Thoughts on the Market

4.9 (13)
INVERSIONES
CADA DÍA

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

HACE 1 DÍA

Why a Tariff Ruling Could Mean Consumer Relief

Arunima Sinha, from the U.S. and Global Economics team, discusses how an upcoming Supreme Court decision could reshape consumer prices, retail margins and the inflation outlook in 2026. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's U.S. and Global Economics Teams. Today: How a single Supreme Court ruling could change the tariff math for U.S. consumers. It's Friday, February 13th at 10am in New York. The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether the U.S. president has legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs under IEEPA. That decision could come as soon as next Friday. IEEPA, or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, is the legal backbone for a significant share of today's consumer goods tariffs. If the Supreme Court limits how it can be used, tariffs on many everyday items could fall quickly – affecting prices on the shelf, margins for retailers, and the broader inflation outlook. As of now, effective tariff rates on consumer goods are running about 15 percent, and that's based on late 2025 November data. And that's quite a bit higher than the roughly 10 percent average, which we're seeing as tariffs on all goods. In a post IEEPA scenario, we think that the effective tariff rate on consumer goods could fall to the mid-11 percent range. It's not zero, but it is meaningfully lower. An important caveat is that this is not going to be eliminating all tariffs. Other trade tools – like Section 232s, which are the national security tariffs, Section 301s, the tariffs that are related to unfair trade practices – would remain in place. Autos and metals, for example, are largely outside the IEEPA discussion. The main pressure point we think is consumer goods. IEEPA has been used for two major sets of tariffs. The fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, and the so-called reciprocal tariffs applied broadly across trading partners. And these often stack on top of the existing tariffs, such as the MFN, the Most Favored Nation rates, and the section 301 duties on China that were already existing before 2025. The exposure is really concentrated in certain categories of consumer goods. So, for example, in apparel and footwear, about 60 percent of the applied tariffs are IEEPA related. For furniture and home improvement, it's over 70 percent. For toys, games, and sporting equipment, it's more than 90 percent. So, if the IEEPA authority is curtailed, the category level effects would be meaningful. There are caveats, of course. The court's decision may not be all or nothing. And policymakers could turn to alternative authorities. One example is Section 122, which allows across the board tariffs for up to 15 percent for 150 days. So, tariffs could just reappear under different tools. But in the near term, fully replacing IEEPA-based tariffs on consumer goods may not be straightforward, especially given ongoing affordability concerns. So, how does that matter for the real economy? There are two key channels, prices and margins. On prices we estimate that about 60 percent of the tariff costs are typically passed on to the consumers over two to three quarters, but it’s not instant. Margins though could respond faster. If companies get cost relief before they adjust prices downwards, that creates a temporary margin tailwind. That could influence hiring, investment and earnings across retail and consumer supply chains. Over time, lower tariffs could also reinforce that broader return to core goods disinflation starting in the second quarter of this year. And because tariff driven inflation has weighed more heavily on the middle- and lower-income households, any eventual price relief could disproportionately benefit those groups. At the end of the day, this isn't just a legal story. It is a timing story. If IEEPA authority is curtailed, the arithmetic shifts pretty quickly. Margins move first, prices follow later, and the path back to goods disinflation could accelerate. That's why this is one ruling worth watching before the gavel drops. 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
HACE 2 DÍAS

Signs That Global Growth May Be Ahead

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains how key market indicators reflect a constructive view around the global cyclical outlook, despite a volatile start to 2026. 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 I'm going to talk about the unusual alignment of a number of key indicators. It's Thursday, February 12th at 2pm in London. A frustrating element of investing is that any indicator at any time can let you down. That makes sense. With so much on the line, the secret to markets probably isn't just one of a hundreds of data series that a thousand of us can access at the push of a button. But many indicators all suggesting the same? That's far more notable. And despite a volatile start to 2026 with big swings in everything from Japanese government bonds to software stocks, it is very much what we think is happening below the surface. Specifically, a variety of indicators linked to optimism around the global cyclical outlook are all stronger, all moving up and to the right. Copper, which is closely followed as an economically sensitive commodity, is up strongly. Korean equities, which have above average cyclicality and sensitivity to global trade is the best performing of any major global equity market over the last year. Financials, which lie at the heart of credit creation, have been outperforming across the U.S., Europe, and Asia. And more recently, year-to-date cyclicals and transports are outperforming. Small caps are leading, breadth is improving, and the yield curve is bear steepening. All of these are the outcomes that you'd expect, all else equal, if global growth is going to be stronger in the future than it is today. Now individually, these data points can be explained away. Maybe Copper is just part of an AI build out story. Maybe Korea is just rebounding off extreme levels of valuation. Maybe Financials are just about deregulation in a steeper yield curve. Maybe the steeper yield curve is just about the policy uncertainty. And small cap stocks have been long-term laggards – maybe every dog has its day. But collectively, well, they're exactly what investors will be looking for to confirm that the global growth backdrop is getting stronger, and we believe they form a pretty powerful, overlapping signal worthy of respect. But if things are getting better, how much is too much. In the face of easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy, the market may focus on other signposts to determine whether we now have too much of a good thing. For example, is there signs of significant inflation on the horizon? Is volatility in the bond market increasing? Is the U.S. dollar deviating significantly from its fair value? Is the credit market showing weakness? And do stocks and credit now react badly when the data is good? So far, not yet. As we discussed on this program last week, long run inflation expectations in the U.S. and euro area remain pretty consistent with central bank targets. Expected volatility in U.S. interest rates has actually fallen year-to-date. The U.S. dollar’s valuation is pretty close to what purchasing power parity would suggest. Credit has been very stable. And better than expected labor market data on Wednesday was treated well. Any single indicator can and eventually will let investors down. But when a broad set of economically sensitive signals all point in the same direction, we listen. Taken together, we think this alignment is still telling a story of supportive fundamental tailwinds while key measures of stress hold. Until that evidence changes, we think those signals deserve respect. 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.

4 min
HACE 3 DÍAS

The Future of North American Trade

With the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement coming up for review, our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore unpacks whether our 2025 call for deeper trade integration still holds. 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 our expectations for the upcoming USMCA review, and how the landscape has shifted from last year. It's Wednesday, February 11th at 4pm in London. As we highlighted last fall, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement is approaching its first mandatory review in 2026. At the time, we argued that the risks were skewed modestly to the upside. Structural contingencies built into the agreement we think cap downside risk and tilt most outcomes toward preserving and over time deepening North American trade integration. That framing, we think, remains broadly intact. But some developments over the past few months suggest that the timing and the structure of that deeper integration could end up looking a little bit different than we initially expected. We still see a scenario where negotiators resolve targeted frictions and make limited updates, but we're increasingly mindful that some of the more ambitious policy maker goals – for example, new chapters on AI, critical minerals or more explicit guardrails on Chinese investment in Mexico – may be harder to formalize ahead of the mid-2026 deadline. So, what does the base case as we framed it last year still look like? We continue to expect an outcome that preserves the agreement and resolves several outstanding disputes – auto rules of origin, labor enforcement procedures, and select digital trade provisions. On the China question, our view from last year also still holds. We expect incremental steps by Mexico to reduce trans-shipment risk and better align with U.S. trade priorities, though likely without a fully institutionalized enforcement mechanism by mid-2026. And remember, the USMCA’s 10-year escape clause keeps the agreement enforced at least through 2036, meaning the probability of a disruptive trade shock is structurally quite low. What may be shifting is not the direction of travel, but the pace and the form. A more comprehensive agreement may ultimately come, but possibly with a longer runway or through site agreements rather than updates to the USMCA text itself. Of course, those come with an enforcement risk just given the lack of congressional backing. We still expect the formal review to conclude around mid-2026, albeit with a growing possibility that deeper institutional alignment happens further out or via parallel frameworks. It also is possible that into that deadline all three sides decide to extend negotiations out further into the future, extending the uncertainty for even longer. So what does it all mean for macro and markets? For Mexico, maintaining tariff free access to the U.S. continues to be essential. The base case supports ongoing manufacturing integration, especially in autos and electronics. But without the newer, more strategic chapters that policymakers have discussed, the agreement would leave Mexico in a position that it's accustomed to – stable but short of a full nearshoring acceleration. This aligns with our view from last year, but we now see clearer near-term risks to the thesis of rapid institutional, deeper trade integration. For FX, the pace of benefit is from reduced uncertainty, but the effect is likely gradual. The absence of tangible progress on adding to the original deal suggests a more muted near-term impulse. For Canada, the implications are similarly two-sided. Near-term volatility around the review is likely underpriced, but a limited agreement should eventually lead to medium term USD-CAD downside. On the economics front, last year, we argued that the review would reinforce North America as a manufacturing block, even if it didn't fully resolve supply chain diversification from China. We think that remains true today, but with the added nuance that some of the more ambitious integration pathways may be pushed further out or structured outside of the formal USMCA chapters. So bottom line, our base case remains a measured, pragmatic outcome that reduces uncertainty, but preserves the core benefits of North American trade and supports growth across key asset classes. But it also increasingly looks like an outcome that may leave some strategic opportunities on the table for now, setting the stage for deeper alignment later – on a slightly longer horizon, or through a more flexible framework. 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.

5 min
HACE 4 DÍAS

A Thematic Look at Market Volatility

Our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver lay out Morgan Stanley’s four key Research themes for 2026, and how those themes could unfold across markets for the rest of the year. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Stephen Byrd: I was recently on the show to discuss Morgan Stanley's four key themes for 2026. Today, a look at how those themes could actually play out in the real world over the course of this year. It's Tuesday, February 10th at 10am in New York. So one of the biggest challenges for investors right now is separating signal from noise. Markets are reacting to headlines by the minute, but the real drivers of long-term returns tend to move much more slowly and much more powerfully. That's why thematic analysis has been such an important part of how we think about markets, particularly during periods of high volatility. For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy, the multipolar world, and societal shifts. In other words, three familiar themes and one meaningful evolution from last year. So Michelle, let's start at the top. When investors hear four key themes, what's different about the 2026 framework versus what we laid out in 2025? Michelle Weaver: Well, like you mentioned before, three of our four key themes are the same as last year, so we're gonna continue to see important market impacts from AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy and the multipolar world. But our fourth key theme, societal shifts, is really an expansion of our prior key theme longevity from last year. And while three of the four themes are the same broad categories, the way they impact the market is going to evolve. And these themes don't exist in isolation. They collide and they intersect with one another, having other important market implications. And we'll talk about many of those intersections today as they relate to multiple themes. Let's start with AI. How does the AI and tech diffusion theme specifically evolve since last year? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. You know, you mentioned earlier the evolution of all of our themes, and that was certainly the case with AI and tech diffusion. What I think we'll see in 2026 is a few major evolutions. So, one is a concept that we think of as two worlds of LLM progress and AI adoption; and let me walk through what I mean by that. On LLM progress, we do think that the handful of American LLM developers that have 10 times the compute they had last year are going to be training and producing models of unprecedented capability. We do not think the Chinese models will be able to keep up because they simply do not have the compute required for the training. And so we will see two worlds, very different approaches. That said, the Chinese models are quite excellent in terms of providing low cost solutions to a wide range of very practical business cases. So that's one case of two worlds when we think about the world of AI and tech diffusion. Another is that essentially we could see a really big gap between what you can do with an LLM and what the average user is actually doing with LLMs. Now there're going to be outliers where really leaders will be able to fully utilize LLMs and achieve fairly substantial and breathtaking results. But on average, that won't be the case. And so you'll see a bit of a lag there. That said, I do think when investors see what those frontier capabilities are, I think that does eventually lead to bullishness. So that's one dynamic. Another really big dynamic in 2026 is the mismatch between compute demand and compute supply. We dove very deeply into this in our note, and essentially where we come out is we believe, and our analysis supports this, that the demand for compute is going to be systematically much higher than the supply. That has all kinds of implications. Compute becomes a very precious resource, both at the company level, at the national level. So those are a couple of areas of evolution. So Michelle, let's shift over to the future of energy, which does feel very different today than it did a year ago. Can you kind of walk through what's changed? Michelle Weaver: Well, we absolutely still think that power is one of the key bottlenecks for data center growth. And our power modeling work shows around a 47 gigawatt shortfall before considering innovative time to power solutions. We get down to around a 10 to 20 percent shortfall in power needed in the U.S. though, even after considering those solutions. So power is still very much a bottleneck. But the power picture is becoming even more challenged for data centers, and that's largely because of a major political overhang that's emerging. Consumers across the U.S. have seen their electricity bills rise and are increasingly pointing to data centers as the culprit behind this. I really want to emphasize though this is a nuanced issue and data center power demand is driving consumer bills higher in some areas like the Mid-Atlantic. But this isn't the case nationwide and really depends on a number of factors like data center density in the region and whether it's a regulated or unregulated utility market. But public perception has really turned against data centers and local pushback is causing planned data centers to be canceled or delayed. And you're seeing similar opinions both across political affiliations and across different regional areas. So yes, in some areas data centers have impacted consumer power bills, but in other areas that hasn't been the case. But this is good news though, for companies that offer off-grid power generation, who are able to completely insulate consumers because they're not connecting to the grid. Stephen, the multipolar theme was already strong last year. Why has it become even more central for 2026? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, you're right. It was strong in 2025. In fact, of our 21 categories of stocks, the top three performing were really driven by multipolar world dynamics. Let me walk through three areas of focus that we have for multipolar world in 2026. Number one is an aggressive U.S. policy agenda, and that's going to show up in a number of ways. But examples here would be major efforts to reshore manufacturing, a real evolution in military spending towards a wide range of newer military technologies, reducing power prices and inflation more broadly. And also really focusing on trying to eliminate dependency on China for rare earths. So that's the first big area of focus. The second is around AI technology transfer. And this is quite closely linked to rare earths. So here's the dynamic as we think about U.S. and China. China has a commanding position in rare earths. The United States has a leading position in access to computational resources. Those two are going to interplay quite a bit in 2026. So, for example, we have a view that in 2026, when those American models, these LLMs achieve these step changes up in capabilities that China cannot match, we think that it's very likely that China may exert pressure in terms of rare earths access in order to force the transfer of technology, the best AI technology to China. So that's an example of this linkage between AI and rare earths. And the last dynamic, I'd say broadly, would be the politics of energy, which you described quite well. I think that's going to be a big multipolar world dynamic everywhere around the world. A focus on how much of an impact our data centers are having – whether it's water access, price of power, et cetera. What are the impacts to jobs? And that's going to show up in a variety of policy actions in 2026. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Stephen Byrd: So Michelle, the last of our four key themes is societal shifts, and you walked through that briefly before. This expands on our prior longevity work. What does this broader framing capture? Michelle Weaver: Societal shifts will include important topics from longevity still. So, things like preparing for an aging population and AI in healthcare. But the expansion really lets us look at the full age range of the demographic spectrum, and we can also now start thinking about what younger consumers want. It also allows us to look at other income based demographics, like what's been going on with the K-economy, which has been an important theme around the world. And a really critical element, though, of this new theme is AI's impact on the labor market. Last year we did a big piece called The Future of Work. And in it we estimated that around 90 percent of jobs would be impacted by AI. I want to be clear: That's not to say that 90 percent of jobs would be lost by AI or automated by AI. But rather some task or some component of that job could be automated or augmented using AI. And so you might have, you know, the jobs of today looking very different five years from now. Workers are adaptable and, and we do expect many to reskill as part of this evolving job landscape. We've talked about the evolution of our key themes, but now let's focus a little on the results. So how have these themes actually performed from an investment standpoint? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. I was very happy with the results in 2025. When we looked across our categories of thematic stocks; we have 21 categories of thematic stocks within our four big themes. On average in 2025, our thematic stock categories outperformed MSCI World by 16 percent and the S&P 500 by 27 percent respectively. So, I was very happy with that result. When you look at the breakdown, it is interesting in terms of the categories, you did really well. As I mentioned, the top three were driven by mult

10 min
HACE 5 DÍAS

Why Latin America’s ‘Trifecta’ Could Reshape Global Portfolios

Our Chief LatAm Equity Strategist Nikolaj Lippmann discusses why Latin America may be approaching a rare “Spring” moment – where geopolitics, peaking rates, and elections set the scene for an investment-led growth cycle with meaningful market upside. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Nikolaj Lippmann: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Nikolaj Lippmann, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Latin America Equity Strategist. If you ever felt like Latin America is too complicated to follow, today's episode is for you. It's Monday, February 9th at 10am in New York. The big idea in our research is simple. Latin America is facing a trifecta of change that could set up a very different investment story from what investors have gotten used to. We could be moving towards an investment or CapEx cycle in the shadow of the global AI CapEx cycle, and this is a stark departure from prior consumer cycles in Latin America. Latin America's GDP today is about $6 trillion. Yet Latin American equities account for just about 80 basis points of the main global index MSCI All Country World Equity benchmark. In plain English, it's really easy for investors to overlook such a vast region. But the narrative seems to be changing thanks to three key factors. Number one, shifting geopolitics in this increasingly global multipolar world. We can see this with trade rules, security priorities, supply chains that are getting rewritten. Capital and investment will often move alongside with these changing rules. Clearly, as we can all see U.S. priorities in Latin America have shifted, and with them have local priorities and incentives. Second, interest rates may very well have been peaking and could decline into [20]26. When borrowing cost fall, it just becomes easier to fund factories, infrastructure, AI, and expansion into all kinds of different investment, which become more feasible. What is more, we see a big shift in the size and growth of domestic capital markets in almost every country in Latin America – something that happens courtesy of reform and is certainly new versus prior cycles. And finally, elections that could lead to an important policy shift across Latin America. We see signs of movement towards greater fiscal responsibility in many sites of the region, with upcoming elections in Colombia and Brazil. We have already seen new policy makers in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, depart from prior populism. So, when we put all this together -- geopolitics, rates and local election -- you get to the core of our thesis, a possible LatAm spring; meaning a decisive break from the status quo towards fiscal consolidation, monetary easing, and structural reform. And we think that that could be a potential move that restores some confidence and attracts private capital. In our spring scenario, we see interest rates coming down, not rising in a scenario of higher growth to 6 percent in Brazil and Mexico, 7 percent in Argentina, and just 4 percent in Chile. This helps the rerating of the region. There's another powerful factor that I think many investors overlook, and that is a key difference versus prior cycles, as already mentioned. And that's the domestic savings. Local portfolios today are much bigger, much deeper capital markets, and they're heavily skewed towards fixed income. 75 percent of Latin American portfolios are in fixed income versus 25 percent in equity. In Brazil, the number's even higher with 90 to 95 percent in fixed income. If this shifts even halfway towards equity, it can deepen and support local capital markets; it supports valuation. For the region as a whole, sectors most impacted by this transformation would be Financial Services, Energy, Utilities, IT and Healthcare. Up until now, I think Latin America has been viewed as a region where a lot could go wrong. We asked the reverse question. What could go right? If the trifecta lines up: geopolitics, peaking rates and elections that enable a more investment friendly policy and CapEx cycle, Latin America could shift from being seen mainly as a supply of commodities and labor to far more investment driven engine of growth. That's why investors should put Latin America on the radar now and not wait until spring is already in full bloom. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

5 min
6 FEB

For Better or Warsh

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. Andrew Sheets: Mm-hmm. Seth Carpen

12 min
5 FEB

The Fed’s Course Under a New Chair

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the path for U.S. interest rates after the nomination of Kevin Warsh for next Fed chair. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today we'll be talking about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting that occurred last week. It's Thursday, February 5th at 8:30 am in New York. So, Mike, last week we had the first Federal Open Market Committee meeting of 2026. What were your general impressions from the meeting? And how did it compare to what you had thought going in? Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think that the main question for markets was how hawkish a hold or how dovish a hold would this be. As you know, it was widely expected the Fed would be on hold. The incoming data had been fairly solid. Inflation wasn't all that concerning, and most of the employment data suggested things had stabilized. So, it was clear they were going to pause. The question was would they pause or would they be on pause, right? And in our view, it was more of a dovish hold. And by that, it suggests to us, or they suggested to us, I should say, that they still have an easing bias and rates should generally move lower over time. So, that really was the key takeaway for me. Would they signal a prolonged pause and perhaps suggest that they might be done with the easing cycle? Or would they say, yes, we've stopped for now, but we still expect to cut rates later? Perhaps when inflation comes down and therefore kind of retain a dovish bias or an easing bias in the policy rate path. So, to me, that was the main takeaway. Matthew Hornbach: Of course, as we all know, there are supposed to be some personnel changes on the committee this year. And Chair Powell was asked several questions to try to get at the future of this committee and what he himself was going to do personally. What was your impression of his response and what were the takeaways from that part of the press conference? Michael Gapen: Well, clearly, he's been reluctant to, say, pre-announce what he may do when his term is chair ends in May. But his term as a governor extends into 2028. So, he has options. He could leave normally that's what happens. But he could also stay and he's never really made his intentions clear on that part. I think for maybe personal or professional reasons. But he has his own; he has his own reasons and, and that's fine. And I do think the recent subpoena by the DOJ has changed the calculus in that. At least my own view is that it makes it more likely that he stays around. It may be easier for him to act in response to that subpoena by being on staff. It's a request for additional information; he needs access to that information. I think you could construct a reasonable scenario under which, ‘Well, I have to see this through, therefore, I may stay around.’ But maybe he hasn't come to that conclusion yet. And then stepping back, that just complicates the whole picture in the sense that we now know the administration has put forward Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair. Will he be replacing the seat that Jay Powell currently sits in? Will he be replacing the seat that Stephen Myron is sitting in? So yes, we have a new name being put forward, but it's not exactly clear where that slot will be; and what the composition of the committee will look like. Matthew Hornbach: Well, you beat me to the punch on mentioning Kevin Warsh… Michael Gapen: I kind of assumed that's where you were going. Matthew Hornbach: It was going to be my next question. I'm curious as to what you think that means for Fed policy later this year, if anything. And what it might mean more medium term? Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, first of all, congratulations to Mr. Warsh on the appointment. In terms of what we think it means for the outlook for the Fed's reaction function and interest rate policy, we doubt that there will be a material change in the Fed's reaction function. His previous public remarks don't suggest his views on interest rate policy are substantively outside the mainstream, or at least certainly the collective that's already in the FOMC. Some people would prefer not to ease. The majority of the committee still sees a couple more rate cuts ahead of them. Warsh is generally aligned with that, given his public remarks. But then also all the reserve bank presidents have been renominated. There's an ongoing Supreme Court case about the ability of the administration to fire Lisa Cook. If that is not successful, then Kevin Warsh will arrive in an FOMC where there's 16 other people who all get a say. So, the chair's primary responsibility is to build a consensus; to herd the cats, so to speak. To communicate to markets and communicate to the public. So, if Mr. Warsh wanted to deviate substantially from where the committee was, he would have to build a consensus to do that. So, we think, at least in the near term, the reaction function won't change. It'll be driven by the data, whether the labor market holds up, whether inflation, decelerates as expected. So, we don't look for material change. Now you also asked about the medium term. I do think where his views differ, at least with respect to current Fed policy is on the size of the Fed's balance sheet and its footprint in financial markets. So, he has argued over time for a much smaller balance sheet. He's called the Fed's balance sheet bloated. He has said that it creates distortions in markets, which mean interest rates could be higher than they otherwise would be. And so, I think if there is a substantive change in Fed policy going forward, it could be there on the balance sheet. But what I would just say on that is it'll likely take a lot of coordination with Treasury. It will likely take changes in rules, regulations, the supervisory landscape. Because if you want to reduce the balance sheet further without creating volatility in financial markets, you have to find a way to reduce bank demand for it. So, this will take time, it'll take study, it'll take patience. I wouldn't look for big material changes right out of the box. So Matt, what I'd like to do is, if I could flip it back to you, Warsh was certainly one of the expected candidates, right? So, his name is not a surprise. But as we knew financial markets, one day we're thinking it'd be one candidate. The next day it'd be thinking at the next it was somebody else. How did you see markets reacting to the announcement of Mr. Warsh? For the next Fed share, and then maybe put that in context of where markets were coming out of the last FOMC meeting. Matthew Hornbach: Yeah, so the markets that moved the most were not the traditional, very large macro markets like the interest rate marketplace or the foreign exchange market. The markets that moved the most were the prediction markets. These newer markets that offer investors the ability to wager on different outcomes for a whole variety of events around the world. But when it comes to the implications of a Kevin Warsh led Fed – for the bigger macro markets like interest rates and currencies, the question really comes down to how? If the Fed's balance sheet policies are going to take a while to implement, those are not going to have an immediate effect, at least not an effect that is easily seen with the human eye. But it's other types of policy change in terms of his communication policy, for example. One of the points that you raised in your recent note, Mike, was how Kevin Warsh favored less communication than perhaps some of the recent, Federal Open Market Committees had with the public. And so, if there is some kind of a retrenchment from the type of over-communication to the marketplace, from either committee members or non-voters that could create a bit more volatility in the marketplace. Of course, the Fed has been one of the central banks that does not like to surprise the markets in terms of its monetary policy making. And so, that contrasts with other central banks in the G10. For example, the Swiss National Bank tends to surprise quite a lot. The Reserve Bank of Australia tends to surprise markets. More often, certainly than the Fed does. So, to the extent that there's some change in communication strategy going forward that could lead to more volatile interest rate in currency markets. And that then could cause investors to demand more risk premium to invest in those markets. If you previously were comfortable owning a longer duration Treasury security because you felt very comfortable with the future path of Fed policy, then a Kevin Warsh led Fed – if it decides to change the communication strategy – could naturally lead investors to demand more risk premium in their investments. And that, of course, would lead to a steeper U.S. Treasury curve, all else equal. So that would be one of the main effects that I could see happen in markets as a result of some potential changes that the Fed may consider going forward. So, Mike, with that said, this was the first FOMC meeting of the year, and the next meeting arrives in March. I guess we'll just have to wait between now and then to see if the Fed is on hold for a longer period of time or whether or not the data convinced them to move as soon as the March meeting. Thanks for taking time to talk, Mike. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

11 min
4 FEB

Affordability Takes Center Stage in U.S. Policy

Affordability is back in focus in D.C. after the brief U.S. shutdown. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore look at some proposals in play. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the continued focus on affordability, and how to parse signals from the noise on different policy proposals coming out of D.C. It's Wednesday, February 4th at 10am in New York. Ariana Salvatore: President Trump signed a bill yesterday, ending the partial government shutdown that had been in place for the past few days. But affordability is still in focus. It's something that our clients have been asking about a lot. And we might hear more news when the president delivers his State of the Union address on February 24th and possibly delivers his budget proposal, which should be around the same time. So, needless to say, it's still a topic that investors have been asking us about and one that we think warrants a little bit more scrutiny. Michael Zezas: But maybe before we get into how to think about these affordability policies, we should hit on what we're seeing as the real pressure points in the debate. Ariana, you recently did some work with our economists. What were some of your findings? Ariana Salvatore: So, Heather Berger and the rest of our U.S. econ[omics] team highlighted three groups in particular that are feeling more of the affordability crunch, so to speak. That's lower income consumers, younger consumers, and renters or recent home buyers. Lower income households have experienced persistently higher inflation and more recently weaker wage growth. Younger consumers were hit hardest when inflation peaked and are more exposed to higher borrowing costs. And lastly, renters and recent buyers are dealing with much higher shelter burdens that aren't fully captured in standard inflation metrics. Now, the reason I laid all that out is because these are also the cohorts where the president's approval ratings have seen the largest declines. Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it makes sense that those are the groups where the administration might be targeting some of these affordability initiatives. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. But that's not the only variable that they're solving for. Broadly speaking, we think that the president and Republicans in Congress really need to solve for four things when it comes to affordability policies. First, targeting these quote right cohorts, which are those, as we mentioned, that have either moved furthest away from the president politically, or have been the most under pressure. Second feasibility, right? So even if Republicans can agree on certain policies, getting them procedurally through Congress can still be a challenge. Third timing – just because the legislative calendar is so tight ahead of the November elections. And fourth speed of disbursement. So basically, how long it would take these policies to translate to an uplift for consumers ahead of the elections. Michael Zezas: So, thinking through each of these constraints, starting with how easy it might be to actually get some of these policies done, most of the policies that are being proposed on the housing side require congressional approval. In terms of these cohorts, it seems like these policies are most likely to focus on – that seems aimed at lower-income and younger voters. And in terms of timing, we know the legislative calendar is tight ahead of the midterms, and the policy makers want to pursue things that can be enacted quickly and show up for voters as soon as possible. Ariana Salvatore: So, using that lens, we think the most realistic near-term tools are probably mostly executive actions. Think agency directives and potential changes to tariff policy. If we do see a second reconciliation bill emerge, it will probably move more slowly but likely cover some of those housing related tax credit changes. But of course, not all these policies would move the needle in the same way. What do we think matters most from a macro perspective? Michael Zezas: So, what our economists have argued is that the affordability policies being discussed – tax credits subsidies, payment pauses – they could be meaningful at a micro level for targeted households, but for the most part, they don't materially change the macro outlook. The exception might be tariffs; that probably has the broadest and most sustained impact on affordability because it directly affects inflation. Lower tariffs would narrow inflation differentials across cohorts, support real income growth and make it easier for the Fed to cut rates. Ariana Salvatore: Right. And just to add a finer point on that, I think directionally speaking, this is where we've seen the administration moving in recent months. Remember, towards the end of last year, the Trump administration placed an exemption on a lot of agricultural imports. And just the other day, we heard news that the trade deal with India was finalized reducing the overall tariff rate to 18 percent from about 50 percent prior. Michael Zezas: Okay. So, putting it all together for what investors need to know. We see three key takeaways. First, even absent new policy, our economists expect some improvement in affordability this year as inflation decelerates and rate cuts come into view. And specifically, when we talk about improvements in affordability, what our economists are referring to is income growth consistently outpacing inflation, lowering required monthly payments. Second, most proposed affordability policies are unlikely to generate the meaningful macro growth impulse, so investors shouldn't overreact to headline announcements. And third, the cohort divergence matters for equities. Pressure on lower income in younger consumers helps explain why parts of consumer discretionary have lagged. While higher income exposed segments have remained more resilient. So, if inflation continues to cool, especially via tariff relief, that's what would broaden the consumer recovery and potentially create better returns for some of the sectors in the equity markets that have underperformed. Ariana Salvatore: Right, and from the policy side, I would say this probably isn't the last time we'll be talking about affordability. It's politically salient. The policy responses are likely targeted and incremental, and this should continue to remain a top focus for voters heading into November. Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And 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.

6 min

Ver todo (1.6 k)

TRÁILER

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