Morgan Stanley Podcasts

•

Channel • 5 Shows

Investing

Investing

Updated daily
Investing

Investing

Every two weeks
Investing

Investing

Monthly
Investing

Investing

Updated daily
Management

Management

Updated twice weekly

1 day ago

AI’s Next Stress Test

The biggest AI stocks have had a remarkable run – but questions still remain. Our Head of Americas Specialty Sales, Thomas Wigg, speaks with Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and Global Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore about the competition and durability of the investment cycle. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Thomas Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Tom Wigg, Morgan Stanley's Head of Americas Specialty Sales. Stephen Byrd: I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's Head of Public Policy Research. Thomas Wigg: Today, the rally in AI CapEx beneficiaries has taken a breather in recent weeks on concerns of competition from open-source models, backlash to token-maxxing, and growing political opposition to data center builds. It's Tuesday, July 7th at 10am in New York. Let's start with you, Stephen. There's a lot of discussion recently around a backlash at token-maxxing. Essentially, enterprises trying to curtail their high spending on AI tokens from the frontier labs, and, in many cases, shifting to cheaper open-source China models. Can you first offer some perspective here on the value of tokens for enterprises? I know you have a popular token factory model that walks through the economics of agents. Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Tom, we do have this model that really walks through token economics, both from the adopter side as well as the hyperscaler side. So, let's do the adopter side. So, there's a study out that shows a whole range of enterprise use cases of AI, and the average single use case that they identify would save a company about $55 or provide that much benefit. And while we don't know exactly how many tokens it will require, we can make some educated guesses as to a typical token usage to achieve that $55 outcome. And we know that a typical American model, though this varies a lot, you can think of as the cost per million tokens being in the range of $5 per million. Some will be lower, some will be higher. So, for a few dollars of token cost, an enterprise can generate benefit of $55. So that doesn't make me overly concerned about token spend and concerns about token-maxxing. I know we're going to get into that, but the foundation here is really good in the sense that enterprise use cases are very much in the money. Thomas Wigg: How do you think market share ultimately shakes out on tokens? Do the cheaper models overtake the frontier AI labs? Do tokens bifurcate based on the complexity of workloads? How do you think this plays out? Stephen Byrd: What we continue to see is this relentless pace of innovation and cost reduction. So, the frontier keeps going out – meaning model capabilities continue to increase, and, with that, we see enterprise adoption growing quite a bit. Long way to say there is a role for both the frontier as well as these open-source models, and we'll continue to see both flourish. What I see is a lot of tokens will be spent on open-source models. A lot of the value will be in the higher end models because that's where enterprises are going to go. Let me give you an example. I was speaking with one of our programmers about a recent project, and he used a very high-end coding tool, an American coding tool. And for him, that incremental cost of the tokens was very much worth it. And here's a very practical example as to why it makes sense for many enterprises to use the higher end models. If a coding tool gets one of the thousands of lines of code wrong, the cost to remediate is very, very high. In other words, that incremental cost – in this example I'm thinking of, it's a few dollars incremental cost – is so worth it because if the quality is not there, the cost to any enterprise to go back and remediate is so high. And that's true in a lot of enterprise use cases, but not in every use case. And what we are seeing is these open-source models that are cheaper will be very good for a variety of more mundane use cases that are still very valuable. That said, what we've seen in data from places like OpenRouter is dollar-weighted, meaning valued by enterprise spend, the vast majority is still the proprietary models. But even within proprietary models, we could have more expensive and less expensive models. You do not need to go to the frontier. Where I come out on all this is that I'm very confident that the demand for compute is going to exceed the supply. What is difficult to exactly know is who are the winners, what is the exact mix. But the fundamentals of the demand for compute look extremely strong. Thomas Wigg: So, I think you just gave me the answer, but I do want to bring this all back to AI CapEx. Now, last year, when the market sold off on Deep Seek concerns, the concept of Jevons paradox ultimately prevailed, where the cheaper pricing led to even greater demand and CapEx went higher. Do you think the same plays out here? Stephen Byrd: It does look that way very much. And the Jevons paradox dynamic is what we still see today in the sense that as the models get better, what we can do with the models increase, the cost of tokens will keep dropping, the cost of compute will keep dropping. But let's talk about what might derail that, just to make sure we're thinking about all the risks. If somehow commoditized models could perform at the same level as proprietary models in all situations, then I would feel differently. But I don't see that. What I see is that these newer models really do have capabilities that are fairly breathtaking and that are worth that extra money. But if somehow, we hit a wall where these models aren't getting better and therefore the sort of the open models are going to catch up, then I'd feel differently about that. This is where Ariana will, will come in in terms of policy and, you know, this comes up a lot when we think about U.S. versus China. How do we think about, you know, access to different models? How do we think about the cost of different models? What about the risk of appropriation of capabilities by the Chinese firms, for example? That comes up a lot in policy circles. But the base case that I have is this just looks more like Jevons paradox, and there's going to be continued innovation, continued reduction in the cost of producing these services from these models. That looks like more of the same. Thomas Wigg: Let's shift to Ariana to talk about the political angle here. The cover of Barron's over the weekend was a guy wearing a no data centers T-shirt. And this does seem to be one of the few bipartisan issues of agreement heading into the midterms. The stat that the article gave was that 75 data center projects worth $130 billion were blocked or delayed in 1Q26, which is equal to the total number for 2025. This is according to Data Center Watch. Now, most of this is in blue states like New York, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota considering a statewide moratorium, but you're also seeing Pennsylvania, Arizona, Ohio, parts of Texas restricting tax incentives here. So as this gets louder into the midterms, how do you think this plays out? Ariana Salvatore: So, this is definitely one of the big wedge issues, not just for the midterm elections, but for 2028. And to your point, it's expanding into something that's got bipartisan momentum behind it. Our view is that as long as the Trump administration is in power, something like a federal ban is unlikely to come to fruition. That's because we think the administration is still broadly supportive of the AI data center build-out. And I think even if you were to see a Democrat in office further down the road, that position is the same. And the reason is, it's just too difficult to imagine the U.S. giving up that strategic imperative relative to China. So, while it is true that voters are against AI, while it is true that you are seeing these sorts of local efforts pick up steam, it's also the case that China is accelerating its own AI build-out – not just domestically, but around the rest of the world too. It's also the case that they are kind of tweaking some export restrictions on inputs for some of these data centers, and those geopolitical realities, I think, are hard to ignore. So, at the end of the day, there is a broader strategic imperative here that both Democrats and Republicans kind of recognize and get behind. Now, what does that mean in the near term for the build-out? I think it's not that you're going to see a real pushback or moratorium so much as a conditional build-out. That means you're going to see data centers have to incorporate things like grid modernization in their contracts, agree to longer term investments, for example. Do something that benefits the communities or give it back in some way. And I think that's kind of the policy trajectory in addition to the administration continuing to lean on tech companies to basically, you know, square the circle here and find some way to make this more affordable for, you know, local constituents. Thomas Wigg: Stephen, let me get your take on this too, because I know you live in the D.C. area, and you have a lot of political conversations like you referenced earlier. How do you think this plays out? Is it a red state versus blue state dynamic? And if what Ariana says comes to fruition, where it's a conditional build-out in terms of either giving back to the community or ensuring certain prices or certain technologies behind the meter, in front of the meter, does that have implications for certain areas of the market? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. First, I think Ariana's points were all spot on. I just want to, kind of, build on that and, and dive into it a little more detail. A few things. The politics are, from my perspective, not being the expert that Ariana is, I find them a little st

1 day ago

•

12 min
5 days ago

America’s Frontier-Market Origin Story

As America nears its 250th birthday, our Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets looks back at the early republic as a volatile frontier market, and what its path from credit risks to durable institutions can teach investors today. 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, markets are closed for the observance of 4th of July. But as America approaches its 250th anniversary, we take a look back to look forward at early America as a frontier market. It's Friday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle. If you were a global investor at the end of the 18th century looking for a stable, low-risk home for your capital, it would have been entirely reasonable to avoid the newly minted United States of America. By the standards of modern finance, the young republic was not a developed market in waiting. It was a frontier economy: volatile, debt-burdened, institutionally fragile, resource-rich, politically combustible, and astonishingly unequal. Its currency had collapsed. Its public finances were suspect. Its citizens resisted taxation, and its growth prospects were extraordinary. In 1810, 70 percent of the country was under the age of 25. That is one of the revelations of Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty, which focuses on the early days of the new country from 1789 to 1815. Wood's America is not the marble republic of statues and myth. It is speculative, messy, and full of motion. The United States succeeded not by escaping the dysfunctions that we associate with emerging or frontier markets, but by turning them into sources of strength. Start with capital. Early America needed it desperately. Roads, canals, land purchases, and government all required credit, and there was never enough of it. The country was rich in land and poor in liquidity, a classic emerging market mismatch. What the young country couldn't borrow or invent, it misappropriated, lifting intellectual property from its former masters in Britain. What Alexander Hamilton understood was the importance of confidence given this challenge; that debts would be honored, contracts enforced, and taxes, however unpopular, collected. His financial program was an attempt to solve the emerging market problem before the phrase existed. How to persuade investors that a new state, born in revolution and nearly bankrupted by war, could be trusted. To Hamilton, public credit was the foundation of independence. To many Jeffersonians, however, this system looked like an attempt to smuggle a British financial order back into the country that had just fought to expel it. The early republic's debates over debt, banks, speculation, and taxation sound contemporary because the underlying question is perennial in frontier markets: Can a society embrace credit and foreign capital without being captured by it? The U.S. was not starting from zero. It inherited legal traditions, habits of self-government, and a culture of contract and property. Those foundations gave confidence that disputes could be adjudicated, debts pursued, and rules would not be arbitrary. Early America was risky, but it was not lawless. And still, it did not go smoothly. There was no Federal Reserve, FDIC, or even a uniform national currency. Business was conducted with foreign coins, notes issued by private banks, IOUs, and blind optimism. Bank failures were common. In 1808, the Farmers Exchange Bank of Rhode Island issued over $600,000 of notes against less than $90 of gold in its vaults. You almost have to admire the audacity. Yet the same instability that made early America risky also made it unusually open. Land was the country's great asset class, a source of migration, ambition, speculation, and opportunity, at least for white settlers. It also produced bubbles, administrative strain, the expansion of slavery, and the violent dispossession of Native peoples. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 was a risky, leveraged acquisition of distressed real estate, doubling the scale of the American experiment before anyone had quite figured out how the original version was supposed to work. Wood is especially good on the familiar energy unleashed by this world. The engine of U.S. growth was not an aristocracy of polished grandees, but the "middling sort." Shopkeepers, artisans, tavern owners, mechanics, farmers, merchants, and speculators – many convinced that in America, birthright mattered less than hustle. Commentators of the time complained about the degraded press, political polarization, hostility to expertise, and the vulgarity of a society obsessed with getting ahead. None of this sounds especially distant. What saved America from the usual traps of frontier economies was not immaculate stability. It was adaptability. Its constitution was amended. Political power changed hands despite animosity. Bankruptcy laws allowed for failure. Competition was ferocious, and economic power was generally too diffuse to be easily monopolized. The early republic's genius lay less in solving its contradictions than in creating ways to fight over them without destroying the whole. That is a useful lesson for America at 250. We tend to look backwards for reassurance, imagining that the country once possessed a unity, prudence, and institutional solidity that we have since lost. Wood suggests something different, that the United States was turbulent from the start. Its legacy was contested, its finances distrusted, its politics venomous, its expansion intertwined with slavery and Native dispossession, and its future uncertain. Emerging markets become developed markets not because they stop having crises, but because they build credibility through them. They learn which institutions matter, which bargains endure, which debts must be paid, and which moral liabilities compound when deferred. America was not born orderly, rich, or secure. It was born in the mud, financed on fragile credit, driven by speculation, and sustained by an almost irrational confidence in the future. So, enjoy the fireworks – and let them be a reminder that national maturity is not the absence of volatility. It's the capacity to turn that volatility into renewal. A postscript: Gordon S. Wood died in early June of this year. As a professor, author, and one of the preeminent scholars of the American Revolution, he brought fresh insight and deep humanization to the country's founding. For anyone looking for a better understanding of America as it celebrates a big anniversary, we'd wholeheartedly recommend his work 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.

5 days ago

•

7 min
1 Jul

What to Watch Ahead of the Midterms

With voters focused on prices and the economy, our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver discuss the consumer trends that could matter most heading into November’s elections. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's Head of Public Policy Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic Strategist. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be talking about the consumer and what recent data could imply for the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, July 1st at 10am in New York. Last week, Mike Zezas and I caught up on the consumer while he was down at our Consumer Captains Conference. This week, Michelle, I want to talk to you about what your data are saying and get into the implications of all of this for the midterm elections. So, maybe we start with the AlphaWise data. What are our surveys picking up when it comes to how the consumer feels about the outlook in the aggregate? Michelle Weaver: We run a monthly proprietary survey of around 2,000 U.S. consumers, and it's diversified by age, gender, and region, and we ask questions around sentiment, spending plans, and other special topics. Our survey recently showed a continued gradual recovery in consumer confidence in the U.S. economic outlook. We're not off to the races by any means, but we did see the net outlook score improve to -10 percent, up from -14 percent a month ago and a low of -18 percent two months ago, when concerns around oil prices were at their peak. Overall, more consumers feel negatively about the economy versus positively, hence that net score is negative. But we are seeing signs of improvement, so things are improving on a rate of change basis. Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense given the MOU that was signed between Iran and the U.S. Now, looking forward, what does the survey tell us about spending plans? Michelle Weaver: Broadly, consumer spending plans remain stable. They expect to spend more on essentials categories. This includes things like groceries, gas, and household items, while they're expecting to spend less on discretionary categories. We saw the weakest spending intentions within the consumer electronics category, and consumers are not likely to see much price relief in that category. Many consumer electronics makers are now taking their prices up because of the high price of memory chips that goes into those products. Ariana Salvatore: One of the most important components of the survey is the question that you ask on top areas of concern. What are you guys seeing there? Michelle Weaver: Inflation is still the number one concern for consumers, and we actually saw the percent of consumers citing it among their top concerns tick up again last month. So, now that's at 60 percent, up from 59 percent last month, and a low of 53 percent in January. People are also worried about the U.S. political environment. That was cited by 42 percent of consumers, up from about 39 percent last wave. Concern around geopolitical conflicts rounds out the top three, but that level's been pretty stable around 25 percent. But Ariana, can consumers expect any relief on prices from the policy front? Consumers got a nice boost from tax refunds. Is there anything else in the pipeline? Ariana Salvatore: So, we've gotten this question a lot into the midterm elections, and our view is basically that there are a number of obstacles in the way of something like another reconciliation package to give direct stimulus to consumers, whether that's procedural, whether it's the political perception. One of the most important is actually the deficit concerns, right? So, we don't expect something additional for the consumer through the legislative angle, aside from what we've already seen, like the Road to Housing Act. And that's also against a backdrop of what we've been seeing on the economic side and what your data is reflecting, which is that the consumer sentiment metrics are actually ticking up slightly from their lows. And that, of course, maps directly onto what our U.S. econ team has been saying. Their view is that the consumer story in 2026 has turned more neutral. Real consumption growth is still expected to decelerate to about 1.7 percent. That's below last year, but again, not falling off a cliff. The core dynamic is that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act had this fiscal boost from last year, tax refunds running about 17 percent higher year-over-year, but the oil shock basically mitigated that and essentially neutralized the fiscal impulse. But that's not hitting everybody equally. Goods spending tends to bear the brunt. Our econ team estimates that the oil shock takes 30 basis points off consumption entirely from goods rather than services. Low- and middle-income households are most exposed since energy makes up over 8 percent of spending for the bottom income quintile versus under 5 percent for the top. And that broadening out story from just the high-income consumer driving spending is probably going to be a little bit delayed just given the oil shock. But maybe let's drill in a little bit more on that income bifurcation. How does that manifest in your view across spending intentions? Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Overall, short-term spending intentions – so spending plans over the next month – are net +20 percent this month. That's still above the historical average of around +16 percent, but it is down somewhat from 23 percent last month. And the divergence is really driven by income. Upper-income consumers remain meaningfully more optimistic, while lower-income households are still under stress. So, we're still seeing the K economy very much in place. And the economy and inflation are almost always top issues for voters. How are you expecting the dynamics we've been talking about to impact the midterms? Ariana Salvatore: So, data are showing an uptick, obviously, which should on net benefit Republicans all else equal, albeit off a low base. And that's because there are other data points to consider here. So, things like the generic ballot, things like historical precedent, things like the presidential favorability ratings – all of those things are painting a more constructive backdrop for Democrats heading into November. But also, to put a finer point on it, we're seeing the AlphaWise data that you're citing reflected across other surveys as well. So, we saw the UMich data from last week show the year ahead inflation outlook drop to 4.6 percent from 4.8 percent. And of course, that's a reflection of the expectation that gas prices are going to moderate into November too. Now, on that front, it's about rate of change, right? So, not the absolute level. But again, I would just remind our listeners that this is one factor in the context of many. So, net-net, we definitely still see a slight advantage for Democrats heading into November, especially when we drill into some of the trends that we've been seeing across the primaries. Michelle Weaver: And what are some of those trends you've been picking up from the primaries? Ariana Salvatore: So, the first thing I would say is that we're cautious to extrapolate too much from primaries to the general election, but really maybe two key points here. The first is turnout seems to be an early indicator in favor of Democrats. So, enthusiasm is up. We're seeing more participation and more engagement relative to prior elections. The second point I would make is that the primaries have been showing a mixed bag in terms of candidates for November. So, in some states like New York and Colorado, you saw more progressive candidates win their races. And all else equal, that could translate to more of what we call a fragile instead of a cohesive majority come November. So, think more political noise around fiscal deadlines, things like appropriations and the debt ceiling. But of course, we still have less than 50 percent of the primaries, so plenty to watch heading into the fall. Michelle, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michelle Weaver: Thanks for having me. Ariana Salvatore: And 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.

1 Jul

•

7 min
2 days ago

Next Leg of the Bull Market?

A changing macro backdrop is creating new opportunities across the equity market. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at what's driving the shift and where it may lead next. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll discuss why I think the broadening out in equity markets can continue. It's Monday, July 6th at 11:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it. Let’s talk about a market dynamic that’s becoming harder to ignore. The broadening trade is back, and it’s gaining momentum partly because one of the most crowded areas of the market – Semiconductors – is finally starting to lose some of its own. To be clear, this doesn’t mean the AI cycle is over. However, trends don’t move in straight lines, and leadership can ebb and flow; especially if there are fundamental reasons supporting it. In fact, we’ve seen this happen several times already over the past couple of years with the hyperscalers and semiconductors ebbing and flowing. This is based on positioning, the rate of change on expectations for capex and the returns on that capex. Meanwhile, our broadening call goes back to last November. Back then, we argued the economy had entered a new expansion after the rolling recession ended in the April of 2025. That view was based on a classic early-cycle setup where revenue growth returns to companies that had become cost efficient. That is the definition of operating leverage and that always leads to better than expected earnings growth – the core differentiation to our original outlook this year. The market started to discount that broadening late last year and into early this year. Then, the Iran war interrupted it. Oil prices surged, and the bond market went from pricing Fed cuts to pricing hikes, and investors crowded back into the obvious AI capex winners – especially Semiconductors. That made sense for a while. The revisions in Semis were spectacular. But when earnings revisions breadth gets pressed against historical extremes, the question becomes less about whether the story is good and more about whether the rate of change can keep improving. That’s a much higher bar. And over the past few weeks, the market seems to be asking that question with semiconductor stocks fading. The underperformance in the hyperscalers was probably the first signal. Semis depend on hyperscaler capex, so when the spenders start to lag the beneficiaries, that divergence can’t last forever. It usually ends up reconciling with hyperscalers’ tempering capex guidance or indicating they are more focused on getting a return on that investment. META’s announcement last week that it would begin selling excess capacity to outside customers fits right into that discussion. It doesn’t kill the AI buildout, but it does change the market’s perception of how linear that buildout will be. What matters for investors is how they should trade it. First, the market should continue to broaden out. Second, we continue to favor Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, Regional Banks, and now Biotech as part of that rotation. Discretionary Goods remains the cleanest expression, in my view, because the wallet-share shift from services back to goods is underway, goods pricing is improving, oil prices have fallen, and earnings revisions are strengthening. Transports are also showing better revisions, and Regional Banks still benefit from the broader recovery, improving loan growth dynamics and our call for a re-steepening of the yield curve. Biotech deserves more attention here, too. It is also one of the most rate-sensitive areas of the market, and our work shows it has historically done very well in falling-rate regimes. If the market’s policy expectations are too hawkish – and I think they are – then Biotech offers an attractive risk-reward setup, particularly with an M&A cycle that continues to build. The Fed is part of this story as well. Chair Warsh’s comments last week that inflation risks have come down should matter, especially after the weaker labor data that came out Thursday. The market had become too hawkish on policy. If falling energy prices and contained core inflation allow the Fed to stay on hold rather than hike, that should help lower rate expectations and further support broader leadership in equity markets. Bottom line, the major averages may stay choppy because Semis are a large part of the index and crowded. But, the message is improving beneath the surface. The broader market performance indicates a broader economic and earnings recovery may just be beginning. The best news is that this view is still out of consensus, which means the opportunity for investors remains significant. 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!

2 days ago

•

5 min
26 Jun

The Warsh Effect on Mortgages

Although markets may recalibrate to a different policy playbook under the new Fed chair Kevin Warsh, housing could remain in a holding pattern. Our co-heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan explain why. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: Today, the glow has maybe worn off the championship of the Knicks, so we can talk about the impact of Warsh on the mortgage and housing market. It's Friday, June 26th at 10am in New York. James Egan: If we have to stop talking about the Knicks, we can stop talking about the Knicks. But Jay, I think one of the things, if we take a little bit of a step back in mortgage markets, in housing markets, in fixed income markets more broadly – from the beginning of the year to now, we've gone from the market pricing in 2.5 cuts from the Fed by the end of 2026, to the market pricing in roughly 1.5 hikes. 100 basis point difference in market expectations over the course of the past five and a half months. Now, that's happened at different times, with different levels of velocity and severity. But one of the key talking points we have now is – we have a new Fed chair. We had the first FOMC meeting and his press conference after that last Wednesday. What do you think that means for mortgage markets, for volatility? How are you thinking about this? Jay Bacow: look, Jim, it's a great question, and we've got asked that by a number of different investors. Chair Warsh has been pretty clear that he thinks people should do more of what they're good at and less of what they're not good at. And so, he's felt like the Fed should keep their communication on future guidance relatively short. And so, with less forward guidance from the Fed, the market has more uncertainty, and more uncertainty translates into more volatility. And more volatility is generally bad for the mortgage market, given that investors are short the option to the homeowner to refinance. Furthermore, shifting from expectations of the Fed cutting to expectations of the Fed hiking generally makes it a little bit less favorable environment for investors like banks and overseas investors to come to the mortgage market. James Egan: Alright. Now, we've been on this podcast several times this year where we've talked about, you mentioned banks... We've talked about deregulation. We've talked about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSEs – them buying mortgages, that being constructive for our mortgage view. Is that still the case, or how are you layering that into your thought process? Jay Bacow: now? That's definitely still the case. Those things haven't changed. The deregulation is still flowing through the markets. That longer term should be supportive of bank demand in aggregate, although obviously there are a number of different regulations going through. The GSEs are still forecasted to buy 200 billion mortgages on behalf of President Trump's initiative. So, that's why we're just sort of tactically negative – those technicals are very strong in an environment where there really has not been much supply. Now, some of that supply is because mortgage rates are still in the context of 6.5 percent. Some of that is because with mortgage rates at 6.5 percent, there hasn't been that much housing activity. So, Jim, turning it to you, what is the outlook for the housing market in a world where they are expecting the Fed to hike and rates to stay elevated? James Egan: Right. So, the main thing that we focus on from a housing market perspective is less specifically Fed action and more the 5- and 10-year part of the curve. So, when you start to say something like you're tactically negative mortgage-backed securities here – how can I interpret that from a mortgage rate perspective? Jay Bacow: If we're tactically negative, it's more of a small move than some massive move. And as you said, and we've talked about on this call beforehand, realistically, the mortgage rate is a little bit less dependent on the Fed policy rate and more around the belly of the Treasury curve. And, you know, what's going to happen with the belly of the Treasury curve is going to be dependent on sort of market expectations along with what's happening in the geopolitical situation. So realistically, if you've written down that the mortgage rate is 6.5 percent right now, our view probably doesn't change things too much. James Egan: And if that's the case, then affordability in the housing market, as we've been talking about, is going to continue to be challenged. And what we think that means from a housing activity perspective is any upside that we really thought would have been there gets pretty significantly capped. But the same side of this token – or the other side of this token, if you will, we do think that the current level is well-supported here. There's some level of housing activity that has to occur regardless of where affordability is, and we think we found that. We're at 40-year lows from a turnover perspective. From the fourth quarter of 2023 through now, we've been roughly at the same level. That's 11 consecutive quarters now. We think this is the kind of base level for people that need to transact regardless of where mortgage rates are. So, the more that the rate environment remains challenged, the more that we kind of hang in this low to mid 6 percent mortgage rate environment. We just think that that continues to curtail upside. So, it's a housing market and a housing activity space that continues to very much just remain stuck in neutral. Jay Bacow: Alright. So, if we're in this new environment and the Fed might be hiking, it's not great locally for mortgage valuations. Housing market more broadly, probably kind of stuck in neutral here. Jim, always a pleasure speaking with you. James Egan: And always great speaking to you too, Jay. And to all of our regular listeners, thank you for adding us to your playlist. Let us know what you think wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. Jay Bacow: And go smash that subscribe button.

26 Jun

•

6 min
30 Jun

The Market Shift Investors May Be Missing

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains that gains in the stock market are expanding to more sectors and why investors should position quickly. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the changing equity market leadership. It's Tuesday, June 30th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. Something is happening in plain sight but still isn’t fully appreciated by investors. The market’s leadership is changing. And as usual, by the time everyone agrees that it’s happening, the easier money will probably have already been made. Coming into this year, the primary differentiation to our view was that the economic and earnings outlook were much stronger than the consensus believed. That view was built around a few simple, but powerful ideas: easy comparisons after a three year rolling recession, lean cost structures, pent-up demand, fiscal support from capex incentives and tax cuts, deregulation for the banks, and a monetary backdrop that was increasingly supportive through the liquidity channel. Putting those together, the setup looked like a classic early cycle. Revenue growth returning on top of lean cost structures leads to strong operating leverage and well above trend earnings growth. Fast forward to today, and that’s exactly what has happened. The median stock in the S&P 1500 is now growing earnings at a double-digit pace, the fastest since the post-COVID boom. Revenue growth has returned, with the median stock growing its top line by 7 percent. That is a rolling recovery showing up where many investors still aren’t looking. For much of this year and particularly the past few months, most investors didn’t want to hear that story. The Iran conflict pushed oil sharply higher. Rate-cut expectations turned into hike expectations. Faced with these headwinds, investors crowded back into the AI trade especially semiconductors and memory in particular. To be clear, the earnings revisions in semiconductors have been spectacular. The move wasn’t irrational. But when something becomes the most owned, most loved, and most obvious area of the market, it becomes harder to surprise on the upside. That’s where I think we are now. The hyperscalers have started to underperform, and that may be an early warning sign for semis, which are the key beneficiaries of the AI spending boom. Earnings revision breadth for semis is pressing against historical extremes. Again, this does not mean the AI cycle is over. But it does mean that the rate of change may be peaking, and when price momentum starts to fade in a crowded trade, it can lead to significant set-backs. It can also give other parts of the market room to breathe. In short, the broadening trade is back! The equal-weighted index and small caps are outperforming again. More importantly, the groups we have been recommending – Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Regional Banks – have already started to show relative strength over the past six weeks, even though positioning and sentiment remain neutral to negative. That’s the kind of combination I like: better price action, improving earnings, and investors still skeptical. One reason I’ve been more constructive on the consumer than others is that I’ve also been more bearish on oil. That view was not dependent on a grand deal between the U.S. and Iran, although that obviously helps. The signals were already there. The Brent-WTI spread narrowed, and energy stocks began underperforming from the day the conflict started. The market was telling us something before the headlines confirmed it. And longer term, I think the conflict has put the world on notice: this choke point around the Strait of Hormuz must be solved. It’s no longer a risk that the world is willing to tolerate. New routes, new supply, and new energy strategies are likely coming. Necessity is the mother of invention, and I would not underestimate the world’s ability to adapt. A less problematic oil backdrop helps the broadening trade too. So does the Fed, at least on rates. The June FOMC meeting told us two things: forward guidance is going to be diminished, and the reaction function is now focused more squarely on inflation. My view is that falling energy prices, peaking tariff-related inflation, and contained services and housing inflation keep the Fed on hold rather than hiking this year. If that’s right, lower than expected real rates could be a positive surprise for equities and another tailwind for the broadening of performance. The key variable to watch at this point is liquidity. This Fed is unlikely to be as proactive with balance sheet support, just as the real economy needs more capital for capex and the markets are dealing with more equity and credit supply. That’s the near-term real risk, especially for popular momentum trades. Bottom line, the market may look choppy and even weak at the index level, over the next month, but the message underneath is improving. Earnings are broadening, oil is falling. The shift is already under way with crowded momentum trades wobbling, and the under-owned areas of the market starting to lead. Investors can either wait for it to become more certain – or position before it becomes obvious and fully priced. 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!

30 Jun

•

6 min
24 Jun

What a Quieter Fed Could Mean for Markets

In his first meeting as Fed Chair, Kevin Warsh signaled restraint in providing guidance. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets looks at possible impacts of the new approach. 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, why the Fed could do less than expected and why that could still lead to more volatility. It's Wednesday, June 24th at 2pm in London. Last week saw the first meeting of the Federal Reserve under its new chair, Kevin Warsh. It didn't disappoint. The Fed’s Summary of Economic Projections saw significantly higher inflation than the last iteration in March, and in turn, a much stronger case to raise interest rates, perhaps multiple times. The Fed's statement, which laid out its views around the economy and its reasons for action, was changed dramatically – and also significantly shortened. We don't think the Fed will ultimately follow through on the interest rate rises that were flagged in this meeting and will choose instead to remain on hold this year. But we think this scenario of them staying on hold can still lead to more volatility. I'll try to address each side of this apparent contradiction. First, the Fed is clearly worried about inflation, which has been elevated for a considerable period of time. But working through the numbers, Morgan Stanley economists forecast lower inflation over the rest of this year than the Fed now expects. And so, while we think it would be entirely reasonable for the Fed to expect to raise interest rates based on the high inflation that they have penciled in, we think they could reach a different conclusion if our lower estimates are ultimately correct. Supporting our case, at least in our view, is that energy prices have fallen significantly in recent weeks since some of these Fed forecasts were set, as markets have moved to believe not only would existing oil production resume in the Persian Gulf, but Iran could increase exports materially under its new agreement with the United States. That would greatly reduce a source of underlying inflationary pressure in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. With inflation set to come in lower than feared, we think the Fed's most natural option will be to remain on hold this year rather than raise rates. But if the Fed's not doing anything, how exactly is that going to drive volatility? Our answer to that question lies in another thing that it's not going to be doing – providing as much information about where it thinks monetary policy is going next. Indeed, since the financial crisis, the Fed often went out of its way to give so-called forward guidance and significant detail about when and how they may change policy in the future. Proponents saw this as a way to avoid surprises and smooth the transmission of this policy, but critics saw it as limiting and potentially giving markets a false sense of certainty. The new Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, is one of these critics and has promised to give a lot less forward guidance. That lack of handholding by the Fed about what they might do next is a big change. Coupled with the potential for a smaller Fed balance sheet and big questions around the path of inflation and the impact of AI and productivity, every data point now has more potential to shift the market's thinking. My strategy colleagues think that this will lead to higher volatility in two-year interest rates, as well as more volatility in currencies. I'd also note that here in the UK, this paradox is not nearly as puzzling. Here, the Bank of England's target rate has been the same level since mid-December. But that hasn't stopped the UK two-year bond yield from trading in an over 100 basis point range. 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.

24 Jun

•

4 min
18 Jun

Inside the AI Debt Surge

As AI investment keeps growing, our strategists Carolyn Campbell and Vishwas Patkar discuss the many ways tech infrastructure gets financed and the opportunities for investors. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Carolyn Campbell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Carolyn Campbell, Morgan Stanley's Asset-Backed Securities Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Corporate Credit Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: Today, how fixed income markets are helping fund the AI build-out. It's Thursday, June 18th, at 10am in New York. Let's get right into it, Vishwas. We've both come on this podcast before to talk about how credit markets are financing the AI build-out. And over the last ten months, I think it's fair to say that things are faster, broader, deeper than we perhaps expected initially. This investment now spans investment-grade corporate bonds, high yield loans, and a range of securitized products. From your seat in corporate credit, why does AI infrastructure matter so much, to investors right now? Vishwas Patkar: This is a big talking point in our client discussions. it's also telling that less than a year ago, we wrote about this topic for the first time, identifying a $1.5 trillion financing gap that credit markets could help bridge. At that time, data center debt was not something that investors were really focused on. Yet less than 12 months forward, this, I think, is the number one theme dominating both your and my market. And why it's important, I would say, is across, three key vectors. First, just the scale. So, if you look at overall AI-related debt issuance so far this year, we're close to $250 billion. For the balance of the year, we expect that number to double, so about $500 billion of total AI debt financing for 2026. Increasingly the second vector, I think, is around the complexity of deals. So initially, while AI financing was dominated by vanilla investment-grade corporate bond deals, we are now seeing that broaden out into project finance style deals in the high-yield market. We have seen an uptick in chip financing across the different credit silos. And that's important for investors, as identifying value across these different options does require deep credit expertise. And third, as this investment cycle rolls along, it's also important to be cognizant of risks that are building. Not just from a very broad top-down sense around the demand for compute. But also, what are some of the nuances in these different structures – whether it is in data center construction or is in chip financing that investors will need to monitor. So, it's across these three themes that we think data center debt financing is gaining importance. Carolyn Campbell: Now, the underlying demand for AI infrastructure is very strong. That doesn't necessarily mean that every bond tied to this theme is automatically going to be attractive. And as you mentioned, [$]500 billion of supply for the year; a large amount of complexity between those structures. How should credit investors think about the various risks within these different structures? Vishwas Patkar: So, in investment grade, the story is a bit simpler. So, we have had unsecured hyperscaler bond issuance. We have had issuance from semiconductor names. And then we've had some, what we call, private style data center deals. But the vast majority still comes from hyperscaler investment grade rated bonds. For this market, our focus is less on fundamentals because fundamentals are very strong. And then hyperscaler are some of the more most creditworthy companies that we've seen in the history of the market. Our emphasis more is on just the quantum of supply. So, year to date, we have had north of [$]100 billion of hyperscaler debt in the dollar market. We've had north of [$]50 billion being issued in other currencies. If you look at the overall investment grade market, supply is up almost 25 percent versus last year. That's consistent with our call for a year of record issuance this year. And increasingly, if you look forward and then map these issuance numbers to our CapEx estimates, where we could very much be on track for another record to be hit next year. So, the issue of the investment grade market is not around the fundamentals of the companies or these deals. It's more about the quantum of supply, which we think eventually will test the demand capacity of this market. And our base case for the investment grade space is similar to 1997-1998, where credit was starting to finance the business cycle, spreads widened modestly, and IG could underperform other risk assets. But over a longer time horizon, spreads still look historically very low. Carolyn Campbell: Now, what about further down the credit spectrum into the non-investment grade portion? What about that part of the issuance spectrum for AI? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. So, what we're seeing in the sub-investment grade space, especially in high yield, is very different. There, the growth in data center financing has happened around project finance deals for data center construction. In many cases, these have come from crypto miner companies that effectively provide what we call speed to power solutions. We've also had some unsecured issuance from neo clouds, although that's relatively small. But this sector has expanded from effectively zero billion around the fall of last year to about [$]40 billion this year. We expect to see another [$]20 billion of issuance by the end of 2026. And the way they fit into this whole ecosystem is – these project finance deals we think are interesting diversifiers for regular credit investors. They do come with construction risks, especially initially for the first two to three years till the data center is up and running. But on the flip side, you do get a lot of structural enhancements and creditor protections, which is something you don't see in the vast majority of the high yield market. So, I think a key shift in the framework that investors have to do for these deals is focus on asset-level risk, which is again, I think a big divergence from how the vast majority of the credit market trades, which is largely unsecured corporate-level risk that investors have been used to. Carolyn Campbell: All right. You just brought up construction risks. Do you think that's the biggest risk facing the high-yield investors today? Vishwas Patkar: Yes. I think for the high-yield deals in particular, construction risk is the dominant vector that investors are focused on. Because it's important to remember a lot of the debt issuers are first-time borrowers. And they have a limited track record of construction in the past. So, you could see potential delays and things like cost overruns that can affect sentiment on the sector. Or at least on specific bond deals. And this will be especially important to monitor going into the second half of the year, as we have some of the first delivery dates coming up for the deals in the sector that were announced last year. That being said, you know, even though some of the tenants have termination rights, if delays go beyond 180 days, our view is that given the structural power constraints, these termination rights are unlikely to be exercised. So, while construction milestones can affect sentiment and short-term valuations, we would look at any blips as buying opportunities in the space. Alright. So Carolyn, let me throw this back to you. So, construction risk clearly very important for the corporate credit market, especially for high yield investors. Is that something ABS investors or commercial mortgage-backed investors care about? And in what other ways are these asset classes different from corporate credit? Carolyn Campbell: Okay. So first and foremost, the biggest difference is that in securitized products, the assets are stabilized, they're cash flowing, they're online. We don't have that first vector of construction risk in our space. The second biggest difference is while in high yield and IG we've mostly seen – or we've entirely seen single campus, single tenant data centers; in securitization issuance, it's mostly multi-tenant, multi-asset, multi-regional, deals that have come to market. And so, it's a very different risk profile. And as a consequence, investors are focused not just on who is behind this one single lease and what are the termination rates, but what does the landscape look like in general for compute? How does that affect vacancy and churn rates? And then lastly, the issuers themselves are different. You talked about the crypto companies. You get a little bit more of the data center, data center construction. Whereas in securitized products, these are companies that have been around for 5, 10, 20 years. They're accustomed to managing a fleet of assets, dozens if not hundreds of tenants. They've got a little bit more of a track record for the most part, than the types of issuers we're seeing in the credit market. Vishwas Patkar: Your market post-construction, more leverage to the thematic of demand for compute – and how the AI investment cycle is playing out. Versus the corporate credit market, which is largely exposed to construction risks as the data centers get built out. So that's a very important difference. That being said, one theme that ties both our markets are just healthy fundamentals, but at the same time heavy supply. So, I talked about how we see that affecting our view on investment grade. How is that same tension showing up in securitized products? Carolyn Campbell: So exactly as you said, the fundamental story is very strong. We don't see deterioration in performance of the assets either that has happened yet or that we expect to come in the near term. So, it really is a technically driven story. Supply in this space, we're forecasting at around [$]30 billion for year, so

18 Jun

•

11 min
25 Jun

Consumer Confidence and the U.S. Midterms

Our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore joins our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas to consider the consumer outlook and how it may impact the November midterm elections. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Michael Zezas: And I'm Mike Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be discussing the consumer outlook, policy catalysts, and what it could mean for the 2026 midterm elections. It's Thursday, June 25th at 9am in New York. Mike, you're on the road, obviously not in New York City this week. Why don't you tell us a little bit about the conference that you're at, and then we can get into some of the topics that have come up in your conversations. Michael Zezas: Yeah. I'm down in South Carolina at Morgan Stanley's Captains of the Consumer Industry Conference, where we put together investors and leadership of key consumer companies in the U.S. to learn about each other in a more informal way, brainstorm… And it's been really interesting. We've had a lot of meetings with leadership from different prominent consumer companies throughout the U.S. And it's been really fascinating to hear how the consumer's been quite resilient. But in general, one pattern that sticks out is rising concern about lower-income consumers' behavior starting to lag in meaningful way higher-income consumers' behavior. You're starting to see substitution and sort of more selectivity amongst lower-income households, a pattern that began a bit last year as a lot of these companies would report with higher tariffs. That seems to have continued with higher gas prices driven by the conflict in the Middle East. So, there's a lot of discussion and concern about how durable it is. And in particular, if there are some policy choices here that might alleviate some of that pressure and bring some fundamental strength to what is a challenged segment of the consumer market right now. Ariana Salvatore: Let's talk a little bit more about tariffs. It's our economists’ view that we've mostly gotten through the tariff pass-through. Is that the sentiment that you're hearing from corporates and the clients that you're talking to? Michael Zezas: It is. Well, it's certainly the hope. And I guess the follow-up questions here are: once some of the temporary tariff authority that was put into place after the Supreme Court struck down the use of IEEPA, will there be a restoration of those tariff levels? And will the USMCA negotiations create higher tariffs? So, Ariana, what's your thoughts there? Is there any concern for companies that they're going to start needing to deal with a re-escalation of tariff costs relative to what we experienced, say, last year? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, I think to answer that question, we need to dig into this under the surface a little bit and understand what types of tariffs that we're talking about. So, to your question on the USMCA, we see that largely as a story of continuity, right? So, the USMCA exemption has been in place since the deal was signed, right? And since Trumpimposed those Section 301 tariffs, we think that's likely to stay the case. That means the vast majority of the goods trade between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada is right now not subject to the 301 tariffs. Now, on the other hand, we have existing Section 232 tariffs in place on not just sectors like steel and aluminum, but a bunch of other goods, too, and we're supposed to get more of those investigations wrapped up in the next week or so. So, on that front, I do think there could be some potential room for escalation, but more broadly speaking, we think the direction of travel is relatively stable, if not slightly lower, because, as you mentioned, the IEEPA tariffs that were replaced by the Section 122s have to get replaced again end of July, right? So that Section 122 authority was a temporary authority. The president is going to have to replace that with a mix of Section 232 and 301. It's been our view that when that happens, there could be some alleviation for very specific pockets of goods that fall into really neither bucket, right? So,they're not necessarily critical for national security, and they're coming from countries that are difficult to maintain a Section 301 investigation on. So, it's actually very nuanced under the surface. I would say in the aggregate level, what we think is that you're going to see the tariff rate stay somewhere around 8 to 9 percent on a headline basis; if not directionally, maybe a little bit lower throughout the course of this year. Michael Zezas: Got it. And I think that message has been music to the ears of a lot of these companies. And I’ve been doing these meetings with our chief economist, Michael Gapen, who has said that that's contributing to what he forecasts as being a meaningfuldeceleration in inflation into the end of the year. Certainly an inflation level lower than what the aggregate Fed forecast isat the moment. Another question that comes up is whether or not the recent decrease in oil prices, which should feed through into lower gasoline prices, is durable. If that's something that could be counted on, because obviously these companies are thinking about it being a potential tailwind to demand going into the second half of the year. How do you think about that, Ariana? Ariana Salvatore: The MOU that the U.S. and Iran signed, I would say was a welcome development for markets. But that being said, there are a number of paths to re-escalation, in our view. Really four things to keep an eye on, kind of outstanding questions or uncertainties. The first is on execution risk of the MOU itself. It's very light on details. We need to see more about how exactly the Strait of Hormuz is going to reopen, if there's going to be a servicing fee, a tolling regime, et cetera. That was a red line of the United States. But again, implementation there is a big question. The second is on the calibration or divergence between the U.S. and Israel in terms of their objectives. We identified that early in the conflict as a potential indicator of how long this could possibly last, and I think it's equally as important in assessing how long the ceasefire or the MOU could stay in place. The third thing I would say we need to learn more about is the role of Congress in all of this. So, some Republican lawmakers actually pushed back against the MOU, saying it didn't go far enough to advance U.S. interests. Now Congress has a more limited role when it comes to the actual MOU implementation itself. Remember, the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, didn't go through Congress either. But Congress can exert some more power come the fall when we start talking about defense appropriations, right? The Pentagon is asking for $1.5 trillion. [$]300 billion of that is supplemental war funding. And so, I think if you see Republicans push back, that's going to be an easy forum for them to do so. And the last point is on the negotiations themselves. So, the MOU is a 60-day ceasefire throughout which both parties are supposed to be discussing the nuclear question. Now, looking back at historical context here, the JCPOA took about 20 months to negotiate start to finish. This is a very compressed timeframe, and again, obviously potential risk for escalationas we see these negotiations go on the next few months. So, Mike, I would say, like I said before, markets are definitely seeing this as a welcome development, but that doesn't mean it's without execution risk. Across the board, our outlook actually expected a normalization of flows by the end of June, so we're kind of pulling things up by about two weeks. That means that the outlook basically remains intact, but with marginal upside as this is a slightly more constructive outlook. Michael Zezas: Got it. So net net, there's still plenty of execution risk going on, but the trend is at least towards easing of some of these policy pressures that have been impacting the consumer. And it's also been interesting that a lot of the conversations have led to questions about artificial intelligence. Now, at this conference last year, a lot of the discussion about artificial intelligence was around how these companies were implementing it to create new marketing opportunities, create efficiencies inside of their operations. This year, a lot of the discussion is actually about the macro trend around artificial intelligence, the acknowledgment of the industrial build-out around this new technology and how that is buoying investment and employment – and therefore consumption. And so, the policy concern or consideration from some of these companies is whether or not there are upcoming electoral issues, either in the midterms or in the next election cycle, that might change the dynamic around the AI industrial build-out. Are there signs that would show that a tougher regulatory regime? Data center construction bans that these things might take on a bipartisan flavor? And so right now, I think that's a very difficult question to answer. There is obviously some level of concern about if policy might change this dynamic around the AI industrial build-out that really has kind of helped the economy deal with some other external shocks from policy, namely what's going on in the Middle East and trade policy changes before that Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, to that point, this question around AI pushback, especially on data center build-out, has been a big theme in the elections. Thus far, it's really been dealt with on more of a state and local level. But our view is that it's been kind of bubbling up to the national level. Efforts there are nascent, but I don't think they're going away anytime soon. So obviousl

25 Jun

•

10 min
12 Jun

India’s Next Market Phase

Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya joins Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist Ridham Desai to break down India’s macro outlook, capital flows and sector opportunities. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Ridham Desai: And I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist. Chetan Ahya: Today, the biggest takeaways from our India Investment Forum in Mumbai. From the shifting outlook for India's markets and flows to the sectors driving the next phase of corporate earnings and CapEx. It's Friday, June 12th at 7PM in Hong Kong. Ridham Desai: And 4:30PM in Mumbai. Chetan Ahya: Ridham, the Morgan Stanley's India Investment Forum took place in Mumbai last week, and I was there with you. These events are a great opportunity to speak with investors who come across from the globe to attend. Now that we have had a few days to process the conversations, what stood out to you? What was the biggest shift in investor sentiment that you picked on? Ridham Desai: So, Chetan, I think it's been the case of a continuing story about India. Domestic investors look that they are bullish, and foreign investors continue to stay rather cautious on the Indian markets. We could see that in the overall attendance. In contrast, I think domestic investors were looking for the next stock that they wanted to buy. They were seeking opportunities, and there was a lot of interest in meeting companies. Before we get into markets, let me turn back to you from a macro side. India's growth story remains strong, but relative growth appears to be cooling. This is in contrast to markets like Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and the US. How should investors think about India's macro positioning in that context? Chetan Ahya: So, Ridham, when I look at the macro data in India, they're all indicating a meaningful upside in the growth trend. So I'll just cite two key cyclically sensitive macro data points. One is the banking system credit growth, and number two is the auto sales, particularly the passenger vehicle. So bank credit growth is growing as of the last biweekly data point that we got. It's growing at seventeen point seven percent year-on-year, and car sales are growing at twenty-seven percent in the month of May. But as you were mentioning earlier, the relative growth opportunity is a challenge for India and to just share the numbers on the earnings growth for the first quarter that we saw across the region. So we saw Korea's earnings growth at one hundred and seventy percent. We saw Taiwan's earnings growth at forty-eight percent year on year. Japan at thirty-three percent. The US has seen a growth of about twenty-seven percent year on year. So in that context, when India is reporting thirteen percent growth, it's becoming a challenge for investors to look for opportunities in India relative to other markets. Either they are more focused on the other markets than India. So let me come back to you, Ridham. Staying with the investment implications, India projects stable valuations and strong corporate earnings, but its relative growth advantage has narrowed. How should investors reconcile this contradiction? Ridham Desai: If I go back thirty-five years, as long as we have the MSCI index series, and as far as I have been in this industry, this is the lowest relative multiple that India has traded at. And indeed, growth last year was weak. But if you see QOQ, we have started to accelerate. The broad market earnings growth trajectory has shown a doubling in the quarter that ended March over the quarter that ended December. But it underscores the point you made about the relative growth complex. It's clearly not in India's favor. And a lot of the capital in the world is short-term oriented, and it cares for what growth is gonna come in the next quarter or two. And that's the state of the market right now. However, what I would say is that equities is a quintessential long-duration asset class. In the long run, what matters is terminal growth. I don't really think India's terminal growth has moved much. It remains far superior to a lot of other countries around the world. And therefore, I think this does present itself as a great opportunity for a long-term investor while the markets are digesting this relative growth disadvantage that India seems to have over the next, say, three or four quarters. Chetan Ahya: And Ridham, another theme from the forum was policy action to attract capital. Policymakers announced a number of measures right as our conference ended and they aimed to withdraw withholding tax on debt investors, also providing banks with an incentive to take up more dollar borrowing. How central are these measures to sustaining foreign inflows into Indian markets? Ridham Desai: I think the measures taken by policymakers are very important, probably amongst the most important policy actions this year. The removal of taxation on debt investors will make a difference. The provision for hedging to external commercial borrowings as well as to foreign currency deposits will make a difference. It should boost flows into India over the next twelve months. That said, these measures may not help the equity flows because the equity flows, I think, are going to depend on the relative growth situation. Now, there's only that much India can do to lift its growth. It may accelerate to the high teens. So growth elsewhere needs to decelerate for equity investors to return. Or India needs to see the start of a major IPO cycle because in primary issuances, foreigners do come to buy, and that may change the net picture on FBI flows in the equity markets. But as far as the debt markets are concerned, I think the measures taken last week are going to prove to be quite potent, and India should see the benefits accruing over the next few weeks and months. Chetan, from your perspective, how important is the policy backdrop right now in determining whether India can keep attracting long-term global capital despite more competitive returns elsewhere in the short run? Chetan Ahya: So Ridham, I think the key focus for the policymakers had been with these measures to boost short-term capital inflows to stabilize the currency. There has been a balance of payment deficit. So from that perspective, the short-term capital inflow augmentation effort as you mentioned, has been the correct move. But from the long-term perspective, we think that the government needs to boost competitiveness of the Indian manufacturing. Because in the context in which AI could affect India's services exports, there is a need to augment more export receipts from the manufacturing sector. At the same time, if they improve the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector, it will help India to attract more capital inflows from long-term investors for the purpose of FDI. And the good news is that the government is on it. They are taking a number of measures to boost that competitiveness in the manufacturing. But we think that there is more action needed and hopefully in the intention to improve the balance of payment dynamics and exports from manufacturing sector, we will see more actions from the government in the coming months. Ridham Desai: Chetan, you've also written extensively about the structural capital spending cycle in Asia and India. Can you walk us through the key details here, especially in the Indian context? Chetan Ahya: I think the key story that we are observing, it's sort of more or less global, but definitely very clearly seen in Asia, that there seems to be a super cycle for CapEx as well as industrial activity. This CapEx cycle is effectively driven by spending in four key sectors, and that is AI and AI-related digital infrastructure, energy, defense, and industrial onshoring-related CapEx. Now, as far as India is concerned, we are seeing investments in all the four segments that I just mentioned. In fact, it's seeing a significant amount of activity in the space of energy. And, similarly, we are seeing a lot of policy measures, I mentioned earlier, in terms of boosting manufacturing competitiveness. But at the heart of it is government's effort to onshore industrial supply chain. So India's CapEx has also inflected higher. Having said that, the difference between India and, let's say, North Asia, which is Korea, Taiwan, Japan and China, is that they are also a big player in the export market for capital goods when there is global CapEx cycle upswing happening. Nevertheless, India will see the benefit of this CapEx cycle in terms of its own growth push, as well as improvement in productivity. So Ridham, how would you think about the sectoral opportunity within the Indian markets? Ridham Desai: We see a lot of interest in some of these sectors which you mentioned. But actually, I would like to start off with financials. I see the banks in a very sweet spot. Balance sheets are in pristine condition. The interest rate cycle has troughed, which means margins for the banks have also bottomed and credit growth is finally accelerating. If this CapEx cycle unfolds like the way you are describing it, I think financials will stand to gain the most. And interestingly, the valuations are quite good, both on an absolute as well as on a relative basis. Also, of course, investors can go directly into those sectors which are doing this capital spend. Energy to start with, semiconductors, fertilizers, data centers and aerospace. The only thing to note here is that not everywhere are the valuations attractive enough because in some cases the market has recognized the coming growth cycle and has started to price that in. So we have to be careful about the valuations. But I think financials and industrials are clearly great opportunities in the context of this CapEx recovery that India is likely to see in the coming f

12 Jun

•

13 min

Listen to Morgan Stanley's award-winning podcasts, featuring daily market analysis, human stories of insight and innovation, and in-depth conversations around equity, entrepreneurship and sustainability.

Website

Morgan Stanley Podcasts

Top Shows

AI’s Next Stress Test

America’s Frontier-Market Origin Story

What to Watch Ahead of the Midterms

Next Leg of the Bull Market?

The Warsh Effect on Mortgages

The Market Shift Investors May Be Missing

What a Quieter Fed Could Mean for Markets

Inside the AI Debt Surge

Consumer Confidence and the U.S. Midterms

India’s Next Market Phase

About

Morgan Stanley Podcasts

Top Shows

Top Episodes

About