Thoughts on the Market

0.0 (0)
INVESTING
UPDATED DAILY

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

4 HR AGO

AI as New Global Power?

Our Deputy Head of Global Research Michael Zezas and Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research, discuss how the U.S. is positioning AI as a pillar of geopolitical influence and what that means for nations and investors. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Head of Global Research. Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Michael Zezas: Today – is AI becoming the new anchor of geopolitical power? It's Wednesday, February 27th at noon in New York. So, Stephen, at the recent India AI Impact Summit, the U.S. laid out a vision to promote global AI adoption built around what it calls “real AI sovereignty.” Or strategic autonomy through integration with the American AI stack. But several nations from the global south and possibly parts of Europe – they appear skeptical of dependence on proprietary systems, citing concerns about control, explainability, and data ownership. And it appears that stake isn't just technology policy. It's the future structure of global power, economic stratification, and whether sovereign nations can realistically build competitive alternatives outside the U.S. and China. So, Stephen, you were there and you've been describing a growing chasm in the AI world in terms of access to strategies between the U.S. and much of the global south, and possibly Europe. So, from what you heard at the summit, what are the core points of disagreement driving that divide? Stephen Byrd: There definitely are areas of agreement; and we've seen a couple of high-profile agreements reached between the U.S. government and the Indian government just in the last several days. So there certainly is a lot of overlap. I point to the Pax Silica agreement that's so important to secure supply chains, to secure access to AI technology. I think the focus, for example, for India is, as you said; it is, you know, explainability, open access. I was really struck by Prime Minister Modi's focus on ensuring that all Indians have access to AI tools that can help them in their everyday life. You know, a really tangible example that really stuck with me is – someone in a remote village in India who has a medical condition and there's no doctor or nurse nearby using AI to, you know, take a photo of the condition, receive diagnosis, receive support, figure out what the next steps should be. That's very powerful. So, I'd say, open access explainability is very important. Now, the American hyperscalers are very much trying to serve the Indian market and serve the objectives really of the Indian government. And so, there are versions of their models that are open weights, that are being made freely available for health agencies in India, as an example; to the Indian government, as an example. So, there is an attempt to really serve a number of objectives, but I think this key is around open access, explainability, that I do see that there's a tension. Michael Zezas: So, let's talk about that a little bit more. Because it seems one of the concerns raised is this idea of being captive within proprietary Large Language Models. And maybe that includes the risk of having to pay more over time or losing control of citizen data. But, at the same time, you've described that there are some real benefits to AI that these countries want to adopt. So, what is effectively the tension between being captive to a model or the trade off instead for pursuing open and free models? Is it that there's a major quality difference? And is that trade off acceptable? Stephen Byrd: See, that's what's so fascinating, Mike, is, you know, what we need to be thinking about is not just where the technology is today, but where is it in six months, 12 months, 24 months? And from my perspective, it's very clear. That the proprietary American models are going to be much, much more capable. So, let's put some numbers around that. The big five American firms have assembled about 10 times the compute to train their current LLMs compared to their prior LLMs, and that's a big deal. If the scaling laws hold, then a 10x increase in training compute to result in models are about twice as capable. Now just let that sink in for a minute, twice as capable from here. That's a big deal. And so, when we think about the benefit of deploying these models, whether it's in the life sciences or any number of other disciplines, those benefits could start to get very large. And the challenge for the open models will be – will they be able to keep up in terms of access to compute, to training, access to data to train those models? That's a big question. Now, again, there's room for both approaches and it's very possible for the Indian government to continue to experiment and really see which approach is going to serve their citizens the best. And I was really struck by just how focused the Indian government is on serving all of their citizens. Most notably, you know, the poorest of the poor in their nation. So, we'll just have to see. But the pure technologist would say that these proprietary models are going to be increasing capability much faster than the open-source models. So, Mike, let's pivot from the technology layer to the geopolitical layer because the U.S. strategy unveiled at the summit goes way beyond innovation. Michael Zezas: Yeah, it's a good point. And within this discussion of whether or not other countries will choose to pursue open models or more closely adhere to U.S. based models is really a question about how the United States exercises power globally and how it creates alliances going forward. Clearly some part of the strategy is that the U.S. assumes that if it has technology that's alluring to its partners, that they'll want to align with the U.S.’ broad goals globally. And that they'll want to be partners in supporting those goals, which of course are tied to AI development. So, the Pax Silica [agreement], which you mentioned earlier, is an interesting point here because this is clearly part of the U.S. strategy to develop relationships with other countries – such that the other countries get access to U.S. models and access to U.S. AI in general. And what the U.S. gets in return is access to supply chain, critical resources, labor, all the things that you need to further the AI build out. Particularly as the U.S. is trying to disassociate more and more from China, and the resources that China might have been able to bring to bear in an AI build out. Stephen Byrd: So, Mike, the U.S. framed “real AI sovereignty” as strategic autonomy rather than full self-sufficiency. So, essentially the. U.S. is encouraging nations to integrate components of the American AI stack. Now, from your perspective, Mike, from a macro and policy standpoint, how significant is that distinction? Michael Zezas: Well, I think it's extremely important. And clearly the U.S. views its AI strategy as not just economic strategy, but national security strategy. There are maybe some analogs to how the U.S. has been able to, over the past 80 years or so, use its dominance in military and military equipment to create a security umbrella that other countries want to be under. And do something similar with AI, which is if there is dominant technology and others want access to it for the societal or economic benefits, then that is going to help when you're negotiating with those countries on other things that you value – whether it be trade policy, foreign policy, sanctions versus another country. That type of thing. So, in a lot of ways, it seems like the U.S. is talking about AI and developing AI as an anchor asset to its power, in a way that military power has been that anchor asset for much of the post World War II period. Stephen Byrd: See, that's what's so interesting, Mike, [be]cause you've highlighted before to me that you believe AI could replace weaponry as really the anchor asset for U.S. global power. Almost a tech equivalent of a defense umbrella. So how durable is that strategy, especially given that some countries are expressing unease about dependency? Michael Zezas: Yeah, it's really hard to know, and I think the tension you and I talked about earlier, Stephen, about whether countries will be willing to make the trade off for access to superior AI models versus open and free models that might be inferior, that'll tell us if this is a viable strategy or not. And it appears like this is still playing out because, correct me if I'm wrong, it's not like we've received some very clear signals from India or other countries about their willingness to make that trade off. Stephen Byrd: No, I think that's right. And just building on the concept of the trade-offs and, sort of, the standard for AI deployment, you know, the U.S. has explicitly rejected centralized global AI governance in favor of national control aligned with domestic values. So, what does that signal about how global technology standards may evolve, particularly as in the U.S., the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, works to develop interoperable standards for agentic AI systems. Michael Zezas: Yeah, Stephen, I think it's hard to know. It might be that the U.S. is okay with other countries having substantial degrees of freedom with how they use U.S.-based AI models because they could use U.S. law to, at a later date, change how those models are being used – if there's a use case that comes out of it that they find is against U.S. values. Similar in some way to how the U.S. dollar being the predominant currency and, therefore, being the predominant payment system globally, gives the U.S. degrees of freedom to impose sanctions and limit other types of economic transactions when it's in the U.S. interest. So, I don't know that to be specifically true, but it's an interesting question to consider

13 min
1 DAY AGO

Oil Rallies on Fresh Uncertainty

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses the geopolitical drivers behind the recent spike in oil prices and outlines four Iran scenarios. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Today – what’s fueling the latest oil market rally. It’s Thursday, February 26th, at 3pm in London. What happens when oil prices jump, even though there’s no actual shortage of oil? That’s the situation we’re in right now. Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated again. Naturally, markets are paying attention. Over the past week, Brent crude rose about $3 to around $72 per barrel. WTI climbed into the mid-$60s. Shipping costs surged. And traders have started paying a premium for protection against a sudden oil spike – the levels we haven’t seen since the early days of the Ukrainian invasion. But here’s the key point: there’s no clear evidence that global oil supply has tightened. Exports are still flowing. Tankers are still moving. And some near-term indicators of physical tightness have actually softened. When oil is truly scarce, buyers scramble for immediate barrels and short-term prices spike relative to future delivery. Instead, those spreads have narrowed, and physical premiums have eased. This isn’t a supply shock. It’s a risk premium. In simple terms, investors are buying insurance. So what could happen next? We see four broad scenarios. Before I outline them though, here’s something we do not see as a core case: a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly 15 million barrels per day of crude and another 5 million of refined product moves through that corridor. A sustained shutdown would be enormously disruptive. But we think the probability is very low. Now coming back to our four scenarios. The first is straightforward. A negotiated settlement; conflict is avoided. Iranian exports continue and shipping lanes remain open. In that scenario, what unwinds is the geopolitical risk premium – which we estimate at roughly $7 to $9 per barrel. If that fades, Brent could drift back to the low-to-mid $60s, similar to past episodes where prices spiked on fear and then retraced once supply proves unaffected. Second, we could see short-lived frictions – shipping delays, higher insurance costs, temporary logistical issues. That might remove a few hundred thousand barrels per day for, say, a few weeks.. Prices could briefly spike into the $75–80 range. But balancing forces would kick in relatively quickly. For example, China has been building inventories at a steady pace. At higher prices, that stockbuilding would likely slow, helping offset temporary disruptions. That points to some further upside in prices – but then normalization. The third scenario is more serious, but still contained: localized export losses of perhaps 1 to 1.5 million barrels per day for a month or two. Prices would stay elevated longer, but spare capacity and demand adjustments could eventually stabilize the market. Now our last scenario is the more serious and considers a potential shipping shock. The real risk here isn’t wells shutting down – it’s shipping disruption. Global trade of crude oil depends on efficient tanker movement. If transit times were extended even modestly, effective shipping capacity could fall sharply, creating what amounts to a temporary tightening of about 2 to 3 million barrels per day – or about 6 percent of global seaborne supply. That is a logistics shock, not a production outage – but it would push prices toward early-2022-type levels, at least briefly. Now let’s zoom out. Beyond geopolitics, the fundamentals look weak. OPEC+ supply is rising, and our forecasts show a sizable surplus building in 2026. Even if some of that oil ends up in China’s stockpiles, a lot would still likely flow into core OECD inventories. Historically, when the market looks like this, prices tend to fall, not rise. Which brings us back to the central point. Oil isn’t rallying because the world has run out of barrels. It’s rallying because markets are pricing geopolitical risk. And unless that risk turns into actual, sustained disruption, insurance premiums tend to expire. Thank you 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. This podcast references jurisdiction(s) or person(s) which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.

5 min
1 DAY AGO

Special Encore: For Better or Warsh

Original Release Date: Feb 6, 2026 Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter unpack the inner workings of the Federal Reserve to illustrate the challenges that Fed chair nominee Kevin Warsh may face. 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. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, a further discussion of a new Fed chair and the challenges they may face. It's Friday, February 6th at 1 pm in New York. Seth, it's great to be here talking with you, and I really want to continue a conversation that listeners have been hearing on this podcast over this week about a new nominee to chair the Federal Reserve: Kevin Warsh. And you are the perfect person to talk about this, not just because you lead our economic research and our macro research, but you've also worked at the Fed. You've seen the inner workings of this organization and what a new Fed chair is going to have to deal with. So, maybe just for some broad framing, when you saw this announcement come out, what were some of the first things to go through your mind? Seth Carpenter: I will say first and foremost, Kevin Warsh's name was one of the names that had regularly come up when the White House was providing names of people they were considering in lots of news cycles. So, I think the first thing that's critically important from my perspective, is – not a shock, right? Sort of a known quantity. Second, when we think about these really important positions, there's a whole range of possible outcomes. And I would've said that of the four names that were in the final set of four that we kept hearing about in the news a lot. You know, some differences here and there across them, but none of them was substantially outside of what I would think of as mainstream sort of thinking. Nothing excessively unorthodox at all like that. So, in that regard as well, I think it should keep anybody from jumping to any big conclusions that there's a huge change that's imminent. I think the other thing that's really important is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve really is made by a committee. The Federal Open Market Committee and committee matters in these cases. The Fed has been under lots of scrutiny, under lots of pressure, depending on how you want to put it. And so, as a result, there's a lot of discussion within the institution about their independence, making sure they stick very scrupulously to their congressionally given mandate of stable prices, full employment. And so, what does that mean in practice? That means in practice, to get a substantially different outcome from what the committee would've done otherwise… So, the market is pricing; what's the market pricing for the funds rate at the end of this year? About 3.2 percent. Andrew Sheets: Something like that. Yeah. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So that's a reasonable forecast. It's not too far away from our house view. For us to end up with a policy rate that's substantially away from that – call it 1 percentage, 2 percentage points away from that. I just don't see that as likely to happen. Because the committee can be led, can be swayed by the chair, but not to the tune of 1 or 2 percentage points. And so, I think for all those reasons, there wasn't that much surprise and there wasn't, for me, a big reason to fully reevaluate where we think the Fed's going. Andrew Sheets: So let me actually dig into that a little bit more because I know our listeners tune in every day to hear a lot about government meetings. But this is a case where that really matters because I think there can sometimes be a misperception around the power of this position. And it's both one of the most public important positions in the world of finance. And yet, as you mentioned, it is overseeing a committee where the majority matters. And so, can you take us just a little bit inside those discussions? I mean, how does the Fed Chair interact with their colleagues? How do they try to convince them and persuade them to take a particular course of action? Seth Carpenter: Great question. And you're right, I sort of spent a bunch of time there at the Fed. I started when Greenspan was chair. I worked under the Bernanke Fed. And of course, for the end of that, Janet Yellen was the vice chair. So, I've worked with her. Jay Powell was on the committee the whole time. So, the cast of characters quite familiar and the process is important. So, I would say a few things. The chair convenes the meetings; the chair creates the agenda for the meeting. The chair directs the staff on what the policy documents are that the committee is going to get. So, there's a huge amount of influence, let's say, there. But in order to actually get a specific outcome, there really is a vote. And we only have to look back a couple weeks to the last FOMC meeting when there were two dissents against the policy decision. So, dissents are not super common. They don't happen at every single meeting, but they're not unheard of by any stretch of the imagination either. And if we go back over the past few years, lots going on with inflation and how the economy was going was uncertain. Chair Powell took some dissents. If we go back to the financial crisis Chair Bernanke took a bunch of dissents. If we go back even further through time, Paul Volcker, when he was there trying to staunch the flow of the high inflation of the 1970s, faced a lot of resistance within his committee. And reportedly threatened to quit if he couldn't get his way. And had to be very aggressive in trying to bring the committee along. So, the chair has to find a way to bring the committee along with the plan that the chair wants to execute. Lots of tools at their disposal, but not endless power or influence. Does that make sense? Andrew Sheets: That makes complete sense. So, maybe my final question, Seth, is this is a tough job. This is a tough job in… Seth Carpenter: You mean your job and my job, or… Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Not at all. The chair of the Fed. And it seems especially tricky now. You know, inflation is above the Fed's target. Interest rates are still elevated. You know, certainly mortgage rates are still higher than a lot of Americans are used to over the last several years. And asset prices are high. You know, the valuation of the equity market is high. The level of credit spreads is tight. So, you could say, well, financial conditions are already quite easy, which can create some complications. I am sure Kevin Warsh is receiving lots of advice from lots of different angles. But, you know, if you think about what you've seen from the Fed over the years, what would be your advice to a new Fed chair – and to navigate some of these challenges? Seth Carpenter: I think first and foremost, you are absolutely right. This is a tough job in the best of times, and we are in some of the most difficult and difficult to understand macroeconomic times right now. So, you noted interest rates being high, mortgage rates being high. There's very much an eye of the beholder phenomenon going on here. Now you're younger than I am. The first mortgage I had. It was eight and a half percent. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: I bought a house in 2000 or something like that. So, by those standards, mortgage rates are actually quite low. So, it really comes down to a little bit of what you're used to. And I think that fact translates into lots of other places. So, inflation is now much higher than the committee's target. Call it 3 percent inflation instead core inflation on PCE, rather than 2 percent inflation target. Now, on the one hand that's clearly missing their target and the Fed has been missing their target for years. And we know that tariffs are pushing up inflation, at least for consumer goods. And Chair Powell and this committee have said they get that. They think that inflation will be temporary, and so they're going to look through that inflation. So again, there's a lot of judgment going on here. The labor market is quite weak. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: We don't have the latest months worth of job market data because of the government shutdown; that'll be delayed by a few days. But we know that at the end of last year, non-farm payrolls were running well below 50,000. Under most circumstances, you would say that is a clear indication of a super weak economy. But! But if we look at aggregate spending data, GDP, private-domestic final purchases, consumer spending, CapEx spending. It's actually pretty solid right now. And so again, that sense of judgment; what's the signal you're going to look for? That's very, very difficult right now, and that's part of what the chair is going to have to do to try to bring the committee together, in order to come to a decision. So, one intellectually coherent argument is – the main way you could get strong aggregate demand, strong spending numbers, strong GDP numbers, but with pretty tepid labor force growth is if productivity is running higher and if productivity is going higher because of AI, for example, over time you could easily expect that to be disinflationary. And if it's disinflationary, then you can cut it. Interest rates now. Not worry as much as you would normally about high inflation. And so, the result could be a lower path for policy rates. So that's one version of the argument that I suspect you're going to hear. On the other hand, inflation is high and it's been high for years. So what does that mean? Well. History suggests that if inflation stays too high for too long, inflation psychology starts to change the way businesses start to set. An

12 min
2 DAYS AGO

Why Stocks Keep Rising Despite AI Anxiety

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he still believes in a growth cycle for equity markets, even as investors show growing concerns around AI. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- 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 recent concerns around AI disruption. It's Tuesday, February 24th at 1pm in New York. So, let's get after it. Last week you could feel it, that anxious undercurrent in the market. The headlines were noisy, volatility ticked higher, and AI disruption, once again, dominated investor conversations. But beneath the surface level unease something important happened. The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index pushed to a new relative high, keeping our broadening thesis alive and well. On one hand, investors are worried about AI driven disruption, CapEx intensity, and potential labor force reductions. On the other hand, capital is still flowing into formerly lagging areas of the market, just as the median stock is seeing its strongest earnings growth in four years. Let's unpack this. First, there's concern AI will lead to job losses. But even if that's the case, there's typically a phase-in period. Companies don't just eliminate labor overnight. Importantly, before these productivity gains are fully realized, we need broad enterprise adoption. That means building out the agentic application layer, integrating AI into workflows, retraining systems and processes. That takes time, and it is still early days in that regard. Second, what we're seeing now is typical of a major investment cycle. Volatility increases as markets challenge the pace of unbridled spending. Dispersion increases as investors debate winners and losers. Leadership rotates, sometimes sharply. There's also something different this time compared to the internet bubble of the late 1990s. Today we're in an early cycle earnings backdrop. We've just emerged from what was effectively a rolling recession between 2022 and 2025. So, as capital rotates out of the perceived structural losers, it's not just chasing long-term AI beneficiaries, it's also finding classic cyclical winners. On the losing side is long duration services-oriented sectors, particularly software. These areas are more sensitive to uncertainty around longer term cash flows. This area also has a large overhang of private capital deployed over the last 10 to 15 years. There are other forces at play too. Small cap growth, arguably the longest duration segment of the market, began breaking down in late January around the time Kevin Warsh was nominated as Fed chair. While major indices barely reacted, more speculative areas may be responding to expectations of tighter liquidity given Warsh’s, reputation as a balance sheet hawk. Finally, equity markets are typically more volatile when new Fed chairs assume office. Bottom line, our broader thesis of an early cycle rolling recovery remains intact. Market internals are supportive even if index level action feels choppy. That said, near term volatility is likely to persist as we enter a weaker seasonal window for retail demand, while liquidity remains ample, but far from abundant. With this backdrop, a quality cyclical barbell with healthcare makes sense. In small caps, the higher quality S&P 600 looks more attractive than the Russell 2000. And any short-term volatility could present opportunities to add exposure in preferred cyclical areas like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Industrials, and Financials. Of course, risks remain. AI adoption could accelerate faster than expected, pressuring labor markets more abruptly. Pricing power could erode as efficiency spread, and policy makers could react in ways that slow the CapEx cycle while crowded momentum positioning remains vulnerable. Nevertheless, the signal from the internals is clear. Beneath the volatility this looks less like a market rolling over, and more like one that is confirming an early cycle economic expansion. 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.

5 min
4 DAYS AGO

Global Trade in Flux: What’s Next After Tariff Ruling

The Supreme Court's latest ruling on tariffs has thrown existing trade agreements into uncertainty. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Arunima Sinha, from the U.S and Global Economics teams break down the fallout. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Arunima Sinha: And I am Arunima Sinha on the U.S. and Global Economics teams. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about the recent Supreme Court decision on tariffs, what it means for existing trade deals, and where trade policy is headed from here. It's Monday, February 23rd at 9am in New York. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose broad-based tariffs. The ruling didn't give a clear signal on what it could mean for potential refunds, but the Trump administration said it plans to replace the existing tariffs, which is something that we'd long expected – first leveraging Section 122 to impose 15 percent tariffs for 150 days. The president is simultaneously going to launch a few new Section 301 investigations to eventually replace those Section 122 tariffs, since they're only allowed to be in place temporarily. So Arunima, let's start by breaking down some of this tariff math. What does this mean for the headline and effective rate given where we are now versus before? Arunima Sinha: Before the decision, Ariana, we were at a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent. What this decision does is that with the move, especially to 15 percent, for other countries, we think that it takes about a percentage point off of the headline tariff rate. So, we would go to about 12 percent, and then we have another percentage point coming off just because of the shifts in trade patterns. And so instead of a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent, we think that we're going to be at a headline tariff of just about 11 percent. But that's really just related to the Section 122s. And as you noted, this is only going to apply for the next 150 days. So how should we be thinking about trade policy going forward? Ariana Salvatore: I think we should view the 15 percent as probably a likely ceiling for these rates in the medium term; in particular because this 150-day period expires some time around the summer, so even closer to the midterm elections. And as we've been saying politically speaking, it's unpopular to impose high levels of tariffs. We've also been saying that the president will continue to lean on trade policy as his real, only way to address the affordability issue for voters, which is something that we've actually seen on the policy side for the past few months with the imposition of exemptions, more trade framework agreements, et cetera. So really, I think this is just another way for him to continue leaning on this policy avenue. But in that vein, let's talk about specific pockets of relief. What are we thinking about some of their findings on a sector level? Arunima Sinha: So, let's tie this into the affordability aspect that you mentioned, Ariana, and specifically using the consumer goods sector. What we think is that with, just in the near-term period, with the Section 122s applying, for different consumer goods categories, we could see tariff rate differentials go down. So, they could be anywhere between 1 to 4 percentage points lower across different categories. But what we also think could happen is that once we get beyond the 150-day period, and there are no additional sector tariffs that go on. So, the 232s or the 301s, particularly for this particular sector, we could see some of the largest tariff relief that we're expecting to see. So, for example, apparel and accessories could see something like a 16 to 17 percentage point tariff drop. So that particular part I think is important. Just the upside risks to consumer goods. But that of course brings us to the question of bilateral trade deals and how they come into play. What do you think about that, Ariana? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, I think when it comes to the bilateral deals, as we mentioned, there's some opportunities for relief depending on the sectors and the type of tariff exposure by country. As you mentioned, the consumer goods are a good example of this. So, in general, I think that trading partners will have little incentive to abandon the existing deals or framework agreements, just given that the president and the administration have messaged this idea of continuity. So, replacing the IEEPA tariffs with a more durable, legitimate, legal authority. But what's notable is that many of our trading partners are actually now facing potentially even lower levels than they were before. Even with the increase to 15 percent on the 122s from 10 percent over the weekend. In particular, many countries in Southeast Asia are actually now facing lower tariff levels since there were somewhere in the range of 20 or maybe even 25 percent before. But as I mentioned, the export composition of these countries matters a lot. So, Vietnam, for example, most exports are subject to the 20 percent tariff because of the IEEPA exposure. This ruling is more meaningful than somewhere like South Korea, where the exports are more exposed to the Section 232 tariffs. Based on the export composition – and that's a level, remember, that's not changing as a result of this ruling. So that's how we're trying to disaggregate the impact here. Now, my last question to you, Arunima, what does this all mean for the macro-outlook? As we mentioned, refunds weren't addressed in this ruling. We've sketched out a few different scenarios, most of which leaned toward a long lead time to eventually paying back the money – if and when the administration is actually, in fact, mandated to do that. But safe to say in the near term that we aren't going to see much action on that front. That probably means status quo. But why don't you put a finer point on what this means for the macroeconomic outlook? Arunima Sinha: That's absolutely right, Ariana, for the very near term and the second quarter, we don't think we're going to be very different from what our baseline expectation is. In the third quarter and in the last part of this year, there could be some upside risks, especially once the timeline on the 122s run out, they're not extended. And the different sector and country investigations take longer to implement. So, there could be some upside risks to demand. Consumer goods, for example. If there were to be some sort of an incremental tailwind to corporate margins that might lead to better labor demand from these companies. There could be additional goods disinflation; that would support just purchasing power. So, both of those things could be some incremental uplift to demand, relative to our baseline outlook. But then the last thing I think just to emphasize from our perspective, is that we do think that there is some sort of a near-term ceiling about how high effective tariff rates can go. We don't think that we're going to be going back to Liberation Day tariff rates in the near-term or even in the latter half of this year. Because if history is any guide, many of these investigations are going to take time and that full implementation may not actually occur before early 2027. Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. Arunima, thanks for joining. Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me. Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

7 min
20 FEB

AI at Work: The Transformation Is Already Underway

Our Head of European Sustainability Research Rachel Fletcher talks about how AI’s is quickly reshaping employment and productivity across key industries and regions. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Rachel Fletcher: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Rachel Fletcher, Head of European Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, how AI is shaking up the global job market. It's Friday, February 20th at 2pm in London. You've probably asked yourself when all the excitement around AI is going to move beyond demos and headlines, and start showing up in ways that matter to your job, your investments, and even your day-to-day life. Our latest global AlphaWise AI survey suggests that the turning point may already be unfolding – especially in the labor market where AI is beginning to influence hiring, productivity, and workplace skills. Our survey covered the U.S., UK, Germany, Japan, and Australia, across five sectors where we see a significant AI adoption benefit. Consumer staples, distribution in retail, real estate, transportation, healthcare, equipment and services, and autos. We found that AI contributed to 11 percent of jobs being eliminated over the past 12 months, with another 12 percent not backfilled. These job cuts were partially offset by 18 percent new hires, which results in a net 4 percent global job loss. It's important to note that the survey focused on companies that had already been adopting AI for at least a year. In fact, most of the companies in our survey had been adopting AI for more than two years. So, this is likely the most significant downside case in terms of the impact of AI on jobs, but it is still an early signal of potential job disruption. In Europe, the picture is nuanced. The UK saw the highest net job loss at 8 percent. This was primarily driven by a lower level of new hires in the UK compared to other countries that we surveyed, as well as a high level of positions not backfilled. This compares to Germany, which posted a 4 percent net job loss in line with the all-country average. There could be some other factors amplifying the impact in the UK. For example, broader labor market weakness driven by higher labor costs and higher levels of unemployment amongst younger workers. Ultimately, disentangling AI from macro forces remains challenging. Moving to sector impacts in Europe, autos experience the largest net job loss at 13 percent, and this compares to a 10 percent global average for the sector. It's possible these numbers reflect persistent sales weakness, and AI driven cost cutting. Transportation was least affected at 3 percent, whilst other sectors clustered around 6 to 7 percent. If we look at the top quintile of European companies reducing headcount, they've outperformed other companies that are more actively hiring. This suggests that investors are rewarding efficiency. On the downside, staffing firms face potential growth risks from AI displacement. On productivity, European firms report 10 to 11 percent gains from AI, close to the 11.5 percent global average, and the U.S. at 10.8 percent. It's worth noting that whilst Europe lags the U.S. in exposure to AI enablers, adopters and adopter enablers make up more than two-thirds of the MSCI Europe Index. However, European AI adopters have traded at a material discount versus their equivalent U.S. AI adoption peers. So, turning AI adoption into real ROI and defending pricing power is crucial for European companies. If we shift our focus to the U.S., there's a contrast. Whilst the global net job change was a 4 percent loss, the U.S. actually saw a 2 percent net gain, driven by AI related hiring. Our U.S. strategists have lifted expectations for S&P 500 margin expansion by 40 basis points in 2026 and 60 basis points in 2027. In our survey, the most frequently cited goals of AI deployment in the U.S. are boosting productivity, personalizing customer interactions, and accelerating data insights. Other common use cases include search, content generation, dashboards, and virtual agents. What's becoming clear is AI is no longer theoretical. Our survey data suggests that it is reshaping hiring, productivity and margins. The investor question is not whether AI matters, but who captures the value. 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 min
19 FEB

Could the U.S. Target a Weaker Dollar?

Our Global Head of FX and EM Strategy James Lord and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss what’s driving the U.S. policy for the dollar and the outlook for other global currencies. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- James Lord: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Lord, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. James Lord: Today we're talking about U.S. currency policy and whether recent news on intervention and nominations to the Fed change anything for the outlook of the dollar. It's Thursday, February 19th at 3pm in London. So it's been an interesting few weeks in currency markets. Plenty of dollar selling going on But then, we got news that Kevin Warsh is going to be nominated to Chair of the Board of Governors. And that sent the dollar back higher, reminding everybody that monetary policy and central bank policy still matter. So, in the aftermath of the dollar-yen rate check, investors started to discuss whether or not the U.S. might be starting to target a weaker currency. Not just be comfortable with a weaker currency, but actually explicitly target a weaker currency, which would presumably be a shift away from the stronger strong dollar policy that Secretary Bessent referenced. So, what is your understanding? What do you think the strong dollar policy actually means? Seth Carpenter: Strong dollar policy, that's a phrase, that's a term; it's a concept that lots of Secretaries of the Treasury have used for a long time. And I specifically point to the Secretary of the Treasury because at least in the recent couple of decades, there has been in standard Washington D.C. approach to things, a strong dichotomy that currency policy is the policy of the Treasury Department, not of the central bank. And that's always been important. I remember when I was working at the Treasury Department, that was still part of the talking points that the secretary used. However, you also hear Secretaries of the Treasury say that exchange rates should be market determined; that that's a key part of it. And with the back and forth between the U.S. and China, for example, there was a lot of discussion: Was the Chinese government adjusting or manipulating the value of their currency? And there was a push that currencies should be market determined. And so, if you think about those two things, at the same time – pushing really hard that the dollar should be strong, pushing really hard that currencies should be market determined – you start to very quickly run into a bit of an intellectual tension. And I think all of that is pretty intentional. What does it mean? It means that there's no single clear definition of strong dollar policy. It's a little bit of the eye of the beholder. It's an acknowledgement that the dollar plays a clear key role in global markets, and it's good for the U.S. for that to happen. That's traditionally been what it means. But it has not meant a specific number relative to any other currency or any basket of currency. It has not meant a specific value based on some sort of long run theoretical fair value. It is always meant to be a very vague, deliberately so, very vague concept. James Lord: So, in that version of what the strong dollar policy means, presumably the sort of ambiguity still leaves space for the Treasury to conduct some kind of intervention in dollar-yen, if they wanted to. And that would still be very much consistent with that definition of the strong dollar policy. I also, in the back of my head, always wonder whether the strong dollar policy has anything to do with the dollar's global role. And the sort of foreign policy power that gives the Treasury in sanctions policy. And other areas where, you know, they can control dollar flows and so on. And that gives the U.S. government some leverage. And that allows them to project strength in foreign policy. Has that anything to do with the traditional versions of the strong policy? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think all of that is part and parcel to it. But it also helps to explain a little bit of why there's never going to be a very crisp, specific numerical definition of what a strong dollar policy is. So, first and foremost, I think the discussion of intervention; I think it is, in lots of ways, consistent, especially if you have that more expansive definition of strong dollar, i.e. the currency that's very important, or most important in global financial markets and in global trade. So, I think in that regard, you could have both the intervention and the strong dollar at the same time. I will add though that the administration has not had a clear, consistent view in this regard, in the following very specific sense. When now Governor Myron was chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, he penned a piece on the Council of Economics website that said that the reserve currency status of the dollar had brought with it some adverse effects on the U.S., and in terms of what happened in terms of trade flows and that sort of thing. So again, this administration has also tried to find ways to increase the nuance about what the currency policy is, and putting forward the idea that too strong of a dollar in the FX sense. In the sense that you and your colleagues in FX markets would think about is a high valuation of the dollar relative to other currencies – could have contributed to these trade deficits that they're trying to push back against. So, I would say we went from the previous broad, perhaps vague definition of strong dollar. And now we're in an even murkier regime where there could be other motivations for changing the value of the dollar. Seth Carpenter: So, James, that's been our view in terms of the Fed, but let me come back to you because there are lots of different forces going on at the same time. The central bank is clearly an important one, but it's only one factor among many. So, if you think about where the dollar is likely to go over the next three months, over the next six months, maybe over the next year, what is it that you and your team are looking for? Where are the questions that you're getting from clients? James Lord: Yeah, so when we came into the start of this year, we did have a bearish view on the dollar. I would say that the drivers of it, we'd split up into two components. The first component was a lot more of the conventional stuff about growth expectations, what we see the Fed doing. And then there was another component to it where – what we defined as risk premia, I suppose. The more unconventional catalysts that can push the dollar around, as we saw, come very much to market attention during the second quarter of last year, when the Liberation Day tariffs were announced and the dollar weakened far in excess of what rate differentials would imply. And so, I would say so far this year, the majority of the dollar move that we've seen, the weakening in the dollar that we've seen, has been driven by that second component. What we've kind of called risk premia. And the conversations that, you know, investors have been having about U.S. policy towards Greenland, and then more recently, the conversations that people have been having around FX intervention following the dollar-yen rate check. These sorts of things have been really driving the currency up until , when the Kevin Warsh nomination was announced. When we look at the extent of the risk premia that we see in the dollar now, it is pretty close to the levels that we saw in the second quarter of last year, which is to say it's pretty big. Euro dollar would probably be closer to 1-10, if we were just thinking about the impact of rate differentials and none of this risk premia stuff over the past year had materialized. That's obviously a very big gap. And I think for now that gap probably isn't going to widen much further, particularly now that market attention is much more focused on the impact that Kevin Warsh will have on markets and the dollar. We also have, you know, the ECB and the Bank of England; , house call for those two central banks is for them to be cutting rates. That could also put some downward pressure on those currencies, relative to the dollar. So all of that is to say for some of the major currencies within the G10 space, like sterling, like euro against the dollar, this probably isn't the time to be pushing a weaker dollar. But I think there are some other currencies which still have some opportunity in the short term, but also over the longer run as well. And that's really in emerging markets. So all of that is to say, I think there is a strong monetary policy anchor for emerging market currencies. This is an asset class that has been under invested in for some time. And we do think that there are more gains there in the short term and over the medium term as well. Seth Carpenter: So on that topic, James, would you then agree? So if I think about some of the EM central banks, think about Banxico, think about the BCB – where the dollar falling in value, their currency gaining in value – that could actually have a couple things go on to allow the central bank, maybe to ease more than they would've otherwise. One, in terms of imported inflation, their currency strengthening on a relative basis probably helps with a bit lower inflation. And secondly, a lot of EM central banks have to worry a bit about defending their currency, especially in a volatile geopolitical time. And you were pointing to sort of lower volatility more broadly. So is this a reinforcing trend perhaps, where if the dollar is coming down a little bit, especially against DM currencies, it allows more external stability for those central banks, allowing them to just focus on their domestic

11 min
18 FEB

The Political Cost of the AI Buildout

More Americans are blaming the AI infrastructure expansion for rising electricity bills. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explains how the topic may influence policy announcements ahead of the midterm elections. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about the relationship between affordability, the data center buildout, and the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, February 18th at 10am in New York. Markets and voters continue to grapple with questions on AI, including its potential scope, impact, and disruption across industries. That's been a clear theme on the policy side as voters seem to be pushing back against AI development and data center buildout in particular. In key states, voters are associating the rise in electricity bills with AI infrastructure – and we think that could be an important read across for the midterm elections in November. Now to be sure, electricity inflation has stayed sticky at around four to 5 percent year-over- year, and our economists expect it to remain in that range through this year and next. Nationally the impact of data centers on electricity prices has been relatively modest so far, but regionally, the pressure has been more visible. To that point, a recent survey in Pennsylvania found that nearly twice as many respondents believe AI will hurt the economy as it will help. More than half – 55 percent – think AI is likely to take away jobs in their own industry, and 71 percent said they're concerned about how much electricity data centers consume. But this isn't just a Pennsylvania story. In other battleground states like Arizona and Michigan, voters have actually rejected plans to build new data centers locally. So, what could that mean for the midterm elections? Think back to the off-cycle elections in November of last year. Candidates who ran on this theme of affordability and actually pushed back against data center construction tended to do pretty well in their respective races. Looking ahead to the midterm elections later this year, we see two clear takeaways from a policy perspective. First, it's important to note that more of the policy action here will actually continue to be at the local rather than federal level. Some states with heavy data center build out – so Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas among others – are now debating who should pay for grid upgrades. Federal proposals on this topic are still pretty nascent and fragmented. Meanwhile, public utility commissions in states like Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana have adopted or proposed large load tariffs. These require data centers to shoulder more upfront grid costs; or can reflect conditional charges like long-term contracts, minimum demand charges, exit fees or collateral requirements – all of which are designed to prevent costs from spilling over to households. And secondly, because of that limited federal action, we expect the Trump administration to continue leaning on other levers of affordability policy, where the president actually does have some more unilateral control. We've been expecting the administration to continue focusing on broader affordability areas ranging from housing to trade policy, as we've said on this podcast in the past. That dynamic is especially relevant this week as the Supreme Court could rule as soon as Friday on whether or not the president has the authority under IEEPA to impose the broad-based reciprocal tariffs. The administration thus far has been projecting a message of continuity. But we've noted that a decision that constrains that authority could give the president an opportunity to pursue a lighter touch tariff policy in response to the public's concerns around affordability. That's why we think the AI infrastructure buildout debate will continue to be a flashpoint into November, especially in the context of rising data center demand. Next week, when the president delivers his State of the Union address, we expect to hear plenty about not just affordability, but also AI leadership and competitiveness. But an equally important message will be around the administration's potential policy options to address its associated costs. That tension between AI supremacy and rising everyday costs for voters will be critical in shaping the electoral landscape into November. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

4 min

See All (1.6K)

TRAILER

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.

20/12/2021

•

1 min