe not quite free, but very, very, very low cost. Maybe only; the marginal cost of the mile traveled may only just be the energy required to deliver that mile, whether it's a renewable or non-renewable energy source. And the relationship with a car will change a lot. Individual vehicle ownership may go the way of horse ownership. There will be some, but it'll be seen as a nostalgic privilege, if you will, to own our own car. Others would say, I don't want to own my own car. This is crazy. Why would anyone want to do that? So, it's going to really transform the business model. It will, I think, change the structure of the industry in terms of the number of participants and what they do. Not everybody will win. Some of the existing players can win. But they might have to make some uncomfortable trade-offs for survival. And for others, the car – let’s say terrestrial vehicle modality may just be a small part of a broader robotics and then physical embodiment of AI that they're propagating; where auto will just be a really, really just one tendril of many, many dozens of different tendrils. So again, it's beginning now. This process will take decades to play out. But investors with even, you know, two-to-three or three-to-five-year view can take steps today to adjust their portfolios and position themselves. Tim Hsiao: The other key focus of the investor over the market would definitely be the geopolitical dynamics. So, Morgan Stanley expects to see a lot of what you call coopetition between global OEMs and the Chinese suppliers. What do you mean by coopetition and how do you see this dynamic playing out, especially in terms of the tech deflation? Adam Jonas: In order to reduce the United States dependency on China, we need to work with China. So, there's the irony here. Look, in my former life of being an auto analyst, every auto CEO I speak to does not believe that tariffs will limit Chinese involvement in the global auto industry, including onshore in the United States. Many are actively seeking to work with the Chinese through various structures to give them an on-ramp to move onshore to produce their, in many cases, superior products, but in U.S. factories on U.S. shores with American workers. That might lead to some, again, trade-offs. But our view within Morgan Stanley and working with you is we do think that there are on-ramps for Chinese hardware, Chinese knowhow, and Chinese electrical vehicle architecture, but while still being sensitive to the dual-purpose AI sensitivities around software and the AI networks that, for national security reasons, nations want to have more control over. And I actually am hopeful and seeing some signs already that that's going to happen and play out over the next six to 12 months. Tim Hsiao: I would say it's clear that the road ahead isn't just smarter; it’s faster, more connected, and increasingly autonomous. Adam Jonas: That's correct, Tim. I could not agree more. Thanks for joining me on the show today. Tim Hsiao: Thanks, Adam. Always a pleasure. Adam Jonas: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. Until next time, stay human and keep driving forward. 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.

21 Aug 12min

Markets have already priced in a Fed cut, given the mixed economic data in the July labor and CPI prints. Our Global Economist Arunima Sinha makes the case for why we’re standing by our baseline call for a higher bar for a rate cut. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha, Global Economist at Morgan Stanley. Today – our evaluation of the Fed's policy path following the July CPI print, and the broader implications for other central banks. It's Wednesday, August 20th at 2pm in New York. Our baseline call has been that the Fed will remain on hold this year, and last week’s CPI print has not changed that view. As we have noted, average tariff rates are still ramping up given the implementation delays, and so their cumulative effect on prices could be more lagged. Within the CPI print, tariff exposed goods other than apparel and autos continued to be firm. The surprise came in services inflation, which showed a reversal led by the uptick in airfares and hotel prices, which had been running in deflationary territory for much of this year. Some of the pushback against our view on inflation stepping up over the summer due to tariffs was that services disinflation could compensate. But as this print showed, that is unlikely to be the case. While we expect services inflation to continue to moderate, we think that services disinflation in the first half of [20]25 was exaggerated by weakness and volatile competence; and both core CPI and core PCE inflation are still at their pace from last year. So further acceleration in goods inflation from tariff effects over the summer would still see inflation remaining well above the Fed's target. After the July U.S. employment and CPI reports, the bar for the Fed to stay on hold in September is clearly higher. So, what are the risks to our call? The road goes back to how the data and the Fed's reaction function will evolve over ahead of the September meeting. The August jobs report will be important. If it is a solid employment report, with a sequential acceleration in payrolls and the unemployment rate around 4.2 to 4.3 percent, then the Fed could likely look through the weakness in the May and June prints – attributing the slowdown to the uncertainty following Liberation Day and not representative of the underlying trend. If, however, there were to be a sharp drop off in the hiring pace, which is currently not being indicated by other job market indicators such as jolts or claims, then the Fed could take the view that the labor market is much weaker than anticipated and restart easing. There is also the possibility of a cut from a risk management perspective. Even with inflation running well above target, the Fed could take the July employment report as a clear signal of downside risk to the labor market and start the easing cycle. Messaging from Fed officials has so far been mixed, with some taking signal from the jobs data and others remaining less worried with the unemployment rate remaining low. Outside the U.S., central bank trajectories remain tightly linked to both the Fed's path and the evolving U.S. growth outlook. Recent labor market data have introduced downside risks to our ECB and BoJ calls. In Europe, if Euro strength persists and U.S. recession risks rise, our euro area economists see a reduced risk to their September easing baseline. In Japan, the Bank of Japan remains cautious. Stronger U.S. data could tilt the balance toward a rate hike later this year – though October remains a high hurdle, making December or beyond more plausible. That said, if the U.S. economy slows in line with our forecast, the likelihood of further BoJ tightening diminishes reinforcing our base case – the BoJ staying on hold through end of 2026. 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.

20 Aug 4min

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur brings in Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy, and Carolyn Campbell, Head of Consumer and Commercial ABS Research, to explain our high conviction on the role of credit markets in data center financing. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Consumer and Commercial ABS Research. Vishy Tirupattur: Today we'll talk about the feedback – and pushback – we've received on the data center financing note we wrote a few weeks ago. It's Tuesday, August 19th at 10am In New York. In the week since we published a report on bridging the data center financing gap, we were met with a wide range of investors to discuss the key takeaways from our report. We projected that meeting the data center demand requires something like $3 trillion of capital expenditure by 2028. And we projected that about half of this funding will come from hyperscaler cash flows, but the rest financed through different channels of the credit markets. So, Vishwas, some of the skeptics invoke comparisons to prior CapEx cycles, particularly the late 1990s telecom boom that did not quite end well. How would you respond to that skepticism? Vishwas Patkar: The 1990s telecom CapEx cycle certainly came up in a lot of our meetings. It was the last time we arguably saw CapEx cycle of this magnitude. I think the counter to this is that there are some very important differences versus what we saw then versus what we expect. Most importantly, the CapEx cycle back then was largely financed on corporate balance sheets, and we saw pretty significant uptake in debt issuance and leverage. Also, through the 1990s, the names, the companies that were spending were mid- to low-credit quality and not cash rich. That's very different from the hyperscalers that are in the center of the AI spending. And these companies are very cash rich, and their credit ratings range all the way from AAA to high A. So very much at the top end of the spectrum. In addition, we are quite optimistic about AI monetization, both the timeline and the magnitude. Some of this has also already been validated through second quarter earnings. We also think financing will be done through multiple channels going forward and it won't largely flow through to corporate debt. In fact, corporate debt issuance is actually a pretty small number of how we think this [$]3 trillion number will be met. And you know, the private credit piece, that we have talked about a lot in this report; we think it's likely to be skewed towards IG ratings, in many cases backed by contractual cash flows from credit worthy tenants. So, the risk, in some ways, could come from the sub investment grade non-hyperscaler type tenants. And that's an important theme to be watching. But by and large, this cycle is very different in our view from the late 1990s. Vishy Tirupattur: So, Carolyn, another pushback, is that the market will be overbuilt and won't be able to refinance in say, five years… Carolyn Campbell: Yeah, Vishy. This is a really big concern, particularly for securitized credit investors. We're starting to see some of the ABS and CMBS deals look to refinance even this year, and that will pick up as time goes on and these deals hit their five-year maturities. However, the biggest challenge to building new data centers in the U.S. today is access to power. Our equity research colleagues have identified a 45-gigawatt power bottleneck in the U.S., and we think this should keep the market structurally undersupplied of power and slow down the pace of construction, really limiting that overbuild risk. Thus, we expect that the churn and the vacancy rates will actually remain quite low in the medium term. And so, while it's a concern that in the long run that these data centers will decline in value; for now we don't see that to be a primary concern. Vishy Tirupattur: Carolyn, another concern we heard is that the investor demand will not keep pace with the supply, particularly in securitized credit. We also heard about the tenant quality, that tenant quality is a major concern in underwriting these deals. So how would you respond to those two points? Carolyn Campbell: Right. I mean, within ABS and CMBS, we don't think supply is really the limiting factor. We think it will come on the demand side for why we think that this market will grow to about [$]150 billion by 2028.However, our discussions with investors and the data that we've seen suggest that while there are a few big accounts that have been active in the ABS and CMBS space so far, many have yet to allocate meaningfully – preferring perhaps even other esoterics so far. And so, we think that as the supply grows, so too will the number of accounts and the size within which they're participating. That being said, the market is already starting to price in a higher risk of tenant weakness. We started to see deals with a lower proportion of IG or greater exposure to AI names price meaningfully wider than those deals that are almost entirely IG and are more for collocation and enterprise. Ultimately there will be winners and losers in this new AI industry. And so, the diversification across region and across tenant type, exposure to residual cloud and enterprise businesses, and the proportion of IG and non-AI tenants in these deals will be very important as we assess the risks of ABS and CMBS deals. Vishy Tirupattur: Vishwas, any way we cut it, the scale of investment here is pretty large. Would this scale of investment divert capital away from public credit? Vishwas Patkar: I certainly think that's a possibility, and maybe even a risk over time – but probably skewed towards the back half of our forecast horizon, which goes through 2028. I think with the public credit market, the next few quarters’ supply should be largely manageable, and demand has been and should stay quite strong. But if you look a few quarters out, insurance demand has been very critical to what's supporting credit markets right now. If interest rates go lower, some of these insurance inflows could slow down. And we've also talked about insurance allocations that are shifting towards private and securitized credit at the expense of corporate credit. So, slowly, you could say supply needs rise. You know, we have about [$]800 billion of financing that needs to be met by private credit while inflow slow down. So, I wouldn't view this as a fundamental risk for public credit, but certainly a reason why credit spreads may not stay as tight as they are, over a period of time. Vishy Tirupattur: So ultimately, our projections are based on the transformative potential for AI and the role of data center financing to enable that. This is a high conviction view. As we have said elsewhere, we are not too wedded to the specific size estimates in the broad constellation of financing channels. The point we want to drive home here is that credit markets will play a major role in enabling AI driven technology fusion. As always, they will be winners and losers, but data center financing as a theme for credit investors is here to stay.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

19 Aug 6min