Thoughts on the Market

4.8（23）
投資
アップデート：毎日

Short, thoughtful and regular takes on recent events in the markets from a variety of perspectives and voices within Morgan Stanley.

45分前

3 Policy Catalysts to Watch This Fall

Midterm elections, backlash against data centers and a U.S.-China summit. Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore discuss themes that could test investor confidence in the coming months. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today, we'll look ahead to public policy catalysts that matter for investors this fall. It's Wednesday, September 2nd at 10:30am in New York. Okay, Ariana, there's a few days left in the summer, and investors are already starting to think about what's going to happen this fall. And there's a pretty heavy calendar; everything from midterm elections to some pretty important diplomatic dates. High level, what do you think people need to focus on? Ariana Salvatore: So, I'll start with probably the most consequential catalyst of the list that you mentioned, and that's the midterm elections. Obviously, not until November 3rd, but the debate is going to start to emerge over the coming weeks – in terms of if Democrats were to win just one chamber versus both chambers; if Republicans were to keep control; what could that mean for markets? And what are the durable policy themes? I think in this context, the biggest debate far and away is on data center pushback. And this has transitioned from more of a macro thematic. So, investors trying to understand the potential implications for the CapEx build-out, to more of a micro really granular question, right? Which races are the ones that we need to watch? Where are there states or jurisdictions that projects that are pending could be possibly called into question? And that's, sort of, the continuous debate that I've had recently with investors, trying to pinpoint it more precisely to figure out where exactly the build-up could be impacted. Michael Zezas: So, I hear from investors this general concern that the midterm elections will reveal that it's become a consensus preference amongst American voters and members of both parties to slow down on data center spending. Or perhaps even stop it or something more severe like that. What type of midterm election outcome would point to that as a possibility? Ariana Salvatore: Well, I would start by saying the politics here are scrambled in the sense that there's no clear fault lines when it comes to Democrats or Republicans around data center opposition, right? We are seeing some pretty notable pivots even from lawmakers that in the past were supportive of data centers. So that's why I think we have to zoom into these really specific races. And there I would say there's some governorships that matter actually more than some of the Senate races; because remember, governors also in certain states can appoint public utility commissioners. And in places like Texas, that actually could be a really consequential outcome for the 2026 midterm elections, more so than who ends up sitting in Congress on a very federal level. Michael Zezas: Okay. And so, would you say it's fair then that folks running for office who are challenging incumbents in both parties, who are expressing a desire for more regulation on data centers, that it kind of cuts across both parties? So, this is more about folks challenging incumbents than it is about one party or the other having a specific view on AI and the AI industrial build-out via data centers? Ariana Salvatore: That's right. It's hard to sort into these really generic party umbrellas, and there are a few nuances under the surface. If you look at something like Ohio. The governor's race there, both the Republican and Democrat candidates are proposing a conditional build-out, basically. So, if certain projects meet criteria, they're going to be allowed to proceed. In other races, like in Texas and Pennsylvania governorships, you're seeing the opponents basically propose a more restrictive form of the pause or directive that's already in place. So, I would say it's not very clean in terms of Democrat or Republican-led. And that just gives us conviction that this is going to persist and remain an issue even after November. Even though the federal policy incentives we don't think are likely going to change. Michael Zezas: So, we could see investors taking a signal about the AI data center build-out from an outcome where incumbents don't do particularly well. Now, I know we're still doing work on this, but what's the current thinking about – even if we were to see a result like that, how much should investors be concerned that the expectations around spending on data centers might not be realized because of new policy, other regulatory changes that would come as a result of the midterms? Ariana Salvatore: So, I would say overall, we are still very constructive on AI CapEx, right? So, our internet team is still forecasting over a trillion dollars of spending for the hyperscalers next year, and there are a few reasons for that, one of which has to do with this AI sovereignty theme that we've been writing about. So, this notion that governments are increasingly wanting to control their own stack and their own AI capabilities, so that's driving a bit of the spend. On the other hand, we are starting to see mitigation measures from some of these companies to appease some of that local community backlash. And there we don't see a one-size-fits-all approach. We see very tailored solutions depending on what the source of the pushback is. Just to give a few examples. When you have communities that care about electricity price increases, for example, many hyperscalers have signed on to the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. When you have communities that care about the environmental impact, you've got companies like Google who said they want to put forward a regulatory framework for water usage; Amazon also disclosing their water usage in data centers. And so, like I said, there's not really a uniformity to these responses, but enough that we think will mitigate the concern and still leaves us constructive on the overall build-out. Michael Zezas: Right. And you actually bring up a really interesting point on the idea of AI sovereignty. Some of the kind of similar concerns that are driving voter anxiety around the build-out of AI, might also reinforce some of the spending that has to happen there. To the extent that voters and policymakers are concerned that AI should be controlled and aligned with American values would require some spending to make sure that there's sufficient supply chains and other variables in play that the U.S. is in control of. Is that fair? Ariana Salvatore: That's right. That's one of the clear policy consequences we see from this shift in sovereign AI and governments seeking that control. The other one is, of course, the potential for further tech restrictions and divergence between the U.S. and China on AI specifically. Michael Zezas: So, on the topic of China and the U.S., one date that you point out here is September 24th, a date when the U.S. and China are going to be meeting again. What's on the table for discussion? What do investors need to know? Obviously, there have been concerns over the past year about the level of tariffs and trade tensions between the two. Is there anything here that we need to pay specific attention to? Ariana Salvatore: So, we think the overarching goal for both sides is to maintain this managed stability that was established in the May summit too. At that point, the clear deliverables were around trade, right? So agricultural purchases, Boeing purchases, et cetera. We think there's likely some small incremental change to those deliverables, in particular when it comes to AI dialogue. But notably, we think there's potential for escalation into that summit, again, within the bounds of what we call tactical escalation. But we do think that there's plenty of room for more policy escalation between both the U.S. and China in line with some recent action that we've seen over the past few weeks. Michael Zezas: Got it. And there's also a couple of important considerations around fiscal policy, funding, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Can you talk us through that a bit? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so fiscal's been in the headlines recently as well, just given the Treasury buybacks and crossing that $40 trillion threshold. And I think in that context, it sort of puts a renewed spotlight on government funding. There we see a potential latent risk of another shutdown come December, right? So, we saw a continuing resolution pass both the House and the Senate and sort of punt that debate until after the elections. And then the NDAA is the annual bill that funds the Pentagon. It has to be done in December on a bipartisan basis. So, the elections have the potential to shift the incentive structure for some lawmakers, and we could see these, kind of, re-emerge as really big debates towards the end of the year. Michael Zezas: Now, interestingly enough, we've got a bunch of catalysts to pay attention to: midterms, the potential for data center pushback as a consequence of it, a U.S.-China summit, which we think is going to result in the continuation of managed stability, and fiscal catalysts where, you know, the debt and the deficit have been in scope and concern, particularly for equity investors. All of that is happening against a backdrop where the historical norm going into midterm elections – is one where the equity market tends to struggle a bit. Is that fair? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, we tend to see a little bit of negative seasonality into the midterm elections, and our equity strategy team has pointed out the potential for a knee-jerk reaction if you were to see Democratic outperformance in November. We think that's not likely to be durable. We think it's more so the case that investors are going to pull forwa
1日前

The $33 Billion AI Security Opportunity

As AI agents gain access to sensitive enterprise systems, companies need new ways to control what they can do. Meta Marshall breaks down the emerging market for agentic identity security. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Meta Marshall: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Meta Marshall, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Cybersecurity and Telecom & Network Equipment analyst. Today: AI assistants are starting to act on our behalf at work, which brings up a critical question. What should these agents be allowed to do? And how should those permissions be granted? It’s Tuesday, September 1st, at 10am in New York. More and more, AI is helping us get through the workday. We ask it to summarize documents, analyze data and take notes during meetings. Increasingly, though, these tools are moving beyond just answering questions to acting on our behalf. Suddenly, the security challenge shifts from managing a tool to governing a whole new digital workforce. In coming years, this problem should get bigger as we estimate seeing 79 AI agents and 109 machine identities for every human employee. Now, traditional identity security at work was built to answer two basic questions: Who are you, and what can you access? Think of it as your office badge. It identifies you and determines what doors you can open. AI agents, however, make that question much harder to answer. They can operate autonomously, move across applications and databases, collaborate with other agents. They take actions without direct human involvement. So, companies need to know not only what an agent can access, but why it needs access, for how long, and what it actually did. That’s the core foundation of agentic identity solutions. The risk environment from this problem is already substantial. About 80 percent of breaches in the work environment today involve stolen or misused credentials. Nine out of 10 organizations experienced an identity-related breach in the past year, and 83 percent experienced at least two. Now add potentially hundreds of machine and AI identities for every human; each operating continuously and at machine speed – and the problem is much larger. One solution to managing AI agents is zero standing privilege. Instead of giving an agent permanent access, you give it permission for a specific task and revoke that permission when the job is done. Here’s the issue though: Today, only 39 percent of privileged access is managed through this just-in-time or zero standing privilege architecture. And the reality is that humans can’t approve every request. More of those decisions will need to happen automatically, in real time, through what’s known as runtime governance. We estimate, as a result, that agentic identity alone could become roughly a $33 billion global opportunity in our base case, which brings the overall identity market opportunity to more than $60 billion in coming years. This need for agentic identity coming from AI could also push a historically fragmented industry towards a more unified platform. In one industry survey, 85 percent of organizations said fragmented identity systems delay their human response to identity threats, with respondents citing an average of 12 hours needed to respond per incident. We think that favors platforms that can manage human and machine identities together and make security decisions dynamically, overall making a more secure environment. This transition won’t happen overnight. Agentic identity products are still early, and we don’t expect an immediate financial impact. But as enterprises move from experimenting with AI agents to deploying them more broadly, spending to secure those agents could become a more meaningful growth tailwind in 2027. The longer-term growth opportunity comes down to a simple dynamic: more agents, with more autonomy, will require more control. And that could make identity security essential to scaling AI across the enterprise. 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.
2日前

From Coffee to Cans: A U.S. Caffeine Shift

Younger generations are reshaping caffeine consumption. Our U.S. Household Products and Beverage Analyst Dara Mohsenian discusses how the growing appetite for energy drinks could influence beverage habits for years to come. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Dara Mohsenian: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dara Mohsenian, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Household Products and Beverage Analyst. Today, we're going to talk about how the next generation of U.S. consumers is really redefining their daily caffeine boost. It's Monday, August 31st at 10am in New York. For generations of Americans, caffeine has been synonymous with coffee. You wake up, make a pot, or stop at a coffee shop and start your day. But the picture today is different. Younger consumers have grown up with many more choices to jumpstart their day. Walk into a convenience store, gym, or college library these days, and you'll see that energy drinks are increasingly becoming an alternative for getting their caffeine boost. The reason people are drinking more of these caffeinated beverages is pretty straightforward. They want more energy. Among consumers who increased their energy drink consumption over the prior three months, 61 percent said they needed more energy. Experimentation is important, too. 44 percent cited trying new flavors, and 37 percent said they were trying new brands. Our survey of roughly 3,000 U.S. consumers points to significant runway for energy drinks going forward. When we spoke to current energy drink consumers, a net positive 19 percent expected to increase their consumption over the next three months. That's well above our prior surveys and is true for both men and women. Perhaps more interesting is who expects to drink more. Demographics have always been a key driver of energy consumption. The younger generation is increasingly choosing energy drinks over, historically, coffee and carbonated soft drinks. In our survey, importantly, if you look at the 25- to 34-year-old and 35- to 44-year-old age groups, they actually showed the strongest forward intentions to increase consumption. This means that the consumers who embrace energy drinks at the very young ages don't appear to be aging out of the category as they become older. They're taking the habit with them, essentially. It's also important to point out that caffeinated drinks is not a zero-sum game. Yes, the generational preferences are shifting, but the total pie is really growing here. Energy drinks is the biggest share gainer within caffeinated drinks, but only 20 percent of incremental energy drink consumption in our survey came directly from switching from coffee, and 22 percent directly from switching from carbonated soft drinks. So, most of the demand is actually incremental to caffeinated drinks in general. Going forward, we do expect energy drinks to be the highest growth segment within caffeinated drinks, growing at a high single-digit rate. We're even seeing it replace areas such as alcohol and snacks as it's moved to that affordable indulgence. And that's particularly driven by GLP-1, also accentuating the need for caffeine for consumers who are losing weight and have less energy. So, we see robust high single-digit energy category growth as likely to continue. That's been the compound rate, 9 percent over the last 15 years. Going forward with the demand drivers we talked about in a rational pricing environment, we see that likely to sustain. And much of the energy top-line momentum has been supported by new products and innovations. That includes zero sugar drinks. They're perceived as better for you. They're attracting new consumers, particularly women. And also, older consumers are sticking with the products as they age. Energy drinks have also become more affordable versus other beverage categories, particularly beverages, where the price increases have been sharper. Convenience is another part of the appeal. Among consumers who recently switched from coffee to energy drinks, 57 percent cited more caffeine per beverage and 45 percent pointed to convenience. Nearly half preferred the flavor of energy drinks, while 45 percent cited greater flavor variety. There may also be room for energy drinks to show up in more places. In our survey, 47 percent of consumers said they would buy more energy drinks if they were available in vending machines, 46 percent in fast food and fast casual restaurants, 37 percent in coffee shops, and this is showing up in custom energy drinks at a lot of the coffee shops covered by my colleague Brian Harbor. Again, it's expanding the pie. It's not just about taking share from carbonated soft drinks or coffee. So, America's caffeine habit is really enduring, and it's expanding. Younger consumers, they have more flavors, more formats, more ways to fit caffeine into different parts of the day, and those caffeinated preferences don't appear to be tapering off as consumers age. 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.
5日前

The Politics Behind the Rising U.S. Debt

Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore looks at what the midterms may reveal about politician’s appetite for tackling the faster-than-expected increase in the U.S. debt. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why fiscal is back in focus and what we can learn about the broader debt trajectory from the upcoming midterm elections. It's Friday, August 28th at 10am in New York. Fiscal policy has moved back onto investors' radars following Treasury's recent buyback announcements. Those came in the same week that total U.S. debt crossed $ 40 trillion for the first time, a milestone that arrived months earlier than most people expected. As my colleague Andrew Sheets puts it, that's a big number. But the more useful question isn't the number itself. It's whether all this debt is starting to act as a brake on the economy. We don't quite yet see a credibility problem in the Treasury market, but that's exactly why fiscal is back in the conversation. And it sits against a bigger backdrop. The U.S. continues to run large deficits in an economy that isn't in a recession. Our economists expect the deficit to stay around 6 percent of GDP through 2027. And voters are clearly concerned about elevated debt levels. So why isn't fiscal austerity coming up more in DC? Simply put, we think the political incentives point the other direction. At the risk of oversimplifying, fiscal consolidation or deficit reduction means either less spending or more taxes. And the political costs of those choices land immediately. We think neither party, therefore, has the incentive to take on that type of policy change – if we don't see a meaningful cliff or a risk to existing programs, especially into an election. But what about after? We think the midterms won't in and of themselves be a catalyst to fix the debt trajectory. But they can tell us something about where this goes next. And I'd point to two things in particular. The first is Social Security. It's not likely to be the headline issue in November, but we could see a useful test case for the debt conversation more broadly because the deadline is creeping closer. The latest trustees report projects the retirement trust fund will become insolvent in the fourth quarter of 2032. And at that point, it could only cover roughly 78 percent of scheduled benefits without a change in law. Now, that's likely to matter more in 2028 than in this cycle, since whoever wins the White House that year will be in office when it hits. But the midterms can still show us where the politics are consolidating. Recent polling points to a fairly consistent pattern. Voters want lawmakers to act. They prefer raising taxes on high earners over broader benefit cuts. And they're notably more open to trimming benefits when it's targeted at the top of the income distribution. That likely explains why a number of 2026 candidates have converged on lifting the payroll tax cap, while some Republicans have largely retreated from campaigning on things like a higher retirement age. Watching which of those messages actually wins, especially in Senate races like New Hampshire or Maine, where a significant share of the electorate depends on these benefits, could provide some useful hints with respect to which of these policy changes actually resonate with voters and end up reflecting the eventual fix. The second is the broader fiscal landscape after the election. If we get a divided government in November, that typically means more fiscal noise around the recurring deadlines, like government funding and the debt ceiling. Those two matter for markets in very different ways. A shutdown's bigger effect tends to be indirect. So, think delayed or lower quality government data since agencies can end up working from smaller survey samples. That leaves investors and the Fed making decisions with less complete information for weeks at a stretch sometimes. The debt ceiling is more direct. That shows up most clearly in the Treasury bill market. Bills maturing around a potential deadline tend to cheapen relative to other short-term benchmarks as investors have to price default risk into that narrow window. And that's the case even when a resolution is still the base case. So, here's the through line: fiscal likely isn't about to become Washington's top priority just because debt crossed $40 trillion. But the midterms are a chance to see whether the political incentives are starting to shift – on Social Security specifically, and on the broader appetite for political fights around funding deadlines more generally. Either way, we think fiscal policy is set to stay in the headlines in the years to come. And especially so as we head into the 2028 presidential election season. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share your Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
6日前

Jackson Hole Tests the Fed’s Framework

Investors are keeping a close eye on Jackson Hole for signals on the economic outlook and the path for rates. Our Chief U.S. economist Michael Gapen joins Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach to discuss whether markets get what they want—or what the Fed needs. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Matt Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Matt Hornbach: Today, we'll be discussing the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium and Chairman Warsh's opening remarks. It's Thursday, August 27th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, let's get right into it and talk about the upcoming opening remarks by Chairman Warsh at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium that will be delivered to the public at 10 am tomorrow, Friday. How are you thinking about what to expect from those opening remarks? Michael Gapen: Well, historically, and by historically, I mean in a post-2008-2009 world, Jackson Hole has been used, not every year, but frequently as a venue to communicate to markets. The longest gap on the Fed's meeting calendar is between the July and September meetings. So, Jackson Hole falls between that and provides a useful opportunity to communicate what might be coming. That's what's normally been done. Warsh has repeatedly stated he wants the Fed to talk less and communicate less and say less. So, I don't think we will see or hear, in this case, a lot about his views about how the economy is operating today and how monetary policy may be conducted into year-end. So, I don't think we'll hear a lot about, say, the December; the outlook for the economy from September to December, and what it might imply for interest rate policy or balance sheet policy. So, little in the way of near-term forward guidance. I do think, however, he did say in the July press conference that the venue would be good to tackle some of these big questions that he has talked about, that he's created these task forces for. So, whether it is the balance sheet or the inflation framework, or communication or AI and productivity or data quality and so forth. This would provide, I think, a reasonable opportunity for him to start talking about that. I don't think maybe we'll get a lot of conclusions. But I would look for commentary that's more in the question; or in the spirit of those big questions and less about the near-term conduct of policy. So maybe not what markets want, but this is what markets will get. Matt Hornbach: Just rewinding a bit, the conference itself is on a somewhat of a niche topic. What exactly is the conference about? And, in terms of the papers that get released at the conference, do you have any sense as to where they might be headed? Michael Gapen: So, the topic of this conference, the economic symposium, as you noted, is Financial Innovation: [its] Implications for [the] Payments [system] and [monetary] Policy. So, I would expect there to be a lot of sessions for things like central bank digital currencies or stable coins or Bitcoins. Near money type innovation that has happened in recent years, which leads to things like competition for deposits from the non-financial sector vis-a-vis the financial sector. So, a competition of near moneyness to money, if you will. Its implications for the interaction between the non-financial system and the financial system, competition for deposits. Does it create risks around financial disintermediation? And therefore, how might the regulatory environment and monetary policy work in that world? So little more, I'll call it, esoteric and maybe arm's length from the day-to-day conduct of policy. But I would look at the speeches probably in that vein. Deposit competition, financial market stability, and what kind of regulatory framework might you need to ensure we can still conduct policy effectively in that world. Matt Hornbach: Sounds like an exciting set of papers… Michael Gapen: Yes. Yes. Matt Hornbach: … for professors to read through. Michael Gapen: This is why they don't often leak the schedule too far in advance, right? We all might decide not to listen. Matt Hornbach: Indeed. Well, it is the end of August, and people are probably still on holiday here and there… Michael Gapen: I'm doing my best, but you called me in today. Matt Hornbach: Yeah, the least I could do. So, you did mention that this might be an opportunity for Chairman Warsh to maybe spotlight a bit these task forces and the topics that they're tackling, one of which is the inflation framework. And that word framework, I think, is important because the investors that we've been speaking with are frustrated that the Fed has not really laid out a framework – for monetary policymaking in this new era of Chairman Warsh, and his leadership at the Fed. So, I'm curious, if we're not going to get forward guidance on monetary policy and what will happen at the next meeting. And we're also not going to get much forward guidance on the framework that the Fed is using to decide on what to do with short-term interest rates. What are we meant to think about the framework? Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think ultimately, of course, we're going to need to know this, and this is what economists would refer to as the ‘difference between forward guidance and the "reaction function." So, the framework is really, you've got a set of tools, how do you intend to use them to achieve your objectives? A conventional Fed would say, "Well, if interest rates are low and inflation's too high, then we should raise rates," right? So high inflation brings high interest rates, low inflation brings low interest rates. All else equal, there's still the employment side of the mandate, of course. And the market had that view, at least initially, right? As we were in the June-July period and Warsh was talking hawkishly, the curve generally flattened. Expectations for front-end yields moved higher, and inflation-fighting credibility maybe kept the back end stable or brought the back end down. So, you could argue the markets looked at Warsh as maybe bringing a conventional reaction function and a conventional framework. But in the June and July FOMC meeting and in conversations with the press during the press conferences, Warsh – I don't want to say backtracked. He just didn't validate that and did say that we will achieve price stability. Didn't quite say how he would use the tools to do that. And even suggested maybe interest rates weren't the primary mechanism with which to influence, create, deliver price stability. So, the curve then steepened out. So, I think the market is wondering what Fed chair we have and what his reaction function is? And if inflation's running hot, is it an interest rate answer or is it a balance sheet answer? I'd also just add one last thing, Matt, is it makes a difference what the rest of the 18 people on the FOMC think. [Be]cause I think you would agree, and I'll put forward right now, I think they have a largely conventional view. Half of the committee thought it was time to raise rates in June. So, we have a balance between not knowing the chair's framework and having to intuit it. Or hope that we hear more. But then also knowing the other 18 who could band together and have greater voting power act in a largely conventional framework. I think that's the debate and the dilemma that we're all dealing with. Matt Hornbach: Yeah, I think investors, have certainly expressed frustration about the lack of guidance in any form or fashion. Perhaps with the exception of the balance sheet; we have a general idea that the balance sheet will be smaller in the future. And we have a sense from what Chairman Warsh has said in front of the House of Representatives during his semi-annual testimony that any changes would happen gradually over time. But, in terms of the pricing of the July meeting, and what happened at the July meeting, investors were very disappointed that the Fed did not go ahead and raise rates in July. Now, the market was only assigning about a one in three odds of a rate hike in July. And so, the fact that the Fed did not go ahead and raise interest rates in July was not a surprise in the sense of market pricing. But I do sense that investors were frustrated; that because they didn't get much forward guidance going into the July meeting, that the market might not have priced more probability on a July rate hike because the Fed, in fact, did not signal that they were leaning in that direction. But I see it as somewhat ironic because it seems to me, and I'd like to get your view on this. It seems to me that Chairman Warsh doesn't want to provide that type of specificity. He'd rather have the markets tell him what to do at an upcoming meeting, as opposed to him telling markets what to do at an upcoming meeting. How do you think about that? Michael Gapen: Oh, I think it's… [It] strains credibility to think that by saying nothing, you get the market's interpretation of the economy, data, and events – without the market thinking what the Fed thinks about it. I don't think that there's a world where you get the unvarnished market expectation independent of the Fed. So, I don't personally agree in the analogy of the market should play the ball and not the referee. The Fed is not a referee in markets. The Fed is a player in markets. Monetary policy acts through financial markets to achieve a set of financial conditions to deliver price stability and maximum employment. So, the Fed and markets are on the field at the same time. The Fed, in some ways, is the 800-pound gorilla on the field at the same time. So, everybody else on the field has to know what the gorilla is doing in order to do what they're supposed to do. Yes, there's always some circularity between Fed communication and market reacti
8月26日

When Does Higher U.S. Debt Start to Matter?

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets discusses when and how higher yields and mounting U.S. debt could become more than abstract concerns. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, at what point do higher yields and higher debt actually matter? It's Wednesday, August 26th at 2pm in London. In its first 240 years, the United States of America accumulated roughly $20 trillion in federal debt. The country has borrowed another [$]20 trillion in just the last 10. The question for investors is when this debt load will act as a brake on economic activity? Or, worse, create stress that disrupts today's relative calm? So, let's start with the first question. For economic activity, the bar seems pretty high. You see, even with all the activity around AI, U.S. corporate debt as a share of the overall economy is broadly unchanged in the last decade and actually lower than where it was before the pandemic. The balance sheets of the household sector in the U.S. are even stronger. Household debt to GDP is lower than where it was prior to COVID and lower than where it was in the year 2000. And this may even understate the strength – because much of this debt is locked in at historically low mortgage rates; while household assets, the other side of the balance sheet, have soared to record levels. That may help explain why both consumers and businesses have remained more resilient than expected this year despite the higher interest rates and energy prices. This divergence of trend between public and private balance sheets is also global. Europe has also seen higher government debt offset by even more private sector de-leveraging, while Japan has seen rising public borrowing and pretty stable private sector leverage. To some degree, this divergence between the public and private sides of the economy reflects a policy choice. Governments determine how to balance taxation and spending. And many countries, not just the U.S., have reduced taxes over the last decade while allowing public borrowing to increase. A deterioration of public sector finances relative to private sector finances – it's not especially surprising given that choice. If strong balance sheets are helping U.S. households and companies be less sensitive to higher rates, where should we look for stress? Well, for all of this debt, the U.S. bond market is actually still pretty well-behaved. U.S. inflation expectations are roughly unchanged year to date. Expected bond market volatility is historically low. Indeed, one reason that recent intervention by the U.S. Treasury into the bond market was such a surprise to investors was the lack of these usual stress markers. Instead, the point at which these higher yields might have a larger market impact may be up to another factor: asset allocation. Today, 30-year Treasury bonds yield about 3 percent more than expected inflation over that period. Long-dated U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds once again yield more than 6 percent. And so, the question of when higher yields begin to matter may be less about when businesses stop borrowing or consumers stop spending. And be more about when investors decide that bonds offer better value than stocks. So far, Morgan Stanley Research is not seeing clear evidence of that shift. Fund flow data and market correlations do not suggest a significant reallocation away from equities, and strong earnings growth is helping support the equity valuation case. But these are metrics that we'll be watching. In the meantime, we think that rising U.S. debt and Treasury market intervention may weaken the U.S. dollar, especially against a high-yielding currency with much, much lower debt levels – the Australian dollar. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.
8月25日

Measuring the Market’s Megatrends

Paul Walsh, Michelle Weaver and Daniel Blake discuss how thematic mapping can help investors separate true beneficiaries from market hype and identify risks hiding beneath the surface. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Paul Walsh: Welcome everyone to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research in Europe. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Daniel Blake: And I'm Daniel Blake, Head of Asia Thematic Strategy. Walsh: And today we're discussing why thematic investing may be entering a new phase – moving from simply identifying big ideas to systematically measuring them. It's Tuesday, the 25th of August at 2pm in London. Weaver: It's 9am in New York. Blake: And it's 9pm in Singapore. Walsh: Daniel, let's kick our discussion off today. Thematic investing has become one of the most important ways for investors to think about long-term opportunities. But your latest work suggests the framework itself is evolving. So, what's changing? Blake: Well, if you look at where we've started. So thematic investing has been narrative-driven, focusing on identifying major structural trends for investors. So, at Morgan Stanley, we've identified core themes of artificial intelligence and tech diffusion, the future of energy, societal shifts, and the transition to a multipolar world. So, what's changing is that investment approaches are becoming much, much faster. So, we're now seeing clients deploy agentic AI to drive trade recommendations. And sure, AI can read a new 100-page thematic report from Morgan Stanley faster than humans. But for the right conclusions, it's important to connect these models with high-quality data sets. And we think that's going to be helpful for human investors as well. So, this is where the third phase of thematic investing comes in. The first phase was identifying secular trends that cut across markets and industries. The second phase was creating investable products around those themes. But this next phase is about measuring that exposure systematically in real time. So, this allows investors and their AI agents to identify whether a theme's importance is broadening or fading and to track individual companies' exposure to that theme over time. Walsh: So, the thematic investing is moving from narrative-driven to a higher velocity data-driven approach. And I guess that's where our thematic mapping exercise really comes in. So, Michelle, when investors hear the term thematic map, they may think it's just another screening tool. But it's much, much more than that, isn't it? Weaver: Absolutely. The easiest way to think about it is it's a research framework that sits on top of traditional sector and regional analysis. Historically, investors organize portfolios by country, sector, or industry group, and those verticals are still very important. But increasingly, the biggest investment forces cut horizontally across those boundaries. AI touches software companies, industrials names, healthcare, financials, and it's even had a huge impact on the utility sector. Thematic mapping helps us identify where those exposures exist across thousands of stocks, and importantly, how significant those exposures are – all with the help of our analyst experts. And the innovation isn't simply identifying if a company's exposed to AI, energy transition, or defense spending. It's determining whether that exposure is central to the investment thesis, just supportive or insignificant. And that's very different from traditional thematic baskets. Walsh: So, we identify the exposure, but the idea of significance seems particularly important because investors constantly hear companies talking about themes on earnings calls for example and in their public communications. But how do you separate genuine exposure from a more marketing-driven language around thematics, Daniel? Blake: This we see as the most valuable and ultimately human-driven part of the framework. So, as an example, we know that many companies are outlining their AI initiatives, and not all of them will end up being AI beneficiaries. So, the key question is how a given theme will impact revenues, margins, competitive positioning, and valuations. And this requires the deep knowledge of both the industry and the company, as well as where things are going. And so that's where our analysts come in. Across all countries, all sectors, mapping the materiality of their entire coverage, that's almost 4,000 companies, to every global theme in real time. Sp. our job in the thematic strategy team is to coordinate the framework, help identify emerging themes, and draw out the insights and recommendations. But the core insights are really coming at the analyst level, company by company. Walsh: And so, to your point, Daniel, it's about the analyst overlay in terms of significance that is really important. So, investors really shouldn't think of thematic exposure as a simple yes or no question… Blake: Exactly. That's really the new innovation in this framework, and most companies will sit somewhere along that spectrum for a given theme. And there's value in tracking how that position is changing over time. Walsh: Yeah, rate of change is clearly critical. And Michelle, one of the things I found particularly interesting is that the framework isn't just about identifying winners. It's also about identifying companies that may be challenged by structural change as well. Why don't you help our listeners understand why that's so important? Weaver: Because every major theme, yes, creates a lot of opportunity, but it also creates disruption. And I think investors naturally focus on beneficiaries. Where are we looking on the long side? But in many cases, understanding who might be negatively exposed can be just as valuable. If you think about AI, there are obvious beneficiaries, whether those are the big enablers or they're companies adopting the technology successfully. But there could also be companies facing pricing pressure, margin pressure, or broader disruption because of that same theme. And that's equally true whether we're thinking about the future of energy, societal shifts and big demographic realignments, or the multipolar world. And a complete thematic framework should help investors understand both parts of that equation. And this is becoming increasingly important as markets move from broad thematic enthusiasm towards more selective stock picking. Walsh: Absolutely. The ability of the thematic mapping to help us understand both sides the equation clearly incredibly important. Let’s bring it back to investors' portfolios. Daniel, how should investors think about thematic mapping as part of portfolio construction rather than simply stock selection? Blake: If you're looking at that portfolio construction level, whether you're a retail investor or you're one of the largest asset owners of sovereign funds, one of the biggest benefits is for revealing and managing hidden exposures. So, an investor might believe that their portfolio is diversified with positioning across many sectors and markets. But when you use the thematic map to underline, to explore the underlying thematic exposure, you might find that many of these holdings are tied to the same structural trend. So, the thematic map allows investors to better diversify portfolios while retaining the best expressions of desired themes. And as you mentioned, it's not just a screening tool. But it's pretty useful as a screening tool as well if you want to take exposure to a given theme overlay with valuations and preferences. It’s very helpful for that reason as well. Walsh: Yeah, understood Daniel. And Michelle, as we look stock markets right now, how are you seeing the opportunities via the thematic mapping work that we’ve done? Weaver: Flagging potential rotations is another key part of what this analysis offers. And if we think about your question from a valuation perspective, AI adopters currently look relatively inexpensive, but they still offer strong expected earnings growth. And we're also seeing analyst sentiment beginning to improve. You're seeing a growing number of companies having their earnings estimates revised higher. We're also seeing a similar opportunity across our societal shifts themes. Valuations here are well below their typical levels over the past decade. And at the same time, we're also seeing earnings expectations improve here. Walsh: So, perhaps the biggest takeaways are that thematic investing is becoming more measurable, more transparent, and more integrated into portfolio management. It's no longer just about spotting the next big idea. It's about understanding where that idea exists, how much it matters, and of course, how it's evolving. Michelle, Daniel, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Weaver: Great speaking with you Paul. Blake: Thanks for having us. Walsh: 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.
8月24日

Markets Faces Hotter, Shorter Cycles

Bonds may no longer provide the shelter investors have expected. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson talks about the changing relationship between inflation, yields and risk. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Bonds may no longer provide the shelter investors have ex Mike Wilson: 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 shifting landscape in macro markets. It's Monday, August 24th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. Over the past few weeks we’ve seen large moves in rates, oil, gold and crypto. What does it mean for equities? First, investors are still treating these markets as separate stories, when they are all part of the same regime shift that began with COVID. More than six years ago, in the depths of that recession, I argued investors should prepare for the return of inflation. That was a very out of consensus view. At that time, the world was obsessed with deflation, the 10-year Treasury yield was below 1 percent, stocks had been hit hard, and gold was sitting around $1,500 an ounce. But the policy response to COVID – what I called helicopter money – changed the game. It marked the end of the 40-year disinflationary regime and a very different investment environment for investors to navigate. It is also the foundation of our run it hot thesis. In a world where inflation has returned, cycles are likely to be shorter, policy more reactive, and leadership changes more frequent. That is very different from the 1982-to-2020 period. Then falling inflation and falling rates allowed economic cycles to stretch for eight or 10 years. We are now in a world that looks more like the post-World War II era: stronger nominal GDP growth, more persistent inflation, higher economic volatility, and a bond market that is no longer the tailwind it used to be for risk assets. In short, the great secular bull market in bonds ended with COVID. This has huge implications for investors of all stripes. My near term view on rates is also different from the mainstream. A lot of investors are saying rates are rising because of debt and deficits. I am not dismissing those factors. But I think the bigger driver is strong nominal GDP growth, which really is the result of aggressive fiscal policy since the pandemic. We are in an era of fiscal dominance, and in that environment the Treasury and the Fed are forced to find ways to fund deficits without breaking markets. That is how I interpret the Treasury’s recent buyback activity. I don’t think this is quantitative easing or yield-curve control. The scale of the program is not large enough. Instead, it’s just another tool to maintain market functioning and stable financial conditions. So when I look at the large move in precious metals and crypto last week, to me it suggests that markets believe this is just a first step toward larger intervention – if financial conditions tighten further. For equities, this all reinforces the quality rotation we have been recommending. Since the peak rate of change in earnings revisions breadth in June, led by Semiconductors, the market has gone through a significant leadership change. Quality factors have started to outperform after a year of lagging, which is exactly what we would expect as a post-recession recovery matures. High free cash flow, high gross margins, stable sales growth, and low capex-to-sales factors have all been working. Some investors are frustrated that the S&P 500 barely sold off during the historic momentum unwind. But if quality is coming back into favor, that makes perfect sense. The S&P 500 is one of the highest-quality benchmarks in the world. Leadership at the stock level may continue to morph, but index leadership for the S&P is unlikely to fade – and may even get stronger. The near-term risk remains oil. Brent crude prices have moved higher over the past couple of weeks. And rising oil has historically been a much more reliable headwind for equities than falling oil has been a tailwind. Our still constructive equity view does not require crude to collapse. It simply requires crude to stop rising. If oil spikes again because the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, that could pressure input costs, push yields and bond volatility higher, and create another round of market instability. Bottom line, the run it hot regime is alive and well. It supports equities. But it also shortens cycles, increases rotations, and forces investors to be more tactical at times. I currently like large-cap quality stocks, AI adopters, and the S&P 500 over international peers. Hedge the oil risk with energy stocks and keep your head on a swivel as we navigate the next phase of this recovery and bull market. 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!

すべて見る（1,703）

予告編

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market

A quick preview of what you'll hear on the Thoughts On The Market podcast, which features short, thoughtful and regular takes on recent events in the markets from a variety of perspectives and voices within Morgan Stanley.

Mike Wilson

司会

4.8

5段階評価中

23件の評価

succinct yet articulate market insights

2021/06/05

thrivingonrandomness

highly informative
Excellent market color

2020/10/31

早期対応希望します

Articulates the current market situation with good in depth insight. Must listen if you work in the industry. Also good that it is concise