Our analysts Adam Jonas and Alex Straton discuss how tech-savvy young professionals are influencing retail, brand loyalty, mobility trends, and the broader technology landscape through their evolving consumer choices.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Embodied AI and Humanoid Robotics Analyst. 

Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Softlines Retail and Brands Analyst. 

Adam Jonas: Today we're unpacking our annual summer intern survey, a snapshot of how emerging professionals view fashion retail, brands, and mobility – amid all the AI advances.

It is Tuesday, August 26th at 9am in New York.

They may not manage billions of dollars yet, but Morgan Stanley's summer interns certainly shape sentiment on the street, including Wall Street. From sock heights to sneaker trends, Gen Z has thoughts. So, for the seventh year, we ran a survey of our summer interns in the U.S. and Europe. The survey involved more than 500 interns based in the U.S., and about 150 based in Europe. 

So, Alex, let’s start with what these interns think about fashion and athletic footwear. What was your biggest takeaway from the intern survey? 

Alex Straton: So, across the three categories we track in the survey – that's apparel, athletic footwear, and handbags – there was one clear theme, and that's market fragmentation. 

So, for each category specifically, we observed share of the top three to five brands falling over time. And what that means is these once dominant brands, as consumer mind share is falling – and it likely makes them lower growth margin and multiple businesses over time. At the same time, you have smaller brands being able to captivate consumer attention more effectively, and they have staying power in a way that they haven't necessarily historically. I think one other piece I would just add; the rise of e-commerce and social media against a low barrier to entry space like apparel and footwear means it's easier to build a brand than it has been in the past. 

And the intern survey shows us this likely continues as this generation is increasingly inclined to shop online. Their social media usage is heavy, and they heavily rely on AI to inform, you know, their purchases.

So, the big takeaway for me here isn't that the big are getting bigger in my space. It's actually that the big are probably getting smaller as new players have easier avenues to exist. 

Adam Jonas: Net apparel spending intentions rose versus the last survey, despite some concern around deteriorating demand for this category into the back half. What do you make of that result? 

Alex Straton: I think there were a bit conflicting takes from the survey when I look at all the answers together. So yes, apparel spending intentions are higher year-over-year, but at the same time, clothing and footwear also ranked as the second most category that interns would pull back on should prices go up. 

So let me break this down. On the higher spending intentions, I think timing played a huge role and a huge factor in the results. So, we ran this in July when spending in our space clearly accelerated. That to me was a function of better weather, pent up demand from earlier in the quarter, a potential tariff pull forward as headlines were intensifying, and then also typical back to school spending. 

So, in short, I think intention data is always very heavily tethered to the moment that it's collected and think that these factors mean, you know, it would've been better no matter what we've seen it in our space. 

I think on the second piece, which is interns pulling back spend should prices go up. That to me speaks to the high elasticity in this category, some of the highest in all of consumer discretionary. And that's one of the few drivers informing our cautious demand view on this space as we head into the back half. 

So, in summary on that piece, we think prices going higher will become more apparent this month onwards, which in tandem with high inventory and a competitive setup means sales could falter in the group. So, we still maintain this cautious demand view as we head into the back half, though our interns were pretty rosy in the survey. 

Adam Jonas: Interesting. So, interns continue to invest in tech ecosystems with more than 90 percent owning multiple devices. What does this interconnectedness mean for companies in your space? 

Alex Straton: This somewhat connects to the fragmentation theme I mentioned where I think digital shopping has somewhat functioned as a great equalizer in the space and big picture. I interpret device reliance as a leading indicator that this market diversification likely continues as brands fight to capture mobile mind share. 

The second read I'd have on this development is that it means brands must evolve to have an omnichannel presence. So that's both in store and online, and preferably one that's experiential focus such that this generation can create content around it. That's really the holy grail. 

And then maybe lastly, the third takeaway on this is that it's going to come at a cost. You, you can't keep eyeballs without spend. And historical brick and mortar retailers spend maybe 5 to 10 percent of sales on marketing, with digital requiring more than physical. 

So now I think what's interesting is that brands in my space with momentum seem to have to spend more than 10 percent of sales on marketing just to maintain popularity. So that's a cost pressure. We're not sure where these businesses will necessarily recoup if all of them end up getting the joke and continuing to invest just to drive mind share.  

Adam, turning to a topic that's been very hot this year in your area of expertise. That's humanoid robots. Interns were optimistic here with more than 60 percent believing they'll have many viable use cases and about the same number thinking they'll replace many human jobs. Yet fewer expect wide scale adoption within five years. 

What do you think explains this cautious enthusiasm? 

Adam Jonas: Well actually Alex, I think it's pretty smart. There is room to be optimistic. But there's definitely room to be cautious in terms of the scale of adoption, particularly over five years. And we're talking about humanoid robots. We're talking about a new species that's being created, right? This is bigger than just – will it replace our job? 

I mean, I don't think it's an exaggeration to ask what does this do to the concept of being human? You know, how does this affect our children and future generations? This is major generational planetary technology that I think is very much comparable to electricity, the internet. Some people say the wheel, fire, I don't know. 

We're going to see it happen and start to propagate over the next few years, where even if we don't have widespread adoption in terms of dealing with it on average hour of a day or an average day throughout the planet, you're going to see the technology go from zero to one as these machines learn by watching human behavior. Going from teleoperated instruction to then fully autonomous instruction, as the simulation stack and the compute gets more and more advanced. 

We're now seeing some industry leaders say that robots are able to learn by watching videos. And so, this is all happening right now, and it's happening at the pace of geopolitical rivalry, Sino-U.S. rivalry and terra cap, you know, big, big corporate competitive rivalry as well, for capital in the human brain. 

So, we are entering an unprecedented – maybe precedented in the last century – perhaps unprecedented era of technological and scientific discovery that I think you got to go back to the European and American Enlightenment or the Italian Renaissance to have any real comparisons to what we're about to see. 

Alex Straton: So, keeping with this same theme, interns showed strong interest in household robots with 61 percent expressing some interest and 24 percent saying they're very or extremely interested. I'm going to take you back to your prior coverage here, Adam. Could this translate into demand for AI driven mobility or smart infrastructure? 

Adam Jonas: Well, Alex, you were part of my prior coverage once upon a time. We were blessed with having you on our team for a year, and then you left me… 

Alex Straton: My golden era. 

Adam Jonas: But you came back, you came back. And you've done pretty well. 

So, so look, imagine it's 1903, the Wright Brothers just achieved first flight over the sands at Kitty Hawk. And then I were to tell you, ‘Oh yeah, in a few years we're going to have these planes used in World War I. And then in 1914, we'd have the first airline going between Tampa and St. Petersburg.’ You'd say, ‘You're crazy,’ right? 

The beauty of the intern survey is it gives the Morgan Stanley research department and our clients an opportunity to engage that surface area with that arising – not just the business leader – but that arising tech adopter. These are the people, these are the men and women that are going to kind of really adopt this much, much faster. And then, you know, our generation will get dragged into it eventually. So, I think it says; I think 61 percent expressing even some interest. And then 24 [percent], I guess, you know… 

The vast majority, three quarters saying, ‘Yeah, this is happening.’ That's a sign I think, to our clients and capital market providers and regulators to say, ‘This won't be stopped. And if we don't do it, someone else will.’ 

Alex Straton: So, another topic, Generative AI. It should come as no surprise really, that 95 percent of interns use that tool monthly, far ahead of the general population. How do you see this shaping future expectations for mobility and automation? 

Adam Jonas: So, this is what's interesting is people have asked kinda, ‘What's that Gen AI moment,’ if you will, for mobility? Well, it really is Gen AI. Large Language Models and the technologies that develop the Large Language Models and that recursive learning, don't just affect the knowledge economy, right. Or writing or research report generation or intelligence search. 

It actually also turns video clips and physical information into tokens that can then create and take what would be a normal suburban city street and beautiful weather with smiling faces or whatever, and turn it into a chaotic scene of, you know, traffic and weather and all sorts of infrastructure issues and potholes. 

And that can be done in this digital twin, in an omniverse. A CEO recently told me when you drive a car with advanced, you know, Level 2+ autonomy, like full self-driving, you're not just driving in three-dimensional space. You're also playing a video game training a robot in a digital avatar. 

So again, I think that there is quite a lot of overlap between Gen AI and the fact that our interns are so much further down that curve of adoption than the broader public – is probably a hint to us is we got to keep listening to them, when we move into the physical realm of AI too. 

Alex Straton: So, no more driving tests for the 16-year-olds of the future... 

Adam Jonas: If you want to. Like, I tell my kids, if you want to drive, that's cool. Manual transmission, Italian sports cars, that's great. People still ride horses too. But it's just for the privileged few that can kind of keep these things in stables. 

Alex Straton: So, let me turn this into implications for companies here. Gen Z is tech fluent, open to disruption? How should autos and shared mobility providers rethink their engagement strategies with this generation? 

Adam Jonas: Well, that's a huge question. And think of the irony here. As we bring in this world of fake humans and humanoid robots, the scarcest resource is the human brain, right? So, this battle for the human mind is – it’s incredible. And we haven't seen this really since like the Sputnik era or real height of the Cold War. We're seeing it now play out and our clients can read about some of these signing bonuses for these top AI and robotics talent being paid by many companies. It kind of makes, you know, your eyes water, even if you're used to the world of sports and soccer, . I think we're going to keep seeing more of that for the next few years because we need more brains, we need more stem. I think it's going to do; it has the potential to do a lot for our education system in the United States and in the West broadly. 

Alex Straton: So, we've covered a lot around what the next generation is interested in and, and their opinion. I know we do this every year, so it'll be exciting to see how this evolves over time. And how they adapt. It's been great speaking with you today, Adam. 

Adam Jonas: Absolutely. Alex, thanks for your insights. And to our listeners, stay curious, stay disruptive, and we'll catch you next time. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Opinions by market pundits have been flying since Fed Chair Powell’s remarks at Jackson Hole last week, leaving the door open for interest rate cuts as soon as in September. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains his continued call for a bullish outlook on U.S. stocks.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the Fed’s new signaling on policy and what it means for stocks. 

It's Monday, August 25th at 11:30am in New York.   

So, let’s get after it. 

Over the past few months, the markets started to anticipate a Fed pivot to a more dovish stance this fall. More specifically, the bond market started to price in a very high likelihood for the Fed to start cutting interest rates again in September. Equities have taken their cues from this signaling in the bond market by trading higher through most of the summer – despite lingering concerns about tariffs, international conflicts and valuation. I have remained bullish throughout this period given our focus on historically strong earnings revisions and the view that the Fed’s next move would be to cut rates even if the timing remained uncertain.  

Last week, the Fed held its annual symposium in Jackson Hole where they typically discuss near term policy intentions as well as larger considerations for their strategic policy framework. We learned two key things.  

First, the Fed seems closer to cutting rates in September than the last time Chair Powell spoke publicly. This change also comes after a week in which the markets were left wondering if he would remain more hawkish until inflation data confirmed what markets have already figured out. Clearly, Powell leaned more dovish. And with markets a bit nervous going into his speech on Friday morning, equities rallied sharply the rest of the day.  

Second, the Fed also indicated that it will no longer target average inflation at 2 percent. Instead, it will make 2 percent the target at all times. This means the Fed will not tolerate inflation above or below target to manage the average like it did in 2021-22. It also suggests a more hawkish Fed should the economy recover more strongly than is currently expected or inflation reaccelerates.  

From my standpoint, this is bullish for stocks over the next few weeks and markets can now fully anticipate Fed cuts in September. However, I see a few risks for September and October worth thinking about as the S&P 500 approaches our longstanding 6500 target. 

The first risk is the Fed decides to not cut after all because either growth is better or inflation is higher than expected. That would be worth a small correction in stocks given the high likelihood of a cut that is now priced in. 

The second risk is the Fed cuts but the bond market decides it’s being too carefree about inflation and longer term bonds sell off. A sharp rise in 10-year Treasury yields would likely elicit a bigger correction in stocks until the Treasury and Fed regain control.  

Here’s the important message I want to leave you with. A major bear market ended in April, and a new bull market began. 

It’s rare for new bull markets to last only four months and more likely they last one-to-two years, at a minimum. What that means is that any dips we get this fall are likely to be buying opportunities for longer term investors. What gives us even more confidence in that statement is that earnings revisions continue to move sharply higher. The Fed uses economic data to make its decisions and that data is generally backward looking. Equity investors look at company data and guidance which is forward looking. This fact alone explains the wide divergence between equity prices and Fed decisions, which tend to be late and after equity markets have already figured out what’s going to happen rather than what’s in the past.  

Bottom line, I remain bullish on the next 12 months given what companies and equity markets are telling us.  

Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Credit spreads are at the lowest levels in more than two decades, indicating health of the corporate sector. However, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets highlights two forces investors should monitor moving forward.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. 

Today – what to make of credit spreads as they hit some of their lowest levels in over 20 years? And what could change that? 

It's Friday, August 22nd at 2pm in London. 

The credit spread is the difference between the higher yield an investor gets for lending to a company relative to the government. This difference in yield is a reflection of perceived differences in risk. And bond investors spend a lot of time thinking, debating, and trading what they think it should be. 

It increases as the rating of a company falls and usually increases for bonds with longer maturities relative to shorter ones. The reason one invests in credit is to hopefully pick up some extra yield relative to buying a government bond and do so without taking too much additional risk. 

The challenge today is that these spreads are very low – or tight, in market parlance. In the U.S. corporate bonds with Investment Grade ratings only pay about three-quarters of a percent more than U.S. government bonds of the same maturity. It's a similar difference between the yield on companies in Europe and the yield on German debt, the safest benchmark in Europe. 

And so, in the U.S. these are the lowest spread levels since 1998, and in Europe, they're the lowest levels since 2007. The relevant question would seem to be, well, what changes this? 

One way of thinking about valuations in investing – and spreads are certainly a measure of valuation – is whether levels are so extreme that there's not really any precedent for them being sustained for an extended period of time.  But for credit, this is a tricky argument. Spreads have been lower than their current levels. They were that way in the mid 1990s in the U.S., and they were that way in the mid 2000s in Europe, and they stayed that way for several years. And if we go back even further in time to the 1950s? Well, it looks like U.S. spreads were lower still. 

Another way to think about risk premiums – and spreads are also certainly a measure of risk premium – is: does it compensate you for the extra risk? And again, even with spreads quite low, this is tricky. Only making an extra three-quarters of a percent to invest in corporate bonds feels like a pretty miserly amount to both the casual observer and yours truly, a seasoned credit professional. But when we run the numbers, the extra losses that you've actually experienced for investing in Investment Grade bonds over time relative to governments, it's actually been about half of that. And that holds up over a relatively long period of time. 

And so, while spreads are very low by historical standards, extreme valuations don't always correct quickly. They often need another force to impact them. With credit currently benefiting from strong investor demand, good overall yields, and a better borrowing trajectory than governments, we'd be watching two dynamics for this to change. 

First weaker growth than we have at the moment would argue strongly that the risk premium and corporate debt needs to be higher. While the levels have varied, credit spreads have always been significantly wider than current levels in a U.S. recession; and that's looking out over a century of data. And so, if the odds of a recession were to go up, credit, we think, would have to take notice. 

Second, the fiscal trajectory for governments is currently worse than corporates, which argues for a tighter than normal corporate spread. And the recent U.S. budget bill only further reinforced this by increasing long-term borrowing for the U.S. government, while extending corporate tax cuts to the private sector. But the risk would be that companies start to take these benefits and throw caution to the wind and start to borrow more again – to invest or buy other companies. 

We haven't seen this type of animal spirit yet. But history would suggest that if growth holds up, it's usually just a matter of time. 

Thank you as always for listening. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, please let us know by leaving a review wherever you found us. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

From China’s rapid electric vehicle adoption to the rise of robotaxis, humanoids, and flying vehicles, our analysts Adam Jonas and Tim Hsiao discuss how AI is revolutionizing the global auto industry.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas. I lead Morgan Stanley's Research Department's efforts on embodied AI and humanoid robots. 

Tim Hsiao: And I'm Tim Hsiao, Greater China Auto Analyst. 

Adam Jonas: Today – how the global auto industry is evolving from horsepower to brainpower with the help of AI. 

It's Thursday, August 21st at 9am in New York. 

Tim Hsiao: And 9pm in Hong Kong. 

Adam Jonas: From Detroit to Stuttgart to Shanghai, automakers are making big investments in AI. In fact, AI is the engine behind what we think will be a $200 billion self-driving vehicle market by 2030. Tim, you believe that nearly 30 percent of vehicles sold globally by 2030 will be equipped with Level 2+ smart driving features that can control steering, acceleration, braking, and even some hands-off driving. We expect China to account for 60 percent of these vehicles by 2030. 

What's driving this rapid adoption in China and how does it compare to the rest of the world? 

Tim Hsiao: China has the largest EV market globally, and the country’s EV sales are not only making up over 50 percent of the new car sales locally in China but also accounting for over 50 percent of the global EV sales. As a result, the market is experiencing intense competition. And the car makers are keen to differentiate with the technological innovation, to which smart driving serve[s] as the most effective means. This together with the AI breakthrough enables China to aggressively roll out Level 2+ urban navigation on autopilot. In the meantime, Chinese government support, and cost competitive supply chains also helps. 

So, we are looking for China's the adoption of Level 2+ smart driving on passenger vehicle to reach 25 percent by end of this year, and 60 percent by 2030 versus 6 percent and 17 percent for the rest of the world during the same period. 

Adam Jonas: How is China balancing an aggressive rollout with safety and compliance, especially as it moves towards even greater vehicle automation going forward? 

Tim Hsiao: Right. That's a great and a relevant question because over the years, China has made significant strides in developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. For example, China was already implementing its strategies for innovation and the development of autonomous vehicles in 2022 and had proved several auto OEM to roll out Level 3 pilot programs in 2023. 

Although China has been implementing stricter requirements since early this year; for example, banning terms like autonomous driving in advertisement and requiring stricter testing, we still believe more detailed industry standard and regulatory measures will facilitate development and adoption of Level 2+ Smart driving. And this is important to prevent, you know, the bad money from driving out goods. 

Adam Jonas: One way people might encounter this technology is through robotaxis. Now, robotaxis are gaining traction in China's major cities, as you've been reporting. What's the outlook for Level 4 adoption and how would this reshape urban mobility? 

Tim Hsiao: The size of Level 4+ robotaxi fleet stays small at the moment in China, with less than 1 percent penetration rate. But we've started seeing accelerating roll out of robotaxi operation in major cities since early this year. So, by 2030, we are looking for Level 4+ robotaxis to account for 8 percent of China's total taxi and ride sharing fleet size by 2030. So, this adoption is facilitated by robust regulatory frameworks, including designated test zones and the clear safety guidance. We believe the proliferation of a Level 4 robotaxi will eventually reshape the urban mobility by meaningfully reducing transportation costs, alleviating traffic congestion through optimized routing and potentially reducing accidents. 

So, Adam, that's the outlook for China. But looking at the global trends beyond China, what are the biggest global revenue opportunities in your view? Is that going to be hardware, software, or something else? 

Adam Jonas: We are entering a new scientific era where the AI world, the software world is coming into far greater mental contact, and physical contact, with the hardware world and the physical world of manufacturing. And it's being driven by corporate rivalry amongst not just the terra cap, you know, super large cap companies, but also between public and private companies and competition. And then it's being also fueled by geopolitical rivalry and social issues as well, on a global scale. So, we're actually creating an entirely new species. This robotic species that yes, is expressed in many ways on our roads in China and globally – but it's just the beginning. 

In terms of whether it's hardware, software, or something else – it’s all the above. What we've done with a across 40 sectors at Morgan Stanley is to divide the robot, whether it flies, drives, walks, crawls, whatever – we divide it into the brain and the body. And the brain can be divided into sensors and memory and compute and foundational models and simulation. The body can be broken up into actuators, the kind of motor neuron capability, the connective tissue, the batteries. And then there's integrators, that kind of do it all – the hardware, the software, the integration, the training, the data, the compute, the energy, the infrastructure. And so, what's so exciting about this opportunity for our clients is there's no one way to do it. There's no one region to do it. 

So, stick with us folks. There's a lot of – not just revenue opportunities – but alpha-generating opportunities as well. 

Tim Hsiao: We are seeing OEMs pivot from cars to humanoids and the electric vertical takeoff in the landing vehicles or EVOTL. Our listeners may have seen videos of these vehicles, which are like helicopters and are designed for urban air mobility. How realistic is this transition and what's the timeline for commercialization in your view? 

Adam Jonas: Anything that can be electrified will be electrified. Anything that can be automated will be automated. And the advancement of the state of the art in robotaxis and Level 2, Level 3, Level 4+ autonomy is directly transferrable to aviation.  There's obviously different regulatory and safety aspects of aviation, the air traffic control and the FAA and the equivalent regulatory bodies in Europe and in China that we will have to navigate, pun intended. But we will get there. We will get there ultimately because taking these technologies of automation and electronic and software defined technology into the low altitude economy will be a superior experience and a vastly cheaper experience. Point to point, on a per person, per passenger, per ton, per mile basis. 

So the Wright brothers can finally get excited that their invention from 1903, quite a long time ago, could finally, really change how humans live and move around the surface of the earth; even beyond, few tens of thousands of commercial and private aircraft that exist today. 

Tim Hsiao: The other key questions or key focus for investors is about the business model. So, until now, the auto industry has centered on the car ownership model. But with this new technology, we've been hearing a new model, as you just mentioned, the shared mobility and the autonomous driving fleet. Experts say it could be major disruptor in this sector. So, what's your take on how this will evolve in developed and emerging markets? 

Adam Jonas: Well, we think when you take autonomous and shared and electric mobility all the way – that transportation starts to resemble a utility like electricity or water or telecom; where the incremental mile traveled is maybe not quite free, but very, very, very low cost. Maybe only; the marginal cost of the mile traveled may only just be the energy required to deliver that mile, whether it's a renewable or non-renewable energy source. 

And the relationship with a car will change a lot. Individual vehicle ownership may go the way of horse ownership. There will be some, but it'll be seen as a nostalgic privilege, if you will, to own our own car. Others would say, I don't want to own my own car. This is crazy. Why would anyone want to do that? 

So, it's going to really transform the business model. It will, I think, change the structure of the industry in terms of the number of participants and what they do. Not everybody will win. Some of the existing players can win. But they might have to make some uncomfortable trade-offs for survival. And for others, the car – let’s say terrestrial vehicle modality may just be a small part of a broader robotics and then physical embodiment of AI that they're propagating; where auto will just be a really, really just one tendril of many, many dozens of different tendrils. So again, it's beginning now. This process will take decades to play out. But investors with even, you know, two-to-three or three-to-five-year view can take steps today to adjust their portfolios and position themselves. 

Tim Hsiao: The other key focus of the investor over the market would definitely be the geopolitical dynamics. So, Morgan Stanley expects to see a lot of what you call coopetition between global OEMs and the Chinese suppliers. What do you mean by coopetition and how do you see this dynamic playing out, especially in terms of the tech deflation? 

Adam Jonas: In order to reduce the United States dependency on China, we need to work with China. So, there's the irony here. Look, in my former life of being an auto analyst, every auto CEO I speak to does not believe that tariffs will limit Chinese involvement in the global auto industry, including onshore in the United States. 

Many are actively seeking to work with the Chinese through various structures to give them an on-ramp to move onshore to produce their, in many cases, superior products, but in U.S. factories on U.S. shores with American workers. That might lead to some, again, trade-offs. 

But our view within Morgan Stanley and working with you is we do think that there are on-ramps for Chinese hardware, Chinese knowhow, and Chinese electrical vehicle architecture, but while still being sensitive to the dual-purpose AI sensitivities around software and the AI networks that, for national security reasons, nations want to have more control over. And I actually am hopeful and seeing some signs already that that's going to happen and play out over the next six to 12 months. 

Tim Hsiao: I would say it's clear that the road ahead isn't just smarter; it’s faster, more connected, and increasingly autonomous. 

Adam Jonas: That's correct, Tim. I could not agree more. Thanks for joining me on the show today. 

Tim Hsiao: Thanks, Adam. Always a pleasure. 

Adam Jonas: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. Until next time, stay human and keep driving forward. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Markets have already priced in a Fed cut, given the mixed economic data in the July labor and CPI prints. Our Global Economist Arunima Sinha makes the case for why we’re standing by our baseline call for a higher bar for a rate cut.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha, Global Economist at Morgan Stanley. 

Today – our evaluation of the Fed's policy path following the July CPI print, and the broader implications for other central banks. 

It's Wednesday, August 20th at 2pm in New York. 

Our baseline call has been that the Fed will remain on hold this year, and last week’s CPI print has not changed that view. As we have noted, average tariff rates are still ramping up given the implementation delays, and so their cumulative effect on prices could be more lagged. Within the CPI print, tariff exposed goods other than apparel and autos continued to be firm. The surprise came in services inflation, which showed a reversal led by the uptick in airfares and hotel prices, which had been running in deflationary territory for much of this year. 

Some of the pushback against our view on inflation stepping up over the summer due to tariffs was that services disinflation could compensate. But as this print showed, that is unlikely to be the case. While we expect services inflation to continue to moderate, we think that services disinflation in the first half of [20]25 was exaggerated by weakness and volatile competence; and both core CPI and core PCE inflation are still at their pace from last year. 

So further acceleration in goods inflation from tariff effects over the summer would still see inflation remaining well above the Fed's target. After the July U.S. employment and CPI reports, the bar for the Fed to stay on hold in September is clearly higher.

So, what are the risks to our call? 

The road goes back to how the data and the Fed's reaction function will evolve over ahead of the September meeting. The August jobs report will be important. If it is a solid employment report, with a sequential acceleration in payrolls and the unemployment rate around 4.2 to 4.3 percent, then the Fed could likely look through the weakness in the May and June prints – attributing the slowdown to the uncertainty following Liberation Day and not representative of the underlying trend. 

If, however, there were to be a sharp drop off in the hiring pace, which is currently not being indicated by other job market indicators such as jolts or claims, then the Fed could take the view that the labor market is much weaker than anticipated and restart easing. There is also the possibility of a cut from a risk management perspective. 

Even with inflation running well above target, the Fed could take the July employment report as a clear signal of downside risk to the labor market and start the easing cycle. Messaging from Fed officials has so far been mixed, with some taking signal from the jobs data and others remaining less worried with the unemployment rate remaining low. 

Outside the U.S., central bank trajectories remain tightly linked to both the Fed's path and the evolving U.S. growth outlook. Recent labor market data have introduced downside risks to our ECB and BoJ calls. 

In Europe, if Euro strength persists and U.S. recession risks rise, our euro area economists see a reduced risk to their September easing baseline. In Japan, the Bank of Japan remains cautious. Stronger U.S. data could tilt the balance toward a rate hike later this year – though October remains a high hurdle, making December or beyond more plausible. That said, if the U.S. economy slows in line with our forecast, the likelihood of further BoJ tightening diminishes reinforcing our base case – the BoJ staying on hold through end of 2026. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur brings in Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy, and Carolyn Campbell, Head of Consumer and Commercial ABS Research, to explain our high conviction on the role of credit markets in data center financing.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. 

Vishwas Patkar: I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy. 

Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Consumer and Commercial ABS Research. 

Vishy Tirupattur: Today we'll talk about the feedback – and pushback – we've received on the data center financing note we wrote a few weeks ago. 

It's Tuesday, August 19th at 10am In New York. 

In the week since we published a report on bridging the data center financing gap, we were met with a wide range of investors to discuss the key takeaways from our report. 

We projected that meeting the data center demand requires something like $3 trillion of capital expenditure by 2028. And we projected that about half of this funding will come from hyperscaler cash flows, but the rest financed through different channels of the credit markets. 

So, Vishwas, some of the skeptics invoke comparisons to prior CapEx cycles, particularly the late 1990s telecom boom that did not quite end well. How would you respond to that skepticism? 

Vishwas Patkar: The 1990s telecom CapEx cycle certainly came up in a lot of our meetings. It was the last time we arguably saw CapEx cycle of this magnitude. I think the counter to this is that there are some very important differences versus what we saw then versus what we expect. Most importantly, the CapEx cycle back then was largely financed on corporate balance sheets, and we saw pretty significant uptake in debt issuance and leverage. 

Also, through the 1990s, the names, the companies that were spending were mid- to low-credit quality and not cash rich. That's very different from the hyperscalers that are in the center of the AI spending. And these companies are very cash rich, and their credit ratings range all the way from AAA to high A. So very much at the top end of the spectrum. 

In addition, we are quite optimistic about AI monetization, both the timeline and the magnitude. Some of this has also already been validated through second quarter earnings. We also think financing will be done through multiple channels going forward and it won't largely flow through to corporate debt. In fact, corporate debt issuance is actually a pretty small number of how we think this [$]3 trillion number will be met. And you know, the private credit piece, that we have talked about a lot in this report; we think it's likely to be skewed towards IG ratings, in many cases backed by contractual cash flows from credit worthy tenants. 

So, the risk, in some ways, could come from the sub investment grade non-hyperscaler type tenants. And that's an important theme to be watching. But by and large, this cycle is very different in our view from the late 1990s. 

Vishy Tirupattur: So, Carolyn, another pushback, is that the market will be overbuilt and won't be able to refinance in say, five years… 

Carolyn Campbell: Yeah, Vishy. This is a really big concern, particularly for securitized credit investors. We're starting to see some of the ABS and CMBS deals look to refinance even this year, and that will pick up as time goes on and these deals hit their five-year maturities. 

However, the biggest challenge to building new data centers in the U.S. today is access to power. Our equity research colleagues have identified a 45-gigawatt power bottleneck in the U.S., and we think this should keep the market structurally undersupplied of power and slow down the pace of construction, really limiting that overbuild risk. Thus, we expect that the churn and the vacancy rates will actually remain quite low in the medium term. 

And so, while it's a concern that in the long run that these data centers will decline in value; for now we don't see that to be a primary concern. 

Vishy Tirupattur: Carolyn, another concern we heard is that the investor demand will not keep pace with the supply, particularly in securitized credit. We also heard about the tenant quality, that tenant quality is a major concern in underwriting these deals. 

So how would you respond to those two points? 

Carolyn Campbell: Right. I mean, within ABS and CMBS, we don't think supply is really the limiting factor. We think it will come on the demand side for why we think that this market will grow to about [$]150 billion by 2028.

However, our discussions with investors and the data that we've seen suggest that while there are a few big accounts that have been active in the ABS and CMBS space so far, many have yet to allocate meaningfully – preferring perhaps even other esoterics so far. And so, we think that as the supply grows, so too will the number of accounts and the size within which they're participating. 

That being said, the market is already starting to price in a higher risk of tenant weakness. We started to see deals with a lower proportion of IG or greater exposure to AI names price meaningfully wider than those deals that are almost entirely IG and are more for collocation and enterprise. 

Ultimately there will be winners and losers in this new AI industry. And so, the diversification across region and across tenant type, exposure to residual cloud and enterprise businesses, and the proportion of IG and non-AI tenants in these deals will be very important as we assess the risks of ABS and CMBS deals. 

Vishy Tirupattur: Vishwas, any way we cut it, the scale of investment here is pretty large. Would this scale of investment divert capital away from public credit? 

Vishwas Patkar: I certainly think that's a possibility, and maybe even a risk over time – but probably skewed towards the back half of our forecast horizon, which goes through 2028. I think with the public credit market, the next few quarters’ supply should be largely manageable, and demand has been and should stay quite strong. But if you look a few quarters out, insurance demand has been very critical to what's supporting credit markets right now. If interest rates go lower, some of these insurance inflows could slow down. 

And we've also talked about insurance allocations that are shifting towards private and securitized credit at the expense of corporate credit. So, slowly, you could say supply needs rise. You know, we have about [$]800 billion of financing that needs to be met by private credit while inflow slow down. So, I wouldn't view this as a fundamental risk for public credit, but certainly a reason why credit spreads may not stay as tight as they are, over a period of time. 

Vishy Tirupattur: So ultimately, our projections are based on the transformative potential for AI and the role of data center financing to enable that. This is a high conviction view. As we have said elsewhere, we are not too wedded to the specific size estimates in the broad constellation of financing channels. 

The point we want to drive home here is that credit markets will play a major role in enabling AI driven technology fusion. As always, they will be winners and losers, but data center financing as a theme for credit investors is here to stay.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our analysts Tim Chan and Mayank Maheshwari discuss how nuclear power and natural gas are reshaping Asia’s evolving energy mix, and what these trends mean for sustainability and the future of energy. 

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Tim Chan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Tim Chan, Morgan Stanley's Head of Asia Sustainability Research.

Mayank Maheshwari: And I am Mayank Maheshwari, the Energy Analyst for India and Southeast Asia.

Tim Chan: Today – a major shift in global energy. We are talking about nuclear power, gas adoption, and what the future holds.

It's Monday, August 18th at 8am in Hong Kong.

Mayank Maheshwari: And it's 8am in Singapore.

Tim Chan: Nuclear power is no longer niche; it’s a megatrend. It was once seen as controversial and capital intensive. But now nuclear power is stepping into the spotlight—not just for decarbonization, but for energy security. 

Global investment projections in this sector are now topping more than $2 trillion by 2050. This is fueled by a growing appetite from major tech companies for clean, reliable 24/7 energy. More specifically, Asia is emerging as the epicenter of capacity growth, and that’s where your coverage comes in, Mayank.

With the rising consumption of electricity, how does nuclear energy adoption stack up in your universe?

Mayank Maheshwari: Tim, it's a fascinating world on power right now that we are seeing. Now the tight global power markets perspective is key on why there is so much investor and policymaker attention to nuclear power.

Nuclear fuels accounted for about a tenth of the power units produced globally. However, they are almost a fifth of the global clean power generation. Now, power consumption is at another tripping point, and this is after tripling since 1980s. To give you a perspective, Tim, 25 trillion units of power were consumed worldwide last year, and we see this growing rapidly at a 25 percent pace in the next five years or so. And if you look at consumption growth outside of China, it's even faster at 2.5x for the rest of the decade when compared to the last decade.

Now policy makers need energy security and hence, nuclear is getting a lot more attention. In Asia, while China, Korea, and Japan have been using nuclear energy to power the economy, the rest of Asia, it has been more an ambition – with India being the only country making progress last decade. Southeast Asia still has a lot more coal, and nuclear remains an ambition as technology acceptance by public and regulatory framework remains a key handicap. We do, however, see policy makers in Singapore, Vietnam, and Malaysia looking at nuclear fuels more seriously now, with SMRs also being discussed.

Tim Chan: That is a really interesting perspective, Mayank. So, you have been bullish on the Asia gas adoption story. So, how do you think gas and nuclear will intersect in this region?

Mayank Maheshwari: I think nuclear and natural gas, like all of the fuel stem, will complement each other. However, the long gestation to put nuclear capacity makes gas a viable alternative for energy security. As I was telling you earlier, policy makers are definitely focusing on it. As you know, the last big increase in focus in nuclear fuels also happened in the 1970s oil shock, again when energy security came into play.

Global natural gas consumption has more than doubled in the last three decades, and it's set to surprise again with AsiaPac’s consumption pretty much set to rise at twice the pace versus what right now expectations are by the street. In this age of electrification and AI adoption, natural gas is definitely emerging as a dependable and an affordable fuel of the future to power everything from automobiles to humanoids, biogenetics, to AI data centers, and even semiconductor production, which is getting so much focus nowadays.

We expect global consumption to rise again after not growing this decade for natural gas. As Asia's natural gas adoption rises and grows at 5 percent CAGR 2024-2030; with consumption for gas surprising in China, India, and Japan. So, all the large economies are seeing this big increases, especially versus expectations.

The region will consume 70 percent of the globally traded natural gas by 2030. So that's how important Asia will be for the world. And while global gas glut is well flagged, especially coming out of the U.S., Asia's ability to absorb this glut is not very well appreciated.

Tim, having said that, nuclear energy is clearly getting more interest globally and is often debated in sustainability circles. How do you see its role evolving in sustainability frameworks as well as green taxonomies?

Tim Chan: On sustainability, one thing to talk about is exclusion. That is really important for many sustainable sustainability investors. And when it comes to exclusion for nuclear power, only 2.3 percent of global AUM now exclude nuclear power. And then, that percentage is lower than alcohol, military contracting and gambling. And the exclusion rate is also different dependent on the region. Right now, European investors have the highest exclusion rate but have reduced the nuclear exclusion from 10.9 percent to 8.4 percent as of December last year. And North American and Asian exclusion rates are very, very low. Just 0.3 percent and 0.6 percent respectively.

So, this exclusion in North America and Asia are minimal. The World Bank has also lifted, its decades long ban on financing nuclear project, which is important because World Bank can provide capital to fund the early stage of nuclear plant project or construction.

And finally, on green finance. The EU, China and Japan have incorporated the nuclear power into their green taxonomies. So that means in some circumstances, nuclear project can be considered as green.

Mayank Maheshwari: Now we have talked about AI and its need for power on this show. Nuclear power has a significant role to play in that equation, with hyperscalers paying premium for nuclear power. How does this support the investment case for nuclear utilities?

Tim Chan: Yeah, so that depends on the region; and then different region we have different dilemmas. So, let's talk about U.S. first. In the U.S. we are seeing nuclear power is commanding a premium of approximately around $30-$50 per megawatt hour – above the market rate. So, when it comes to this price premium, we do think that will support the nuclear utilities in the U.S. And then in the report we highlighted a few names that we believe the current stock price haven't really priced in this premium in the market.

And then for other regions, it depends on the region as well. So, Mayank, you have talked about Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia right now, given the lack of nuclear pipeline and then also the favorable economies of gas, we are not seeing that sort of premium yet in the Southeast Asia. We are also not seeing that premium in the Europe and in China as well, given that right now this sort of premium is mainly a U.S. exclusive situation. So dependent on the region, we are seeing different opportunities for nuclear utilities when it comes to the price premium.

Mayank Maheshwari: Definitely Tim, I think the price premiums are dependent on how tight these power markets in each of the geographies are. But like, how does nuclear fit into broader energy mix alongside renewables and natural gas for you?

Tim Chan: So, all these are really important. For nuclear power, investors really appreciate the clean and reliable, and for the 24x7 nature of the energy supply to support their operations and sustainability goals. And then nuclear is also important to bring the power additionality, which means nuclear is bringing truly new energy generation rather than simply utilizing a system or already planned capacity. We are seeing that sort of additionality in the new nuclear project and also the SMR in future as well.

So, for natural gas, that is also important. As Mayank you have mentioned, natural gas money adds as a bridge field to provide flexibility to the grid. And then in the U.S., it is currently the primary near-term solution for powering AI and data center to increase the electricity supply due to its speed to the market and reliability. And natural gas is suspected to meet immediate demand, while longer term solutions like nuclear projects and also SMR are developed.

And finally, renewable energy is also important. It represents the fastest growing and increasingly cost competitive energy source. They also dominate the new capacity additions as well. But for renewable energy, it also requires complimentary technology such as battery ESS to adjust intermittency issues.

So, Mayank we have talked so much about nuclear, and back to you on natural gas. You are really bullish on natural gas. So how and where do you think are the best way to play it?

Mayank Maheshwari: As you were kind of talking about the intersection and diffusion between nuclear, natural gas and the renewable markets, what you're seeing is that our bullishness on consumption of natural gas is basically all about how this diffusion plays out. Consumption on natural gas will rise much quicker than most fuels for the rest of the decade, if you think about numbers – making it more than just a transition fuel.

Hence, Morgan Stanley research has a list of 75 equities globally to play the thematic of this diffusion, and it is happening in the power markets. These equities are part of the natural gas adoption and the powering AI thematic as well. So, these include the equipment producers on power, the gas pipeline players who are basically supporting the supply of natural gas to some of these pipelines. Hybrid power generation companies which have a good mix of renewables, natural gas, a bit of nuclear sometimes. And infrastructure providers for energy security.

So, all these 75 stocks are effective playing at the intersection of all these three thematics that we are talking about as Morgan Stanley research. It is clear that nuclear renaissance, Tim, isn't just about reactors. It's about rethinking energy systems, sustainability, and geopolitics.

Tim Chan: Yes, and the last decade will be defined by how we balance ambition with execution. Nuclear together with gas and renewables will be central to Asia's energy future. Mayank, thanks for taking the time to talk,

Mayank Maheshwari: Great speaking to you, Tim.

Tim Chan: 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.

Original Release Date: July 11, 2025

As U.S. retailers manage the impacts of increased tariffs, they have taken a number of approaches to avoid raising prices for customers. Our Head of Corporate Strategy Andrew Sheets and our Head of U.S. Consumer Retail and Credit Research Jenna Giannelli discuss whether they can continue to do so.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Jenna Giannelli: And I'm Jenna Giannelli, Head of U.S. Consumer and Retail Credit Research.

Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we're going to dig into one of the biggest conundrums in the market today. Where and when are tariffs going to show up in prices and margins?

It's Friday, July 11th at 10am in New York.

Jenna, it's great to catch up with you today because I think you can really bring some unique perspective into one of the biggest puzzles that we're facing in the market today. Even with all of these various pauses and delays, the U.S. has imposed historically large tariffs on imports. And we're seeing a rapid acceleration in the amount of money collected from those tariffs by U.S. customs. These are real hard dollars that importers – or somebody else – are paying. Yet we haven't seen these tariffs show up to a significant degree in official data on prices – with recent inflation data relatively modest. And overall stock and credit markets remain pretty strong and pretty resilient, suggesting less effect.

So, are these tariffs just less impactful than expected, or is there something else going on here with timing and severity? And given your coverage of the consumer and retail sectors, which is really at the center of this tariff debate – what do you think is going on?

Jenna Giannelli: So yes, this is a key question and one that is dominating a lot of our client conversations. At a high level, I'd point to a few things. First, there's a timing issue here. So, when tariffs were first announced, retailers were already sitting on three to four months worth of inventory, just due to natural industry lead times. And they were able to draw down on this product.

This is mostly what they sold in 1Q and likely into 2Q, which is why you haven't seen much margin or pricing impact thus far. Companies – we also saw them start to stock up heavily on inventory before the tariffs and at the lower pause rate tariffs, which is the product you referenced that we're seeing coming in now. This is really going to help mitigate margin pressure in the second quarter that you still have this lower cost inventory flowing through.

On top of this timing consideration, retailers – we've just seen utilizing a range of mitigation measures, right? So, whether it's canceled or pause shipments from China, a shifting production mix or sourcing exposure in the short run, particularly before the pause rate on China. And then really leaning into just whether it's product mix shifts, cost savings elsewhere in the PNL, and vendor negotiations, right? They're really leaning into everything in their toolbox that they can.

Pricing too has been talked about as something that is an option, but the option of last resort. We have heard it will be utilized, but very tactically and very surgically, as we think about the back half of the year. When you put this all together, how much impact is it having? On average from retailers that we heard from in the first quarter, they thought they would be able to mitigate about half of the expected tariff headwind, which is actually a bit better than we were expecting.

Finally, I'll just comment on your comment regarding market performance. While you're right in that the overall equity and credit markets have held up well, year-to-date, retail equities and credit have fared worse than their respective indices. What's interesting, actually, is that credit though has significantly outperformed retail equities, which is a relationship we think should converge or correct as we move throughout the balance of the year.

Andrew Sheets: So, Jenna, retailers saw this coming. They've been pulling various levers to mitigate the impact. You mentioned kind of the last lever that they want to pull is prices, raising prices, which is the macro thing that we care about. The thing that would actually show up in inflation.

How close are we though to kind of running out of other options for these guys? That is, the only thing left is they can start raising prices?

Jenna Giannelli: So closer is what I would say. We're likely not going to see a huge impact in 2Q, more likely as we head into 3Q and more heavily into the all-important fourth quarter holiday season. This is really when those higher cost goods are going to be flowing through the PNL and retailers need to offset this as they've utilized a lot of their other mitigation strategies. They've moved what they could move. They've negotiated where they could, they've cut where they could cut. And again, as this last step, it will be to try and raise price.

So, who's going to have the most and least success? In our universe, we think it's going to be more difficult to pass along price in some of the more historically deflationary categories like apparel and footwear. Outside of what is a really strong brand presence, which in our universe, historically hasn't been the case.

Also, in some of the higher ticket or more durable goods categories like home goods, sporting goods, furniture, we think it'll be challenging as well here to pass along higher costs. Where it's going to be less of an issue is in our Staples universe, where what we'd put is less discretionary categories like Beauty, Personal Care, which is part of the reason why we've been cautious on retail, and neutral and consumer products when we think about sector allocation.

Andrew Sheets: And when do you think this will show up? Is it a third quarter story? A fourth quarter story?

Jenna Giannelli: I think this is going to really start to show up in the third quarter, and more heavily into the fourth quarter, the all-important holiday season.

Andrew Sheets: Yeah, and I think that’s what’s really interesting about the impact of this backup to the macro. Again, returning to the big picture is I think one of the most important calls that Morgan Stanley economists have is that inflation, which has been coming down somewhat so far this year is going to pick back up in August and September and October. And because it's going to pick back up, the Federal Reserve is not going to cut interest rates anymore this year because of that inflation dynamic.

So, this is a big debate in the market. Many investors disagree. But I think what you're talking about in terms of there are some very understandable reasons, maybe why prices haven't changed so far. But that those price hikes could be coming have real macroeconomic implications.

So, you know, maybe though, something to just close on – is to bring this to the latest headlines. You know, we're now back it seems, in a market where every day we log onto our screens, and we see a new headline of some new tariff being announced or suggested towards countries. Where do you think those announcements, so far are relative to what retailers are expecting – kind of what you think is in guidance?

Jenna Giannelli: Sure. So, look what we've seen of late; the recent tariff headlines are certainly higher or worse, I think, than what investors in management teams were expecting. For Vietnam, less so; I'd say it was more in line. But for most elsewhere, in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, the rates that are set to go in effect on August 1st, as we now understand them, are higher or worse than management teams were expecting.

Recall that while guidance did show up in many flavors in the first quarter, so whether withdrawn guidance or lowered guidance. For those that did factor in tariffs to their guide, most were factoring in either pause rate tariffs or tariff rates that were at least lower than what was proposed on Liberation Day, right?

So, what's the punchline here? I think despite some of the revisions we've already seen, there are more to come. To put some numbers around this, if we look at our group of retail consumer cohort, credits, consensus expectations for calling for EBITDA in our universe to be down around 5 percent year-over-year. If we apply tariff rates as we know them today for a half-year headwind starting August 1st, this number should be down around 15 percent year-over-year on a gross basis…

Andrew Sheets: So, three times as much.

Jenna Giannelli: Pretty significant. Exactly. And so, while there might be mitigation efforts, there might be some pricing passed along, this is still a pretty significant delta between where consensus is right now and what we know tariff rates to be today – could imply for earnings in the second half.

Andrew Sheets: Jenna, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Jenna Giannelli: My pleasure. Thank you.

Andrew Sheets: And thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

The market thinks the Fed is likely to cut rates come September. Morgan Stanley economists disagree. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains our viewpoint and presents three scenarios for corporate credit.

 Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. 

Today – the big difference between our view and the market on what the Fed will do next month; and how that impacts our credit view. 

It's Thursday, August 14th at 2pm in London. 

As of this recording, the market is pricing in a roughly 97 percent chance that the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates at its meeting next month. But our economists think it remains more likely that they will leave this rate unchanged. It's a big divergence on a very important market debate. 

But what may seem like a radical difference in view is actually, in my opinion, a pretty straightforward premise. The Federal Reserve has a so-called dual mandate tasked with keeping both inflation and unemployment low. 

The unemployment rate is low, but the inflation rate – importantly – is not. In order to ensure that that inflation rate goes lower, absent a major weakening of the economy, we think it would be reasonable for the Fed to keep interest rates somewhat higher for somewhat longer. Hence, we forecast that the Fed will end up staying put at its September meeting. 

Indeed, while the market rallied on this week's latest inflation numbers, they still leave the Fed with some pretty big questions. Core inflation in the US is above the Fed's target. It's been stuck near these levels now for more than a year. And based on this week's latest data, it started to actually tick up again, a trend that we think could continue over the next several readings as tariff impacts gradually come through.

And so, for credit, this presents three scenarios. One good, and two that are more troubling. 

The good scenario is that our forecasts for inflation are simply too high. Inflation ends up falling faster than we expect even as the economy holds up. That would allow the Fed to lower interest rates sooner and faster than we're forecasting. And this would be a good scenario for credit, even at currently low rich spreads, and would likely drive good total returns. 

Scenario two sees inflation elevated in line with our near-term forecast, but the Fed lowers rates anyway. But wouldn't this be good? Wouldn't the credit market like lower rates? Well, lowering rates stimulates the economy and tends to push inflation higher, all else equal. And so, with inflation still above where the Fed wants it to be, it raises the odds of a hot economy with faster growth, but higher prices. 

That sort of mix might be welcomed by the equity market, which can do better in those booming times. But that same environment tends to be much tougher for credit. And if inflation doesn't end up falling as the Fed cuts rates, well, the Fed may be forced to do fewer rate cuts overall over the next one or two years. Or, even worse, may even have to reverse course and resume hikes – more volatile paths that we don't think the credit market would like. 

A third scenario is that a forecast at Morgan Stanley for growth, inflation, and the Fed are all correct. The central bank doesn't lower interest rates next month despite currently widespread expectation that they do so. That scenario could still be reasonable for the credit market over the medium term, but it would represent a very big surprise – not too far away, relative to market expectations. 

For now, markets may very well return to a late August slumber. But we're mindful that we're expecting something quite different than others when that summer ends. 

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.

Although tariff negotiations continue, deals are being made, shifting investor focus on assessing the fallout. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen consider the ripple effects on inflation and the bond market. 

 Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. 

Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. 

Michael Zezas: Today, how are tariffs impacting the economy and what it means for bond markets? 

It's Wednesday, August 13th at 10:30am in New York. 

Michael, we've been talking about how the near-term uncertainty around tariff levels has come down. Tariff deals are, of course, still pending with some major U.S. trading partners like China; but agreements are starting to come together. And though there's lots of ways they could break over time, in the near-term, deals like the one with Europe signal that the U.S. might be happy for several months with what's been arranged. And so, the range of outcomes has shrunk. 

The U.S.' current effective tariff rate of 16 percent is about where we thought we'd be at year end. But that's substantially higher than the roughly 3 percent we started the year with. So, not as bad as it looked like it could have been after tariffs were announced on April 2nd, but still substantially higher. Now's the time when investors should stay away from chasing tariff headlines and guessing what the President might do next; and instead focus on assessing the impact of what's been done. 

With that as the backdrop, we got some relevant data yesterday, the Consumer Price Index for July. You were expecting that this would show some clear signs of tariffs pushing prices higher. Why was that? 

Michael Gapen: Well, we did analysis on the 2018-2019 tariff episode. So, in looking at the input-output tables, which give you an idea of how prices move through certain sectors of the economy, and applying that to the 2018 episode of tariffs – we got the result that you should see some tariff inflation in June, and then sequentially more as we move into the late summer and the early fall. 

So, the short answer, Mike, is a model based plus history-based exercise – that said yes, we should start seeing the effects of tariffs on those categories, where the direct effect is high. So that'd be most of your goods categories. Over time, as we move into later this year or early next year, it'll be more important to think about indirect effects, if any. 

Michael Zezas: Got it. So, the July CPI data that came out yesterday, then did it corroborate this view? 

Michael Gapen: Yes and no. So, I'm an economist, so I have to do a two-handed view on this. So yes… 

Michael Zezas: Always fair. 

Michael Gapen: Always, yes. So, yes, core goods prices rose by two-tenths on the month, in June they also rose by two-tenths. Prior to this goods’ prices were largely flat with some of the big durables, items like autos being negative, right? So, we had all the give back following COVID. So, the prior trend was flat to negative. The last two months, they've shown two-tenths increases. And we've seen upward pressure on things like household furnishings, apparel. We saw a strong used car print this month, motor vehicle and repairs. So, all of that suggests that tariffs are starting to flow through. 

Now, we didn’t – on the other hand – is we didn't get as much as we thought. New car prices were flat and maybe those price increases will be delayed until models – the 2026 models start hitting the lot. That would be September or later. And we didn't actually; I said apparel. Apparel was up stronger last month. It really wasn't up all that much this month. So, the CPI data for July corroborated the view that the inflation pass through is happening. 

Where I think it didn't answer the question is how much of it are we going to get and should we expect a lot of it to be front loaded? Or is this going to be a longer process? 

Michael Zezas: Got it. And then, does that mean that tariffs aren't having the sort of aggregate impact on the economy that many thought they would? Or is maybe the composition of that impact different? So, maybe prices aren't going up so much, but companies are managing those costs in other ways. How would you break that down? 

Michael Gapen: We would say, and our view is that, yes, you know, we have written down a forecast. And we used our modeling in the 2018-20 19 episode to tell us what's a reasonable forecast for how quickly and to what degree these tariffs should show up in inflation. But obviously, this has been a substantial move in tariffs. They didn't start all at once. They've come in different phases and there's a lot of lags here. So, I just think there's a wide range of potential outcomes here.

So, I wouldn't conclude that tariffs are not having the effect we thought they would. I think it's way too early and would be incorrect to conclude, just [be]cause we've had relatively modest tariff pressures in June and July, inflation that we can be sanguine and say it's not a big deal and we should just move on.

Michael Zezas: And even so, is it fair to say that there's still plenty of evidence that this is weighing on growth in the way you anticipated? 

Michael Gapen: I think so. I mean, it's clear the economy has moderated. If we kind of strip out the volatility and trade and inventories, final sales to domestic purchasers 1.5 in the first quarter. It was 1.1 in the second quarter, and a lot of that slowdown was related to spending by the consumer. And a slowdown in business spending. So that that could be a little more, maybe about policy uncertainty and not knowing exactly what to do and how to plan. 

But it also we think is reflected in a slowdown, in the pace of hiring. So, I would say, you got the policy uncertainty shock first. That also came through the effect of the April 2nd Liberation Day tariffs, which probably caused a freeze in hiring and spending activity for a bit. And now I would say we're moving into the part of the world where the actual increase in tariffs are going to happen. So, we'll know whether or not firms can pass these prices along or not. If they can't, we'll probably get a weaker labor market. If they can, we'll continue to see it in inflation.

But Mike, let me ask you a question now. You've had all the fun. Let me turn the table. 

Michael Zezas: Fair enough. 

Michael Gapen: How much does it matter for you or your team, whether or not these tariffs are pushing prices higher? And/or delaying cuts from the Fed. How do you think about that on your side? 

Michael Zezas: Yeah, so this question of composition and lags is really interesting. I think though that if the end state here is as you forecast – that we'll end up with weaker growth, and as a consequence, the Fed will embark on a substantial rate cutting program. Then the direction of travel for bond yields from here is still lower. So, if that's the case, then obviously this would be a favorable backdrop for owners of U.S. treasury bonds. 

It's probably also good news for owners of corporate credit, but the story's a bit trickier here. If yields move lower on weaker growth, but we ultimately avoid a recession, this might be the sweet spot for corporate credit. You've got fundamental strength holding that limits credit risk, and so you get performance from all in yields declining – both the yield expressed by the risk-free rate, as well as the credit spread. 

But if we tipped into recession, then naturally we'd expect there to be a repricing of all risk in the market. You'd expect there to be some expression of fundamental weakness and credit spreads would widen. So, government bonds would've been a better product to own in that environment.

But, of course, Michael, we have to consider alternative outcomes where yields go higher, and this would turn into a bad environment for bond returns that would appear to be most likely in the scenario where U.S. growth actually ticks higher, resetting expectations for monetary policy in a more hawkish direction.

So, what do you think investors should watch for that would lead to that outcome? Is it something like an AI productivity boom or maybe something else that's not on our radar? 

Michael Gapen: Yeah, so I think that is something investors do have to think about; and let me frame one way to think about that – where ex-post any easing by the Fed as early as September might be retroactively viewed as a policy mistake, right? So, we can say, yes, tariffs should slow down growth and maybe that happens in the second half of this year. 

The Fed maybe eases rates as a pre-emptive measure or risk management approach to avoid too much weakness in the labor market. So even though the Fed is seeing firming inflation now, which it is. It could ease in September, maybe again in December [be]cause it's worried about the labor market. So maybe that's what dominates 2025. And, and like you said, perhaps in the very near term, continues to pull bond prices lower. 

But what if we get into 2026 and the tariff effect or the tariff drag on growth fades, and the consumer begins to accelerate. So, we don't have a recession, we just get a bit of a divot in growth and then the economy recovers. Then fiscal policy kicks in, right? 

We don't think the One Big, Beautiful Bill act will provide a lot of stimulus, but we could be wrong. It could kickstart animal spirits and bring forward a lot of business spending. And then maybe AI, as you said; that could be a combining factor and financial conditions would be very easy in that world, in part – given that the Fed has eased, right? 

So that that could be a world where, you know, growth is modest, but it's firming. Inflation that's moved up to about 3 percent or maybe a little bit higher later this year kind of stays there. And then retroactively, the problem is the Fed eased financial conditions into that and inflation's kind of stuck around 3 percent. Bond yields – at least the long end – would probably react negatively in that world. 

Michael Zezas: Yeah, that makes perfect sense to us. Well, Michael, thanks for taking the time to talk with me. 

Michael Gapen: Thanks for having me on, Mike. 

Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.