For a special Independence Day episode, our Head of Corporate Credit Research considers a popular topic of debate, on holidays or otherwise – national debt.

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 on a special Independence Day episode of the podcast, we're going to talk a bit about the history of U.S. debt and the contrast between corporate and federal debt trajectories.

It's Thursday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle.

The 4th of July, which represents the U.S. declaring independence from Great Britain, remains one of my favorite holidays. A time to gather with friends and family and celebrate what America is – and what it can still be.

It is also, of course, a good excuse to talk about debt.

Declaring independence is one thing, but fighting and beating the largest empire in the world at the time would take more than poetic words. The borrowing that made victory possible for the colonies also almost brought them down in the 1780s under a pile of unsustainable debt. It was a young treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton, who successfully lobbied to bring these debts under a federal umbrella – binding the nation together and securing a lower borrowing cost. As we'd say, it's a real fixed income win-win.

Almost 250 years later, the benefits of that foresight are still going strong, with the United States of America enjoying the world's largest economy, and the largest and most liquid equity and bond markets. Yet lately there's been more focus on whether those bond markets are, well, too large.

The U.S. currently runs a budget deficit of about 7 percent of GDP, and the current budget proposals in the house and the Senate could drive an additional 4 trillion of borrowing over the next decade above that already hefty baseline. Forecast even further out, well, they look even more challenging.

We are not worried about the U.S. government's ability to pay its bills. And to be clear, in the near term, we are forecasting at Morgan Stanley, U.S. government yields to go down as growth slows and the Federal Reserve cuts rates more than expected in 2026. But all of this borrowing and all the uncertainty around it – it should increase risk premiums for longer term bonds and drive a steeper yield curve.

So, it's notable then – as we celebrate America's birthday and discuss its borrowing – that it's really companies that are currently unwrapping the presents. Corporate balance sheets, in contrast, are in very good shape, as corporate borrowing trends have diverged from those of the government.

Many factors are behind this. Corporate profitability is strong. Companies use the post-COVID period to refinance debt at attractive rates. And the ongoing uncertainty – well, it's kept management more conservative than they would otherwise be. Out of deference to the 4th of July, I've focused so far on the United States. But we see the same trend in Europe, where more conservative balance sheet trends and less relative issuance to governments is showing up on a year-over-year basis. With companies borrowing relatively less and governments borrowing relatively more, the difference between what companies and the government pay, that so-called spread that we talk so much about – well, we think it can stay lower and more compressed than it otherwise would.

We don't think this necessarily applies to the low ratings such as single B or lower borrowers, where these better balance sheet trends simply aren't as clear. But overall, a divergent trend between corporate and government balance sheets is giving corporate bond investors something additional to celebrate over the weekend.

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.

Our analysts Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore discuss the upcoming expiration of reciprocal tariffs and the potential impacts for U.S. trade.

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.

Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, US Public Policy Strategist.

Michael Zezas: Today we're talking about the outlook for US trade policy. It's Wednesday, July 2nd at 10:00 AM in New York.

We have a big week ahead as next Wednesday marks the expiration of the 90 day pause on reciprocal tariffs. Ariana, what's the setup?

Ariana Salvatore: So this is a really key inflection point. That pause that you mentioned was initiated back on April 9th, and unless it's extended, we could see a reposition of tariffs on several of our major trading partners. Our base case is that the administration, broadly speaking, tries to kick the can down the road, meaning that it extends the pause for most countries, though the reality might be closer to a few countries seeing their rates go up while others announce bilateral framework deals between now and next week.

But before we get into the key assumptions underlying our base case. Let's talk about the bigger picture. Michael, what do we think the administration is actually trying to accomplish here?

Michael Zezas: So when it comes to defining their objectives, we think multiple things can be true at the same time. So the administration's talked about the virtue of tariffs as a negotiating tactic. They've also floated the idea of a tiered framework for global trading partners. Think of it as a ranking system based on trade deficits, non tariff barriers, VAT levels, and any other characteristics that they think are important for the bilateral trade relationship. A lot of this is similar to the rhetoric we saw ahead of the April 2nd "Liberation Day" tariffs.

Ariana Salvatore: Right, and around that time we started hearing about the potential, at least for bilateral trade deals, but have we seen any real progress in that area?

Michael Zezas: Not much, at least not publicly, aside from the UK framework agreement. And here's an important detail, three of our four largest trading partners aren't even scoped for higher rates next week. Mexico and Canada were never subject to the reciprocal tariffs. And China's on a separate track with this Geneva framework that doesn't expire until August 12th. So we're not expecting a sweeping overhaul by Wednesday.

Ariana Salvatore: Got it. So what are the scenarios that we're watching?

Michael Zezas: So there's roughly three that we're looking at and let me break them down here.

So our base case is that the administration extends the current pause, citing progress in bilateral talks, and maybe there's a few exceptions along the way in either direction, some higher and some lower. This broadly resets the countdown clock, but keeps the current tariff structure intact: 10% baseline for most trading partners, though some potentially higher if negotiations don't progress in the next week. That outcome would be most in line, we think, with the current messaging coming out of the administration.

There's also a more aggressive path if there's no visible progress. For example, the administration could reimpose tariffs with staggered implementation dates. The EU might face a tougher stance due to the complexity of that relationship and Vietnam could see delayed threats as a negotiating tactic. A strong macro backdrop, resilient data for markets that could all give the administration cover to go this route.

But there's also a more constructive outcome. The administration can announce regional or bilateral frameworks, not necessarily full trade deals, but enough to remove the near term threat of higher tariffs, reducing uncertainty, though maybe not to pre-2024 levels.

Ariana Salvatore: So wide bands of uncertainty, and it sounds like the more constructive outcome is quite similar to our base case, which is what we have in place right now. But translating that more aggressive path into what that means for the economy, we think it would reinforce our house view that the risks here are skewed to the downside.

Our economists estimate that tariffs begin to impact inflation about four months after implementation with the growth effects lagging by about eight months. That sets us up for weak but not quite recessionary growth. We're talking 1% GDP on an annual basis in 2025 and 2026, and the tariff passed through to prices and inflation data probably starting in August.

Michael Zezas: So bottom line, watch carefully on Wednesday and be vigilant for changes to the status quo on tariff levels. There's a lot of optionality in how this plays out, as trade policy uncertainty in the aggregate is still high. Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Michael.

Michael Zezas: And 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.

Ron Kamdem, our U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts & Commercial Real Estate Analyst, discusses how GenAI could save the real estate industry $34 billion and where the savings are most likely to be found.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ron Kamdem, Head of Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Commercial Real Estate research. Today I’ll talk about the ways GenAI is disrupting the real estate industry.

It’s Tuesday, July 1st, at 10am in New York.

What if the future of real estate isn’t about location, location, location – but automation, automation, automation?

While it may be too soon to say exactly how AI will affect demand for real estate, what we can say is that it is transforming the business of real estate, namely by making operations more efficient. If you’re a customer dealing with a real estate company, you can now expect to interact with virtual leasing assistants. And when it comes to drafting your lease documents, AI can help you do this in minutes rather than hours – or even days.

In fact, our recent work suggests that GenAI could automate nearly 40 percent of tasks across half a million occupations in the real estate investment trusts industry – or REITs. Indeed, across 162 public REITs and commercial real estate services companies or CRE with $92 billion of total labor costs, the financial impact may be $34 billion, or over 15 percent of operating cash flow. Our proprietary job posting database suggests the top four occupations with automation potential are management – so think about middle management – sales, office and administrative support, and installation maintenance and repairs.

Certain sub-sectors within REITs and CRE services stand to gain more than others. For instance, lodging and resorts, along with brokers and services, and healthcare REITs could see more than 15 percent improvement in operating cash flow due to labor automation. On the other hand, sectors like gaming, triple net, self-storage, malls, even shopping centers might see less than a 5 percent benefit, which suggests a varied impact across the industry.

Brokers and services, in particular, show the highest potential for automation gains, with nearly 34 percent increase in operating cash flow. These companies may be the furthest along in adopting GenAI tools at scale. In our view, they should benefit not only from the labor cost savings but also from enhanced revenue opportunities through productivity improvement and data center transactions facilitated by GenAI tools.

Lodging and resorts have the second highest potential upside from automating occupations, with an estimated 23 percent boost in operating cash flow. The integration of AI in these businesses not only streamline operations but also opens new avenues for return on investments, and mergers and acquisitions.

Some companies are already using AI in their operations. For example, some self-storage companies have integrated AI into their digital platforms, where 85 percent of customer interactions now occur through self-selected digital options. As a result, they have reduced on-property labor hours by about 30 percent through AI-powered staffing optimization. Similarly, some apartment companies have reduced their full-time staff by about 15 percent since 2021 through AI-driven customer interactions and operational efficiencies.

Meanwhile, this increased application of AI is driving new revenue to AI-enablers. Businesses like data centers, specialty, CRE services could see significant upside from the infrastructure buildout from GenAI. Advanced revenue management systems, customer acquisition tools, predictive analytics are just a few areas where GenAI can add value, potentially enhancing the $290 billion of revenue stream in the REIT and CRE services space.

However, the broader economic impact of GenAI on labor markets remains hotly debated. Job growth is the key driver of real estate demand and the impact of AI on the 164 million jobs in the U.S. economy remains to be determined. If significant job losses materialize and the labor force shrinks, then the real estate industry may face top-line pressure with potentially disproportionate impact on office and lodging. While AI-related job losses are legitimate concerns, our economists argue that the productivity effects of GenAI could ultimately lead to net positive job growth, albeit with a significant need for re-skilling.

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.

The U.S. housing market appears to be stuck. Our co-heads of Securitized Product research, Jay Bacow and James Egan, explain how supply and demand, as well as mortgage rates, play a role in the cooling market.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.

Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And after getting through last week's blistering hot temperatures, today we're going to talk about what may be a cooling housing market.

 It's Monday, June 30th at 2:30pm in New York.

Now, Jim, home prices. We just got another index. They set another record high, but the pace of growth – the acceleration as a physicist in me wants to say – appears to be slowing. What's going on here?

James Egan: The pace of home price growth reported this month was 2.7 percent. That is the lowest that it's been since August of 2023. And in our view, the reason's pretty simple. Supply is increasing, while demand has stalled.

Jay Bacow: But Jim, this was a report for the spring selling season. I know we got it in June, but this is supposed to be the busiest time of the year. People are happy to go around. They're looking at moving over the summer when the kids aren't in school. We should be expecting the supply to increase. Are you saying that it's happening more than it's anticipated?

James Egan: That is what we're saying. Now, we should be expecting inventories today to be higher than they were in, call it January or February. That's exactly the seasonality that you're referring to. But it's the year-over-year growth we're paying attention to here. Homes listed for sale are up year-over-year, 18 months in a row. And that pace, it's been accelerating. Over the past 40 years, the pace of growth from this past month was only eclipsed one time, the Great Financial Crisis.

Jay Bacow: [sighs] I always get a little worried when the housing analyst brings up the Great Financial Crisis. Are you saying that this time the demand isn't responding?

James Egan: That is what we're saying. So, through the first five months of this year, existing home sales are only down about 2 percent versus the first five months of 2024. So they've basically kind of plateaued at these levels. But that also means that we're seeing the fewest number of transactions through May in a calendar year since 2009. And that combination of easing inventory and lackluster demand, it's pushed months of supply back to levels that we haven't seen since the beginning of this pandemic. Call it the fourth quarter of 2019, first quarter of 2020, right before inventory has really plummeted to historic lows.

Jay Bacow: All right, so 2009, another financial crisis reference. But you're also – you're speaking around a national level, and as a housing analyst, I feel like you haven't really spoken about the three most important factors when we think about things which are: Location. Location. And location.

James Egan: Absolutely. And the deceleration that we're seeing in home price growth – and I would point out it is still growth – has been pervasive across the country. Year-over-year, HPA is now decelerating in 100 percent of the top 100 MSAs, for which we have data. In fact, a full quarter of them, 25 percent of these cities are now actually seeing prices decline on a year-over-year basis. And that's up from just 5 percent with declining home prices one year ago.

Jay Bacow: As a homeowner, I do like the home price growth. And is it the same story when you look more narrowly around supply and demand?

James Egan: So, there might be some geographical nuances, but we do think that it largely boils down to that. Local inventory growth has been a very good indicator of weaker home price performance, particularly the level of for-sale inventory today versus that fourth quarter of 2019. If we look at it on a geographic basis, of 14 MSAs that have the highest level of inventory today compared to 2019, 11 of them are in either Florida or Texas. On the other end of the spectrum, the cities where inventory remains furthest away from where it was four and a half years ago, they're in the Northeast, they're in the Midwest.

Jay Bacow: As somebody who lives in the Northeast, I'd like to hear that again. But you're also; you're quoting existing prices, which that's been the outperformer in the housing market. Right?

James Egan: Exactly. New home prices have actually been decreasing year-over-year for the past year and a half at this point. It's actually brought the basis between new home prices, which tend to trade at a little bit of a premium to existing sales; it's brought that basis to its tightest level that we've seen in at least 30 years. And that's before we take into account the fact that home builders have been buying down some of these mortgage rates. But Jay, you've recently done some work trying to size this.

Jay Bacow: Yeah. First it might help to explain what a buydown is.

A home builder might have a new home listed at say, $450,000. And with mortgage rates in the context of about 6.5 percent right now, the home buyer might not be able to afford that, so they offer to pay less. The home builder – often many of them also have an origination arm as well. They'll say, you know what? We'll sell it to you at that $450,000, but we'll give you a lower mortgage rate; instead of 6.5 percent, we'll sell it to you for $450,000 with a 5 percent mortgage rate. Then maybe the home buyer can afford that.

James Egan: And so, new home prices are actually coming down. And by that we're specifically referring to the median price of new home transactions. They're falling despite the fact that these buy downs might be influencing prices a little bit higher.

Jay Bacow: Right. And when we look at how often this is happening, it's a little actually hard to get it from the data because they don't have to report it. But when we look at the distribution of mortgage rates in a given month – prior to 2022, there were effectively no purchase loans that were originated less than one point below the prevailing mortgage rate for a given month.

However, more recently we're up to about 12 percent of Ginnie Mae purchases, and those are the more credit constrained borrowers that might have a harder time buying a home. And about 5 percent of conventional purchase loans are getting originated with a rate 1 percent below the outstanding market

James Egan: And so, this might be another sign that we're seeing a little bit of softening in home prices. But what are the implications on the agency mortgage side?

Jay Bacow: I would say there's probably two things that we're keeping an eye out on. Because these are homeowners that are getting below market rate, the investors are getting a below market coupon. And because they're getting sold at a discount, they don't want that, but they're going to stay around for a while. So, investors are getting these rates that they don't want for longer.

And then the other thing you think about from the home buyer perspective is, you know, maybe they – it's good for them right now. But if they want to sell that home, because they're getting a below market mortgage rate, they bought the home for maybe more than other people would've. So, unless they can sell it with that mortgage attached, which is very difficult to do, they probably have to sell it for a lower price than when they bought it.

Now Jim, what does all this mean for home prices going forward?

James Egan: Now, when we think about home prices, we're talking about the home price indices, right? And so those are going to be repeat sales. It’s going to, by definition, look at existing prices and not necessarily the dynamics we're talking in the new home price market.

Jay Bacow: Okay, so all this builder buy down stuff is interesting for what it means for new home prices – but doesn't impact all the HPA indices that you reference.

James Egan: Exactly, and at the national level, despite what we've been talking about on this podcast, we do think that home prices remain more supported than what we are seeing locally. Inventory is increasing, but it also remains near historically low levels. Months of supply that I mentioned at the top of this podcast, it's picked up to the highest level it's been since the beginning of this pandemic. We're also talking about four to four and a half months of supply. Anything below six is a tight environment that has been historically associated with home prices continuing to climb.

That's why our base case is for positive HPA this year. We're at +2 percent. That's slower than where we are now. We think you're going to continue to see deceleration. And because of what we're seeing from a supply and demand perspective, we are a little bit more skewed to the downside in our bear case. Instead of that +2, we're at -3 percent than we are towards the upside in our bull case. Instead of that plus two, we’re at plus 5 percent in the bull case. So slower HPA from here, but still positive.

Jay Bacow: Well, Jim, it's always a pleasure talking to you, particularly when you're highlighting that the home price growth is going to be stronger in the place where I own a home.

James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to all of you listening, thank you for listening to another episode of Thoughts on the Market. Please leave a review or a like wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.

Stock tickers may not immediately price in uncertainty during times of geopolitical volatility. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets suggests a different indicator to watch.

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 I'm going to talk about how we're trying to simplify the complicated questions of recent geopolitical events.

It's Friday, June 27th at 2pm in London.

Recent U.S. airstrikes against Iran and the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel have dominated the headlines. The situation is complicated, uncertain, and ever changing. From the time that this episode is recorded to when you listen to it, conditions may very well have changed again.

Geopolitical events such as this one often have a serious human, social and financial cost, but they do not consistently have an impact on markets. As analysis by my colleague, Michael Wilson and his team have shown, over a number of key geopolitical events over the last 30 years, the impact on the S&P 500 has often been either fleeting or somewhat non-existent. Other factors, in short, dominate markets.

So how to deal with this conundrum? How to take current events seriously while respecting that historical precedent that they often can have more limited market impact? How to make a forecast when quite simply few investors feel like they have an edge in predicting where these events will go next?

In our view, the best way to simplify the market's response is to watch oil prices. Oil remains an important input to the world economy, where changes in price are felt quickly by businesses and consumers.

So when we look back at past geopolitical events that did move markets in a more sustained way, a large increase in oil prices often meaning a rise of more than 75 percent year-over-year was often part of the story. Such a rise in such an important economic input in such a short period of time increases the risk of recession; something that credit markets and many other markets need to care about. So how can we apply this today?

Well, for all the seriousness and severity of the current conflict, oil prices are actually down about 20 percent relative to a year ago. This simply puts current conditions in a very different category than those other periods be they the 1970s or more recently, Russia's invasion of Ukraine that represented genuine oil price shocks. Why is oil down? Well, as my colleague Martin Rats referred to on an earlier episode of this program, oil markets do have very healthy levels of supply, which is helping to cushion these shocks.

With oil prices actually lower than a year ago, we think the credit will focus on other things. To the positive, we see an alignment of a few short-term positive factors, specifically a pretty good balance of supply and demand in the credit market, low realized volatility, and a historically good window in the very near term for performance. Indeed, over the last 15 years, July has represented the best month of the year for returns in both investment grade and high yield credit in both the U.S. and in Europe.

And what could disrupt this? Well, a significant spike in oil prices could be one culprit, but we think a more likely catalyst is a shift of those favorable conditions, which could happen from August and beyond. From here, Morgan Stanley economists’ forecasts see a worsening mix of growth in inflation in the U.S., while seasonal return patterns to flip from good to bad.

In the meantime, however, we will keep watching oil.

Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today. 

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matt Hornbach and U.S. Economist Michael Gapen assess the Fed’s path forward in light of inflation and a weaker economy, and the likely market outcomes.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Matt 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. 

Matt Hornbach: Today we're discussing the outcome of the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting and our expectations for rates, inflation, and the U.S. dollar from here. 

It's Thursday, June 26th at 10am in New York. 

Matt Hornbach: Mike, the Federal Reserve decided to hold the federal funds rate steady, remaining within its target range of 4.25 to 4.5 percent. It still anticipates two rate cuts by the end of 2025; but participants adjusted their projections further out suggesting fewer cuts in 2026 and 2027. 

You, on the other hand, continue to think the Fed will stay on hold for the rest of this year, with a lot of cuts to follow in 2026. What specifically is behind your view, and are there any underappreciated dynamics here? 

Michael Gapen: So, we've been highlighting three reasons why we think the Fed will cut late but cut more. The first is tariffs introduce differential timing effects on the economy. They tend to push inflation higher in the near term and they weaken consumer spending with a lag. If tariffs act as a tax on consumption, that tax is applied by pushing prices higher – and then only subsequently do consumers spend less because they have less real income to spend. So, we think the Fed will be seeing more inflation first before it sees the weaker labor market later. 

The second part of our story is immigration. Immigration controls mean it's likely to be much harder to push the unemployment rate higher. That's because when we go from about 3 million immigrants per year down to about 300,000 – that means much lower growth in the labor force. So even if the economy does slow and labor demand moderates, the unemployment rate is likely to remain low. So again, that's similar to the tariff story where the Fed's likely to see more inflation now before it sees a weaker labor market later. 

And third, we don't really expect a big impulse from fiscal policy. The bill that's passed the house and is sitting in the Senate, we’ll see where that ultimately ends up. But the details that we have in hand today about those bills don't lead us to believe that we'll have a big impulse or a big boost to growth from fiscal policy next year. 

So, in total the Fed will see a lot of inflation in the near term and a weaker economy as we move into 2026. So, the Fed will be waiting to ensure that that inflation impulse is indeed transitory, but a Fed that cuts late will ultimately end up cutting more. 

So we don't have rate hikes this year, Matt, as you noted. But we do have 175 basis points in rate cuts next year. 

Matt Hornbach: So, Mike, looking through the transcript of the press conference, the word tariffs was used almost 30 times. What does the Fed's messaging say to you about its expectations around tariffs? 

Michael Gapen: Yeah, so it does look like in this meeting, participants did take a stand that tariffs were going to be higher, and they likely proceeded under the assumption of about a 14 percent effective tariff rate. So, I think you can see three imprints that tariffs have on their forecast.

First, they're saying that inflation moves higher, and in the press conference Powell said explicitly that the Fed thinks inflation will be moving higher over the summer months. And they revised their headline and core PCE forecast higher to about 3 percent and 3.1 percent – significant upward revisions from where they had things earlier in the year in March before tariffs became clear. The second component here is the Fed thinks any inflation story will be transitory. Famous last words, of course. But the Fed forecast that inflation will fall back towards the 2 percent target in 2026 and 2027; so near-term impulse that fades over time. And third, the Fed sees tariffs as slowing economic growth. The Fed revised lower its outlook for growth in real GDP this year. So, in some [way], by incorporating tariffs and putting such a significant imprint on the forecast, the Fed's outlook has actually moved more in the direction of our own forecast. 

Matt Hornbach: I'd like to stay on the topic of geopolitics. In contrast to the word tariffs, the words Middle East only was mentioned three times during the press conference. With the weekend events there, investor concerns are growing about a spike in oil prices. How do you think the Fed will think about any supply-driven rise in energy, commodity prices here? 

Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think the Fed will view this as another element that suggests slower growth and stickier inflation. I think it will reinforce the Fed's view of what tariffs and immigration controls do to the outlook. Because historically when we look at shocks to oil prices in the U.S.; if you get about a 10 percent rise in oil prices from here, like another $10 increase in oil prices; history would suggest that will move headline inflation higher because it gets passed directly into retail gasoline prices. So maybe a 30 to 40 basis point increase in a year-on-year rate of inflation. But the evidence also suggests very limited second round effects, and almost no change in core inflation. 

So, you get a boost to headline inflation, but no persistence elements – very similar to what the Fed thinks tariffs will do. And of course, the higher cost of gasoline will eat into consumer purchasing power. So, on that, I think it's another force that suggests a slower growth, stickier inflation outlook is likely to prevail.

Okay Matt, you've had me on the hot seat. Now it's your turn. How do you think about the market pricing of the Fed's policy path from here? It certainly seems to conflict with how I'm thinking about the most likely path. 

Matt Hornbach: So, when we look at market prices, we have to remember that they are representing an average path across all various paths that different investors might think are more likely than not.     So, the market price today, has about 100 basis points of cuts by the end of 2026. That contrasts both with your path in terms of magnitude. You are forecasting 175 basis points of rate cuts; the market is only pricing in 100. But also, the market pricing contrasts with your policy path in that the market does have some rate cuts in the price for this year, whereas your most likely path does not. 

So that's how I look at the market price. You know, the question then becomes, where does it go to from here? And that's something that we ultimately are incorporating into our forecasts for the level of Treasury yields. 

Michael Gapen: Right. So, turning to that, so moving a little further out the curve into those longer dated Treasury yields. What do you think about those? Your forecast suggests lower yields over the next year and a half. When do you think that process starts to play out? 

Matt Hornbach: So, in our projections, we have Treasury yields moving lower, really beginning in the fourth quarter of this year. And that is to align with the timing of when you see the Fed beginning to lower rates, which is in the first quarter of next year. So, market prices tend to get ahead of different policy actions, and we expect that to remain the case this year as well. As we approach the end of the year, we are expecting Treasury yields to begin falling more precipitously than they have over recent months. 

But what are the risks around that projection? In our view, the risks are that this process starts earlier rather than later. In other words, where we have most conviction in our projections is in the direction of travel for Treasury yields as opposed to the timing of exactly when they begin to fall. So, we are recommending that investors begin gearing up for lower Treasury yields even today. But in our projections, you'll see our numbers really begin to fall in the fourth quarter of the year, such that the 10-year Treasury yield ends this year around 4 percent, and it ends 2026 closer to 3 percent. 

Michael Gapen: And these days it's really impossible to talk about movements in Treasury yields without thinking about the U.S. dollar. So how are you thinking about the dollar amidst the conflict in the Middle East and your outlook for Treasury yields? 

Matt Hornbach: So, we are projecting the U.S. dollar will depreciate another 10 percent over the next 12 to 18 months. That's coming on the back of a pretty dramatic decline in the value of the dollar in the first six months of this year, where it also declined by about 10 percent in terms of its value against other currencies. 

So, we are expecting a continued depreciation, and the conflict in the Middle East and what it may end up doing to the energy complex is a key risk to our view that the dollar will continue to depreciate, if we end up seeing a dramatic rise in crude oil prices. That rise would end up benefiting countries, and the currencies of those countries who are net exporters of oil; and may end up hurting the countries and the currencies of the countries that are net importers of oil. The good news is that the United States doesn't really import a lot of oil these days, but neither is it a large net exporter either.

So, the U.S. in some sense turns out to be a bit of a neutral party in this particular issue. But if we see a rise in energy prices that could benefit other currencies more than it benefits the U.S. dollar. And therefore, we could see a temporary reprieve in the dollar’s depreciation, which would then push our forecast perhaps a little bit further into the future. 

So, with that, Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. 

Michael Gapen: It's great speaking with you, Matt. 

Matt 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.

Our Australia Materials Analyst Rahul Anand discusses why critical minerals may be the Achilles’ heel of humanoids as demand significantly outpaces supply amid geopolitical uncertainties.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Rahul Anand: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rahul Anand, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Australia Materials Research team.

Today, I'll dig deeper into one of the vital necessities for the development of robotics – critical minerals – and why they're so vital to be front of mind for the Western world today. 

It's Wednesday, June 25th at 8am in Sydney, Australia. 

Humanoid robots will soon become an integral part of our daily lives. A few weeks ago, you heard my colleagues Adam Jonas and Sheng Zhong discuss how humanoids are going to transform the economy and markets. Morgan Stanley Research expects this market to reach more than a billion units by 2050 and generate almost [$] 5 trillion in annual revenue. 

When we think about that market, and we think about what it could do for critical minerals demand, that could skyrocket. And the key areas of critical minerals demand would basically be focused on rare earths, lithium and graphite. 

Each one of these complex machines is going to require about a kilo of rare earths, 2 kgs of lithium, 6.5 kgs kilos of copper, 1.5 kgs of nickel, 3 kgs of graphite, and about 200 grams of cobalt. Importantly, this market from a cumulative standpoint by the year 2050, could be to the tune of about $800 billion U.S., which is staggering.

And beyond that market size of $800 billion U.S., I think it's important to drill a bit deeper – because if we now consider how these markets are dominated currently, comes the China angle. And China currently dominates 88 percent of rare earth supply, 93 percent of graphite supply and 75 percent of refined lithium supply. China recently placed controls on seven heavy rare earths and permanent magnet exports in response to tariff announcements that were made by the U.S., and a comprehensive deal there is still awaited. 

It's very important that we have to think about diversification today, not just because these critical minerals are so heavily dominated by China. But more importantly, if we think about how the supply chain comes about, it's now taking circa 18 years to get a new mine online, and that's the statistic for the past five years of mines that came online. That number is up nearly 50 percent from last decade, and that's been driven basically by very long approval processes now in the Western world, alongside very long exploration times that are required to get some of these mines up and running. 

On top of that, when we think about the supply demand balance, by 2040 we're expecting that the NdPr, or the rare earth, market would be in a 26 percent deficit. Lithium could be in a deficit close to 80 percent. So, it's not just about supply security. It's also about how long it will take to bring these mines on. And on top of that, how big the amount of supply that's required is really going to be. 

I know when you think about 2040, it sounds very long dated, but it's important to understand that we have to act now. And in this humanoid piece of research that we have done as the global materials team, which was led by the Australian materials team, we basically have provided 34 global stocks to play this thematic in the rare earths, lithium and rare earth magnet space. 

It's also very important to remember and keep front of mind that as part of the London negotiations that happened between U.S. and China, no agreement was reached on critical military use rare earth magnets and exports. Now that's an important point because that's going to play as a key point of leverage in any future trade deal that comes about between the two countries. 

This remains an evolving situation, and this is something that we are going to continue monitoring and will bring you the latest on as time progresses.

Look, thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Equity Strategist Jonathan Garner explains why Indian equities are our most preferred market in Asia.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Equity Strategist. Today I’ll discuss why we remain positive on India’s long-term equity story.

It’s Tuesday, the 24th of June at 9am in Singapore.

We’ve had a long-standing bullish outlook on the India economy and its stock market. In the last five years MSCI India has delivered a total return in U.S. dollars of 145 percent versus 94 percent for global equities and just 39 percent for emerging markets. Indian equities are our most preferred market within Asia for three key reasons. First, India’s superior economic and earnings growth. Second, lower exposure to trade tariffs. And third, a strong domestic investor base. And all of this adds up to structural outperformance not just in Asia but indeed globally, and with significantly lower volatility than peer group markets. 

So let’s dive deeper. To start with – the macroeconomic backdrop. We expect India to account for 20 percent of overall incremental global GDP growth in the coming decade. Manufacturing competitiveness is improving thanks to bolstered infrastructure in power, ports, roads, freight transport systems as well as investments in social infrastructure such as water, sewage and hospitals. 

Additionally, India's growing middle class offers market opportunities to companies across many product categories. There’s robust domestic consumption, a strong investment cycle led by public and private capital expenditure and continuing structural reforms, including in the legal sphere. GDP growth in the first quarter was more than 7 percent and our team expects over 6 percent in the medium term, which would be by far the highest of the major economies. 

Furthermore, we continue to expect robust corporate earnings growth. Since the end of COVID, MSCI India has delivered around 12 percent per annum [U.S.] dollar earnings per share growth versus low single digits for Emerging Markets overall. And we forecast 14 percent and 16 percent over the next two fiscal years. Growth drivers in the short term include an emerging private CapEx cycle, re-leveraging of corporate balance sheets, and a structural rise in discretionary consumption – signaling increased business and consumer confidence, after last year’s elections. 

Another key reason that we’re positive on India currently is its lower-than-average vulnerability to ongoing trade and tariff disputes between the U.S. and its trade partners. Exports of goods to the U.S. amount to only 2 percent of India’s GDP versus, for example, 10 percent in Thailand or 14 percent in Taiwan. And India’s total goods exports are only around 12 percent of GDP. Moreover, for the time being, India’s very large services sector’s exports are not exposed to tariff actions, and are actually early beneficiaries of AI adoption. 

Finally, India’s strong individual stock ownership means that there’s persistent retail buying, which underpins the equity market. Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) flows driven by a young urbanizing population are making new highs, and in May amounted to over U.S.$3 billion. They provide consistent capital inflows. That means that this domestic bid on stocks is unlikely to fade anytime soon. 

This provides a strong foundation for the market and supports valuations which are slightly above emerging market averages. It also means that its market beta to global equities are low and falling, approximately 0.4 versus 1.1 ten years ago. And price volatility is well below other emerging markets. All told, making India an attractive play in volatile times. 

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 CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why investors have largely remained calm amid recent developments in the Middle East.

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 how to think about the tensions in the Middle East for U.S. equities.  

It's Monday, June 23rd at 11:30am in New York.  

So, let’s get after it.  

Over the weekend, the United States executed a surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. While the extent of the damage has yet to be confirmed, President Trump has indicated Iran’s nuclear weapon development efforts have been diminished substantially, if not fully. If true, then this could be viewed as a peak rate of change for this risk. In many ways this fits our overall narrative for U.S. equities that we have likely passed the worst for many risks that were weighing on stocks in the first quarter of the year. Things like immigration enforcement, fiscal spending cuts, tariffs and AI CapEx deceleration all contributed to dragging down earnings forecasts.  

Fast forward to today and all of these items have peaked in terms of their negative impact, and earnings forecasts have rebounded since Mid-April. In fact, the rebound in earnings revision breadth is one of the sharpest on record and provides a fundamental reason for why U.S. stocks have been so strong since bottoming the week of April 7th. Add in the events of this past weekend and it makes sense why equities are not selling off this morning as many might have expected.  

For further context, we looked at 23 major geopolitical events since 1950 and the impact on stock prices. What we found may surprise listeners, but it is a well understood fact by seasoned investors. Geopolitical shocks are typically followed by higher, not lower equity prices, especially over 6 to12 months. Only five of the 23 outcomes were negative. And importantly, all the negative outcomes were accompanied by oil prices that were at least 75 percent higher on a year-over-year basis. As of this morning, oil prices are down 10 percent year-over-year and this is after the actions over the weekend. In other words, the conditions are not in place for lower equity prices on a 6 to12 month horizon.  

Having said that, we continue to recommend large cap higher quality equities rather than small cap lower quality names. This is mostly a function of sticky long term interest rates and the fact that we remain in a late cycle environment in which the Fed is on hold. Should that change and the Fed begin to signal rate cuts, we would pivot to a more cyclical areas of the market.  

Our favorite sectors remain Industrials which are geared to higher capital spending for power and infrastructure, Financials which will benefit from deregulation this fall and software stocks that remain immune from tariffs and levered to the next area of spending for AI diffusion across the economy. We also like Energy over consumer discretionary as a hedge against the risk of higher oil prices in the near term.  

Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found today's episode 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!

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Kelvin Pang explain why international issuers may be interested in so-called ‘dim sum’ bonds, despite Asia’s growth drag.

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. 

Kelvin Pang: And I'm Kelvin Pang, Head of Asia Credit Strategy. 

Andrew Sheets: And today in the program we're going to finish our global tour of credit markets with a discussion of Asia. 

It's Friday, June 20th at 2pm in London. 

Kelvin Pang: And 9pm in Hong Kong. 

Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, thank you for joining us. Thank you especially for joining us so late in your day – to complete this credit World tour. And before we get into the Asia credit market, I think it would just be helpful to frame at a very high level – how you see the economic picture in the region. 

Kelvin Pang: We do think that the talks and potential deals will probably provide some reprieve towards the growth for the region, but not a big relief. We do think that tariff uncertainty will linger here, and it will keep growth low here; especially if we do think that CapEx of the region will be weaker due to tariff uncertainty. A weaker U.S. dollar, for example, plus monetary easing will help offset some of this growth drag. But overall, we do think that the Asia region could see 90 basis point down in real GDP growth from last year. 

Andrew Sheets: So, we've got weaker growth in Asia as a function of high tariffs and high tariff uncertainty that can't be offset by further policy easing. In the context of that weaker growth backdrop, higher uncertainty – are credit spreads in the region wide? 

Kelvin Pang: No, they're actually really low. They're probably at like the lowest since we start having a data in 2013. So definitely like a 12 to 13 year low of the range. 

Andrew Sheets: And so why is that? Why do you have this kind of seemingly odd disconnect between some real growth challenges? And as you just mentioned, really some of the tightest credit spreads, some of the lowest risk premiums that we've seen in quite some time? 

Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we get this question a lot from clients, and the short answer is that, you know, the technicals, right? Because the last two years, two-three years, we've been seeing negative net supply for Asia credit. A lot of that is driven by China credit. And if you look at year-to-date, non supply remain still negative net supply. And demand side, for example, has not really picked up that strongly. But it still offsets any outflows that we see the last two-three years; is offset by this negative net supply. 

So, you put this two together, we have this very strong technicals that support very tight spread. And that's why spread has been tight at historical end in the last, I would say, one to two years. 

Andrew Sheets: Do you see this changes? 

Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we do think it's changed. We have a framework that we call the normalization of Asia Credit technicals. And for that to change, essentially our framework is saying that Treasury yields use need to go down, and dollar funding need to go down. Cheaper dollar funding will bring back issuers. Net supply should pick up. Demand for credit tends to do well in a rate cut cycle. Demand tends to pick up in a rate cut cycle. 

So, if we have these two supports, we do think that Asia credit technicals will normalize. It's just that, you know, we have four stages of normalization. Unfortunately we are in stage two now, and we still have a bit of room to see some further normalization, especially if we don't get rate cuts.

 Andrew Sheets: Got it. So, you know, we do think that if Morgan Stanley's yield forecasts are correct, yields are going to fall. Issuers will look at those lower yields as more attractive. They'll issue more paper in Asia and that will kind of help rebalance the market some. But we're just not quite there yet. 

Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we feel like this road to rate cuts has been delayed a few times, in the last two-three years. And that has really been a big conundrum for a lot of Asia credit investors. So hopefully third time's a charm, right. So next year's a big year. 

Andrew Sheets: So, I guess while we're waiting for that, you also have this dynamic where for companies in Asia, or I guess for any company in the world, borrowing money locally in Asia is quite cheap. You have very low yields in China. You have very low local yields in Japan. How do those yields compare with the economics of borrowing in dollars? And what do you think that, kind of, means for your market? 

Kelvin Pang: Yeah, I think the short answer is that we are going to see more foreign issuers in local currency market. And, you know, we wrote a report in in March to just to pick on the dim sum corporate bond market. It benefits… 

Andrew Sheets: And Kelvin, just to stop you there, could you just describe to the listener what a dim sum bond is? And probably why you don't want to eat it? 

Kelvin Pang: Yes. So dim sum bond is basically a bond denominator in CNH. So, CNH is a[n] offshore Chinese renminbi, sort of, proxy. And it's called dim sum because it's like the most local cuisine in Hong Kong. Most – a lot of dim sum bonds are issued in Hong Kong. A lot of these CNH bonds are issued in Hong Kong, And that's why, [it has] this, you know, sort nickname called dim sum. 

Andrew Sheets: So, what is the outlook for that market and the economics for issuers who might be interested in it? 

Kelvin Pang: Yeah. We think it's a great place for global issuers who have natural demand for renminbi or CNH to issue; 10 years CGB is now is like 1.5-1.6 percent. That makes it a very attractive yield. And for a lot of these multinationals, they have natural renminbi needs. So, they don't need to worry about the hedging part of it. And what – and for a lot of investor base, the demands are picking up because we are seeing that renminbi internationalization are making some progress. You know, progress in that means better demand. So, overall, we do think that there is a good chance that the renminbi market or the dim sum market can be a bit more global player – or global, sort of, friendly market for investors. 

Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, another sector I wanted to ask you about was the China property sector. This was a sector that generated significant headlines over the last several years. It's faced significant credit challenges. It's very large, even by global standards. What's the latest on how China Property Credit is doing and how does that influence your overall view? 

Kelvin Pang: it's been four plus years, since first default started. and we've been through like 44 China property defaults, close to about 127 billion of total dollar bonds that defaulted. So, we are close to the end of the default cycle. Unfortunately, the end or default cycle doesn't mean that we are in the recovery phase, or we are in the speedy recovery phase. We are seeing a lot of companies struggling to come out restructuring. 

There are companies that come out restructuring and re-enter defaults. So, we do think that it is a long way to go for a lot of these property developers to come out restructuring and to get back to a going concern, kind of, status – I think we are still a bit far. We need to see the recovery in the physical property markets. And for that to happen, we do need to see the China economy to pick up, which give confidence to the home buyers in that sense. 

Andrew Sheets: So, Kelvin, we started this conversation with this kind of odd disconnect that kind of defines your market. You have a region that has some of the most significant growth risks from tariffs, some of the highest tariff exposure, and yet also has some of the lowest credit risk premiums with these quite tight spreads. If you look more broadly, are there any other kind of disconnects in your market that you think investors around the world should be aware of? 

Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we do think that investors need to take advantage of the disconnect because what we have now is a very compressed spread. And we like to be in high quality, right? Whether it is switching our Asia high yield into Asia investment grade, whether it is switching out of, you know, BBB credit into A credit. 

We think, you know, investors don't lose a lot of spread by doing that. But they manage to pick out higher quality credit. At the same time, we do think that one thing unique about Asia credit is that we have significant exposure to tariff risk. Asia countries are one of the few that are, you know; seven out the 10 countries that are having trade surplus with the U.S. And that's why we think that the iTraxx Asia Ex-Japan CDS index could be a good way to get exposure to tariffs. And the index did very well during the Liberation Day sell off. Now it's trading back to more like normal level of 70-75 basis point. 

We do think that, you know, for investors who want long tariff with risk, that could be a good way to add risk. 

Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, it's been great talking to you. Thanks for taking the time to talk. 

Kelvin Pang: Thank you, Andrew. 

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