Episoder
-
Our Global Head of Macro Strategy joins our Chief U.S. Economist to discuss the Fed’s recent rate cut and why persistent inflation is likely to slow the pace of future cuts.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.
Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.
Matthew: Today, we're going to talk about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting and the path for rates from here.
It's Thursday, December 19th at 10a.m. in New York.
The FOMC meeting concluded yesterday with the Federal Reserve cutting rates by a quarter of a percentage point, marking the third rate cut for the year. This move by the Fed was just as the consensus had anticipated. However, in its meeting yesterday, the Fed indicated that 2025 rate cuts would happen at a slower pace than investors were expecting. So Mike, what are committee members projecting in terms of upcoming rate cuts in 2025 and 2026?
Michael: Yeah, Matt, the Fed dialed back its expectations for policy rate easing in both 2025 and 2026. They now only look for two rate cuts of 50 basis points worth of cuts in 2025, which would bring the funds rate to 3.9% and then only another 50 basis points in 2026, bringing the policy rate to 3.4%. So a major dialing back in their expectations of rate cuts over the next two years.
Matthew: What are the factors that are driving what now appears to be a slightly less dovish view of the policy rate?
Michael: Chair Powell mentioned, I think, two things that were really important. One, he said that many committee members saw recent firmness in inflation as a surprise. And so I think some FOMC members extrapolated that strength in inflation going forward and therefore thought fewer rate cuts were appropriate. But Chair Powell also said other FOMC members incorporated expectations about potential changes in policy, which we inferred to mean changes about tariffs, immigration policy, maybe additional fiscal spending. And so whether they bake that in as explicit assumptions or just saw it as risks to the outlook, I think that these were the two main factors. So either just momentum in inflation or views on policy rate changes, which could lead to greater inflation going forward.
Matthew: So Mike, what were your expectations going into this meeting and how did yesterday's outcome change Morgan Stanley's outlook for Federal Reserve policy next year and the year thereafter?
Michael: We are a little more comfortable with inflation than the Fed appears to be. So we previously thought the Fed would be cutting rates three times next year and doing all of that in the first half of the year. But we have to listen to what they're thinking and it appears that the bar for rate cuts is higher. In other words, they may need more evidence to reduce policy rates. One month of inflation isn't going to do it, for example. So what we did is we took one rate cut out of the forecast for 2025. We now only look for two rate cuts in 2025, one in March and one in June.
As we look into 2026, we do think the effect of higher tariffs and restrictions on immigration policy will slow the economy more, so we continue to look for more rate cuts in 2026 than the Fed is projecting but obviously 2026 is a long way away. So in short, Matt, we dialed back our assumptions for policy rate easing to take into account what the Fed appears to be saying about a higher bar for comfort on inflation before they ease again.
So Matt, if I can actually turn it back to you: how, if at all, did yesterday's meeting, and what Chair Powell said, change some of your key forecasts?
Matthew: So we came into this meeting advocating for a neutral stance in the bond market. We had seen a market pricing that ended up being more in line with the outcome of the meetings. We didn't expect yields to fall dramatically in the wake of this meeting, and we didn't expect yields to rise dramatically in the wake of this meeting. But what we ended up seeing in the marketplace was higher yields as a result of a policy projection that I think surprised investors somewhat and now the market is pricing an outlook that is somewhat similar to how the Fed is forecasting or projecting their policy rate into the future.
In terms of our treasury yield forecasts, we didn’t see anything in that meeting that changes the outlook for treasury markets all that much. As you said, Mike, that in 2026, we're expecting much lower policy rates. And that ultimately is going to weigh on treasury yields as we make our way through the course of 2025. When we forecast market rates or prices, we have to think about where we are going to be in the future and how we're going to be thinking about the future from then. And so when we think about where our treasury yield's going to be at the end of 2025, we need to try to invoke the views of investors at the end of 2025, which of course are going to be looking out into 2026.
So when we consider the rate policy path that you're projecting at the moment and the factors that are driving that rate policy projection - a slower growth, for example, a bit more moderate inflation - we do think that investors will be looking towards investing in the government bond market as we make our way through next year, because 2026 should be even more supportive of government bond markets than perhaps the economy and Fed policy might be in 2025.
So that's how we think about the interest rate marketplace. We continue to project a 10 year treasury yield of just about three and a half percent at the end of 2025 that does seem a ways away from where we are today, with the 10 year treasury yield closer to four and a half percent, but a year is a long time. And that's plenty of time, we think, for yields to move lower gradually as policy does as well. On the foreign exchange side. The dollar we are projecting to soften next year, and this would be in line with our view for lower treasury yields. For the time being, the dollar reacted in a very positive way to the FOMC meeting this week but we think in 2025, you will see some softening in the dollar. And that primarily occurs against the Australian dollar, the Euro, as well as the Yen. We are projecting the dollar/yen exchange rate to end next year just below 140, which is going to be quite a move from current levels, but we do think that a year is plenty of time to see the dollar depreciate and that again links up very nicely with our forecast for lower treasury yields.
Mike, with that said, one more question for you, if you would: where do things stand with inflation now? And how does this latest FOMC signal, how does it relate to inflation expectations for the year ahead?
Michael: So right now, inflation has been a little bit stronger than we and I think the Fed had anticipated, and that's coming from two sources. One, hurricane-related effects on car prices. So the need to replace a lot of cars has pushed new and used car prices higher. We think that's a temporary story that's likely to reverse in the coming months. The more longer term concern has been around housing related inflation, or what we would call shelter inflation. The good news in that is in November, it took a marked step lower. So I do think it tells us that that component, which has been holding up inflation, will continue to move down. But as we look ahead to your point about inflation expectations, the real concern here is about potential shifts in policy, maybe the implementation of tariffs, the restriction of immigration.
We as economists would normally say those should have level effects or one-off effects on inflation. And normally I'd have a high confidence in that statement. But we just came out of a very prolonged period of higher than normal inflation, so I think the concern is repetitive, one-off shocks to inflation, lead inflation expectations to move higher. Now, we don't think that will happen. Our outlook is for rate cuts, but this is the concern. So we think inflation moves lower. But we're certainly watching the behavior of inflation expectations to see if our forecast is misguided.
Matthew: Well, great Mike. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk.
Mike: Great speaking with you, Matt.
Matthew: 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.
-
Of all of the potential policy changes from the incoming U.S. presidential administration, deregulation could have the most significant impact on markets. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist explains what’s coming.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today I'll be discussing the policy changes that we have the highest conviction in terms of their market impact.
It's Wednesday, December 18th at 10 a.m. in New York.
As our regular readers are aware, Morgan Stanley strategists and economists around the globe came together to formulate our outlook for 2025 across the wide range of markets and economies we cover. A key aspect of this year's outlook is the potential for policy changes ahead from the incoming administration. The substance, severity, and sequencing of policies will matter and will have an important bearing on how markets perform over the course of 2025. We would put the potential range of policy changes into four broad categories: Tariffs and Trade Policy; Immigration Controls; Tax Cuts and Fiscal Policy; and finally, Deregulation. In terms of sequencing, our central case is for tariffs to go first and tax cuts to be last. As our public policy team sees it, the incoming administration will see fast announcements but a slow implementation of policy, especially in terms of tariffs and immigration. Slower implementation will mean that the changes will also be slow and the impacts on the economy and markets likely to be a lot more gradual.
That said, it is in the area of deregulation that we expect to see the highest impact on markets, even though precise measurement of these impacts in terms of macroeconomic indicators such as growth and inflation is hard to come through. So with deregulation, we expect an environment in support of bank activity. As our bank equity analysts have noted, banks in their coverage area currently are sitting on record levels of excess capital: 177 billion of excess capital and a weighted average CET1 ratio of 12.8 percent, which is 140 basis points higher than pre-COVID levels of 11.4 percent.
If Basel III Endgame is re proposed in a more capital neutral manner, we expect U.S. banks will begin deploying their excess capital into lending, supporting clients in trading and underwriting, increasing their securities purchases, as well as increasing buybacks and dividends. Changes to the existing Basel III Endgame proposal will also make U.S. banks more competitive globally.
We also believe all global banks with significant capital markets businesses will benefit from the return of the M&A. Another by-product of Basel III Endgame being reproposed in a capital neutral way pertains to what banks do in their securities portfolios. In the last few years, in anticipation of higher capital requirements, U.S. banks have not been very active in deploying their capital in securities purchases, particularly Asian CMBS and CLO AAAs. With the deregulation focus, we expect that banks will revert to buying the assets that they have stayed away from, in particular, Asian CMBS and CLO AAAs.
The return of bank demand for CLO AAAs will have a bearing on the underlying broadly syndicated loan market and even more broadly on credit formation and sponsor activity, which will be supportive of a stronger return of M&A than our credit strategists have been expecting. So in fixed income, if you pardon the pun, we are really banking on the impact of deregulation, which supports our view on the range of relative value opportunities and spread products, especially in securitized products.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague.
-
Mangler du episoder?
-
Our Global Chief Economist explains why a predictable end to 2024 for central banks may give way to a tempestuous 2025.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about how the year end is wrapping up with, surprisingly, a fair amount of certainty about central banks.
It's Tuesday, December 17th at 10 a. m. in New York.
Unlike the rest of this past year, year end seems to have a lot more certainty about the last few central bank meetings. Perhaps it is just the calm before the storm, but for now, let's enjoy a benign central bank week ahead of the holidays. Last Thursday, the ECB cut interest rates 25 basis points, right in line with what we were thinking and what the market was thinking. Similarly, but I have to say, with a pretty different narrative, we expect the Fed to cut 25 basis points this week and the market seems to be all in there as well.
The Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, well, we think they're closed accounts; that is to say, they're going to be on pause until the new year. Last week's 25 basis point cut by the ECB came amidst a debate as to whether or not the ECB should accelerate their pace of rate cuts. With most doubts about disinflation resolved, it’s downside growth risks that have gained prominence in the decision making process there. Restrictive monetary policy is starting to look less and less necessary and President Lagarde’s statement seems to reflect that the council's negotiated stance, that easing will continue until the ECB reaches neutral. The question is what happens next? In our view, the ECB will come to see there's a need to cut through neutral and get all the way down to 1%.
In stark contrast, there's the Fed, where there are very few residual growth concerns, but there have been more and more questions about the pace of disinflation. The recent employment data, for example, clearly suggests that the recession risk is low. Some members on the committee have started to express concerns, however, that inflation data really have proven stickier and that maybe the disinflation process is stalled.
From our perspective, last week's CPI data and all the other inflation data we just got really point to the next PCE print showing continued clear disinflation, leaving very little room for debate for the Fed to cut 25 basis points in December. And indeed, if it's as weak as we think it is, that provides extra fuel for a cut in January.
That said, our baseline view of cuts in March and May are going to get challenged if future data releases show a reversal in this disinflationary trend, if it's from residual seasonality or maybe pass through from newly imposed tariffs, and Chair Powell's remarks at next week's press conference are really going to be critical to see if they really are becoming more cautious about cuts.
Now, we don't expect the Bank of England or the Bank of Japan to move until next year. The recent currency weakness in Japan has raised the prospect of a rate hike as soon as this month, but we've kept the view that a January rate hike is much more likely. The timing would allow the Bank of Japan to get greater insight into the Shunto wage negotiations, and that gives them greater insight into future inflation. And recent communications from the Bank of Japan also aligns with our view and in particular, there is a scheduled speech by Deputy Governor Himino on January 14th, one week before the January 23rd and 24th meeting. All of that says the stars are lined up for a January rate hike. Market pricing over the past couple weeks have moved against a hike in December and towards our call for a hike in January.
Now, the market's also pricing the next Bank of England cut to be next year rather than this year. We expect those cuts to come at alternating meetings. December on pause, a cut in February, and gradual rate cuts thereafter. Now, services inflation, the key focus of the Bank of England so far, has remained elevated through the end of the year, but we expect to see mounting evidence of labor market weakness, and as a result, wage growth deceleration, and that, we think, is what pushes the MPC towards more cuts. All of that said, the recent announcement of fiscal stimulus in the UK starts to raise some inflationary risks at the margin.
All right, well, as the year comes to an end, it has been quite a year to say the least. Elections around the world, not least of which here in the United States, wildly swinging expectations for central banks, and a structural shift in Japan ending decades of nominal stagnation. And I have to say an early glimpse into 2025 suggests that the roller coaster is not over yet. But for now, let's take some respite because there should be limited drama from central banks this week. Happy holidays.
Well, thanks for listening, and 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 recaps how equity markets have fared in 2024, and why they might look more conservative early in the new year.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to position as we head into the new year.
It's Monday, Dec 16th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.
The big question for most investors trying to beat the S&P 500 is whether returns will continue to be dominated by the Magnificent 7 and a few other high quality large cap stocks or if we're going to will see a sustainable broadening out of performance to new areas. Truth be told, 2024 has been a year during which investors have oscillated between a view of broadening out or continued narrowing. This preference has coincided with the ever-changing macro view about growth and inflation and how the Fed would respond.
To recount this past year, our original framework suggested investors would have to contend with markets reacting to these different macro-outcomes. More specifically, whether the economy would end up in a soft landing, a hard landing or a “no landing” outcome of accelerating growth and inflation. Getting this view right helped us navigate what kinds of stocks, sectors and factors would outperform during the year. The perfect portfolio this year would have been overweight broad cyclicals like energy, industrials and financials in the first quarter, followed by a Magnificent 7 tilt in early 2Q that got more defensive over the summer before shifting back toward high quality cyclicals in late third quarter. Lately, that cyclical tilt has included some lower quality stocks while the Magnificent 7 has had a big resurgence in the past few weeks. We attributed these shifts to the changing perceptions on the macro which have been more uncertain than normal.
Going into next year, I think this pattern continues, and it currently makes sense to have a barbell of large cap high quality cyclicals and growth stocks even though small caps and the biggest losers of the prior year tend to outperform in January as portfolios rebalance. We remain up the quality curve because it appears the seasonal low quality cyclical small cap rally was pulled forward this year due to the decisive election outcome. In addition to the large hedges being removed, there was also a spike in many confidence surveys which further spilled into excitement about this small cap lower quality rotation.
Therefore, it makes sense that the short-term euphoria that's now taking a break with the rotation back toward large cap quality mentioned earlier. The fundamental driver of this rotation is earnings. Both earnings revisions and the expected growth rate of earnings next year remain much better for higher quality stocks and sectors. Given the uncertainty around policy sequencing and implementation on tariffs, immigration and how much the Fed can cut rates next year, we suspect equity markets will tread a bit more conservatively in the first quarter than what we observed this fall.
The biggest risks to the upside would be a more modest implementation of tariffs, a de-emphasis on deportations of working illegal immigrants and perhaps more aggressive de-regulation that is viewed as pro-growth. Other variables worth watching closely include how quickly and aggressively the new department of government efficiency acts with respect to shrinking the size of the Federal agencies. While I'm hopeful this new effort can prove the skeptics wrong, success may prove to be growth negative in the near term given how much the government has been driving overall GDP growth for the past few years. In my view, a true broadening out of the economy and the stock market is contingent on a smaller government both in terms of regulation and absolute size. In my view, this is the most exciting potential change for taxpayers, smaller businesses and markets overall. However, it is also likely to take several years to fully manifest.
In the meantime, I wish you a happy holiday season and a healthy and prosperous New Year.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
-
After an up-and-down 2024 for the U.S. airlines industry, our Freight Transportation & Airlines Analyst Ravi Shanker explains why he is bullish about the sector’s trajectory over the next year.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley’s Freight Transportation and Airlines analyst. Today I’ll discuss why we remain bullish on the US Airlines industry for 2025.
It’s Friday, December 13, at 10am in New York.
The Airline industry entered 2024 with good momentum, lost it during the middle of the year with some concerns around the economy and capacity, but then turned it around in the fall to finish the year with the strongest run that the Airlines have had since the pandemic. The coast looks clear for 2025, and we remain bullish on the US Airlines for next year.
While many airline stocks enter 2025 close to post-pandemic if not all-time highs, valuations are still attractive enough across the space to see upside across the industry. The big question right now is: will the focus on premium services continue to pay off, or will there be a resurgence in domestic travel that alters the market dynamics? We think the answer is both.
Premium beneficiaries will continue to shine in 2025. We believe the premiumization trend in the industry is structural and will continue next year. Legacy carriers have successfully capitalized on this trend, enhancing their revenue streams significantly through upgraded service offerings such as premium seating and lounge access. This move isn't just about luxury—it's a calculated play to boost ancillary revenues, which are becoming a more critical component of financial stability in the airline industry. The premium leaders are building annuity-like business models – think razorblades, printers or smartphones – where the sale of a popular gateway product is followed by the bulk of the profitability coming from ancillary revenues generated in the following years, as loyalty and adjacent revenues contribute a steady stream of earnings and free cash flow to the airlines.
On the flip side, the conversation around better margins on domestic travel is gaining momentum as well. 2024 saw a big shift where several domestic carriers made significant changes and even in some cases fundamentally overhauled their business models to fly less, fly differently, bundle fares, and move upmarket. This change brought significant disruption in 2024 but could be set to pay dividends in 2025 and reignite investor interest in these domestic names. This shift toward domestic travel could potentially redistribute market share and redefine competitive dynamics within the entire Airlines industry.
To sum up, the setup for 2025 looks very good. But volatility could remain high due to external factors. The biggest risk into 2025 -- especially the second half of [20]25 -- continues to be the macro backdrop. More specifically, our economists' view of a sharply slowing GDP growth and services spending environment in the second half of [20]25 and into [20]26. While we take comfort from the resilience of travel spending so far, we know that things could change quickly. We will continue to keep you updated throughout the next year.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
-
Our U.S. Retail Analyst Simeon Gutman discusses shoppers’ embrace of a private labels super cycle and how changing consumer behavior could fundamentally change grocery and discount retailers.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley’s US Hardlines, Broadlines and Food Retail Analyst. Today, we’ll talk about a fascinating shift in the retail landscape: the rise of private label products and what this could mean for the future of grocery and discount retailers.
It’s Thursday, December 12, at 10am in New York.
Think about your recent trip to your favorite grocery store. As you reached towards the shelves for your preferred brand of mayonnaise, frozen pizza, or bread, you may have noticed that more and more shelves are stocked with store-brand products. Products that not only match the quality of national brands but often exceed it. This isn't just a minor trend. We estimate private label sales growth will accelerate by 40 per cent to reach $462 billion by 2030. An expansion that will redefine market dynamics significantly.
In essence, we think the private label grocery market is on the cusp of a super cycle. This super cycle is a by-product of COVID-era shifts in the way that customers shop and how retailers invest into this trend. At the same time, private label groceries reflect the rise of mega platforms, which are taking ever greater consumer wallet share and are innovating more than ever before.
When you look at macro drivers, US consumers have been navigating a difficult post-COVID environment. While inflation is currently moderating, overall food prices remain 30-34 per cent above their 2018 levels. Most consumers are spending more on food at home vs. food away from home, which is a positive catalyst for private label acceleration. Further, consumers are willing to substitute lower priced goods, especially groceries, and these categories present a growth opportunity for private labels. This is the tipping point that we’re talking about. High costs, recent innovation, and innovation like we’ve never seen before – with the rise of these mega platforms, this industry looks like it’s ripe for disruption.
The market views private label penetration as a slow, gradual, and ongoing event. But our work challenges this premise. We believe the rate of change in private label growth will accelerate substantially over the next few years. We think private label products will grow at double the rate of the overall grocery market bringing private label market penetration from about 19 per cent in 2023 to about 23 per cent by 2030.
This growth is not just about stocking up the shelves. It's about changing consumer perceptions and behavior. Consumers increasingly see private labels as viable alternatives to national brands because they often offer better value and innovation. From healthier ingredients, like no more seed oils, to organic products that you had no idea they can produce, to premium products like frozen lobster ravioli to mushroom and truffle pizza. There are a couple of retailers in the US that are all private label and they are among the fastest growing ones, taking away the stigma of what private label products could mean.
So what does this mean for the broader retail and consumer packaged good industries? For grocers and discounters with already strong private label offerings, this shift presents a significant opportunity for growth. It’s also accretive to margins. On the flip side, traditional food companies might face increased competition. These companies have historically relied on brand superiority. But as private label gains market share – particularly in food categories – these national brands could see a hit to their gross profit growth, which could fall from 3 per cent historically to about 2 per cent. And while household and personal care categories have seen some resilience against private label encroachment, the ongoing economic pressures and shifts in consumer spending habits could challenge the status quo.
Looking ahead, the rise of private labels could lead to a reevaluation of what brands mean to consumers. As private label becomes synonymous with quality and value, we may see a new era in which traditional brand loyalty becomes less significant compared to product quality and cost-effectiveness.
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 Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why corporate credit may struggle in 2025, including the risks of aggressive policy shifts in the U.S. along with political and structural challenges in Europe and Asia.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing realistic scenarios where things are worse than we expect. Next week, I’ll cover what could be better.
It's Wednesday, December 11th at 2pm in London.
Morgan Stanley strategists and economists recently completed our forecasting process for the year ahead, and regular listeners will have now heard our expectations across a wide range of economies and markets. But I’d stress that these forecasts are a central case. The world is uncertain, with a probability distribution around all forecasts. So in the case of credit, what could go wrong?
As a quick reminder, our baseline for credit is reasonably constructive. We think that low credit spreads can remain low, especially in the first half of next year – as policy change is slow to come through, economic data holds up, the Fed and European Central Bank ease rates more than expected, and still-high yields on corporate bonds attract buyers.
So how does all of that go wrong? Well, there are a few specific, realistic factors that could lead us to something worse, i.e., our bear case.
Let me start with US policy. Morgan Stanley’s Public Policy team’s view is that the incoming US administration will see fast announcement, but slow implementation on key issues like tariffs, fiscal policy, and immigration; and that that slower implementation of any of these policies will mean that change comes less quickly to the economy. But that change could happen faster, which would mean weaker growth and higher prices – if, for example, tariffs were to hit earlier and or in larger size. In the case of immigration, we are actually still forecasting positive net immigration over the next several years. But a larger change in policy would raise the odds of a more severe labor shortage.
Even outside any specific change from the new US administration, there’s also a risk that the US economy simply runs out of gas. The recovery since COVID has been extraordinary – one of the fastest on record, especially in the labor market. The risk is that companies have now done all the hiring they need to do, meaning a slower job market going forward. Even in their base-case, Morgan Stanley’s economists see job market growth slowing, adding just 28,000 jobs/month in 2026. And to give you a sense of how low that number is, the average over the last 12 months was 190,000. And so, the bear case is that the labor market slows even more, more quickly, raising the risk of recession and dramatically lowering bond yields, both of which would reduce investor demand for corporate bonds.
At the other extreme, credit could be challenged if conditions are too hot. Because current levels of corporate aggression are still quite low, we think they could rise in 2025 without creating a major problem. But if those corporate animal spirits arrive more rapidly, it could be a negative.
Outside the US, we think the growth in Europe holds up as the European Central Bank cuts rates and Europeans end up saving at a slightly less elevated rate, and that that can keep growth near this year’s levels, around 1 per cent. But you don’t need me to tell you that Europe is riddled with challenges: from the political in France, to major structural questions around Germany’s economy. Meanwhile, China, the world’s second largest economy, continues to struggle with too little inflation. We think that growth in China muddles through, but a larger trade escalation could drive downside risk; one reason we prefer ex-China credit within Asia.
Of course, maybe the most obvious risk to Credit is simply valuation. Credit spreads in the US are near 20-year lows, while the US Equity Price-to-Earnings Multiples for the equity market is near 20-year highs. In our view, valuation is a much better guide to returns over the next six years, rather than say the next six months. And that’s one reason we are currently looking through this. But those valuations do leave a lot less margin for error.
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 CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist says that while equity market activity suggests a measured level of optimism about 2025, the questions around tariffs and inflation have tempered expectations.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I will be discussing how equity markets have traded post the election and how this fits with our thinking.
It's Tuesday, Dec 10 at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.
Post the election, our focus has been on the potential for a rebound in animal spirits like we observed following the 2016 election. During that historical period, we saw a broad-based surge in corporate, consumer and investor confidence as the sentiment analysis we’ve done shows. So far over the last month, sentiment data has reflected a more measured level of optimism led by small business confidence while services related business outlooks were actually tempered somewhat.
Our assessment of the details of these surveys and commentary from corporates suggests that consumers and companies are feeling more optimistic heading into 2025. But the uncertainty around tariffs and the still elevated price levels are likely holding back the type of exuberance we saw post the 2016 election.
In 2016, we were also coming out of an industrial/manufacturing downturn, which was then aided by aggressive China stimulus. Due to that downturn, interest rates were much lower globally and sovereign deficits and balance sheets were in much better shape to absorb reflationary type policies like tax cuts and deregulation. As a result, the equity market almost immediately embraced an expansionary fiscal agenda that was interpreted as being pro-growth. Today, that policy agenda appears to be less front-footed in this regard, perhaps due to some of these constraints.
Nevertheless, these dynamics are still supportive of our preference for more cyclical sectors. However, given the stickiness of interest rates, it also makes sense to remain up the quality curve within cyclicals and constructively focused on sectors with clearer de-regulation tailwinds. As a result, Financials remain our preferred over-weight, followed by Software, Utilities and Industrials.
On the topic of interest rates, we find it interesting that the correlation of S&P 500 returns versus the change in bond yields remains in positive territory. In other words, good macro data is good for equity returns. Furthermore, there is a clear bifurcation in terms of this correlation between cyclical and defensive sectors. Cyclical sectors are showing a positive correlation to rates, with one exception of Materials, while defensive cohorts are showing a negative correlation except for Utilities.
In our view, this is a sign that cyclicals and the market overall still like stronger macro data even if it comes amid higher yields. Having said that, there is a point where this dynamic would likely reverse if interest rates rise due to less dovish monetary policy or an increase in the term premium. In April of this year, that level was 4.5 per cent on the 10-year Treasury yield when growth and inflation drove the term premium higher. For now, rates remain contained well below that threshold and the term premium is close to zero.
On the flipside, a material decline in yields due to weakness in the macro growth data would also hurt cyclical stocks disproportionately leaving 4.00-4.50 per cent on the 10-year treasury yield as the sweet spot for equity valuations. Yields below that range can certainly be tolerated by equities assuming the driver is Fed rate cuts in the absence of a material slowdown in growth. Yields above that range can also be tolerated if the pace of the rate rise is measured, and the driver is stronger nominal growth versus a more hawkish Fed or a rising inflation.
Finally, as we approach year-end, December seasonality is likely to be a focal point for investors. Over the past 45 years, the S&P 500's median return over the month of December is 1.5 per cent and the index has a positive return 73 per cent of the time. Notably, almost all of that performance comes in the second half of the month. These trends are directionally consistent for the Russell 2000 small cap index except that it’s even stronger at about 2.5 per cent. This performance could be further enhanced by the larger post-election spike in small business confidence mentioned earlier.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
-
Morgan Stanley Research and Investment Management analysts discuss how AI can keep costs down for the industry and give patients a more personalized experience.
----- Transcript -----
Craig Hettenbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Craig Hettenbach, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Healthcare Technology and Providers analyst.
Today I'm here with my colleague Steve Rodgers from Morgan Stanley Capital Partners to talk about a growing and underappreciated segment of healthcare – the behind-the-scenes technology that is transforming the sector to keep costs down and improve patient care.
It's Monday, December 9th at 9am in New York.
In 2022, the size of the U.S. healthcare sector was [$]4.5 trillion and is projected to grow to [$]6.8 trillion in 2030, accounting for 20 per cent of overall U.S. GDP. We know that the U.S. population is aging, and we expect to see 71 million U.S. citizens age 65 and over by 2030. That puts ever growing demand on health care systems.
So, Steve, you and your colleagues in investment management have been looking lately at key macro trends driving change in the healthcare sector.
What are these drivers and how do they work together?
Steve Rodgers: When we look at the health care landscape, we really think about four major macro trends. The first is cost containment. And this is just this simple idea that costs are escalating at an unsustainable rate. The second is demographics; we also know that things like obesity is increasing the prevalence of chronic conditions and increasing the overall utilization of the healthcare system. And so, we're looking at ways to invest behind that macro trend.
We've also identified something called consumerism. And consumerism stems from the reality that today, patients are taking more of a financial responsibility in their healthcare. And with that comes more decision making. So, the old days – where the patient received healthcare services, but the payer paid, and there was really no link between the two – have moved on.
We call it the retailization of health care. Waiting in the office for your appointment for 30 minutes used to be a standard. Today, that's unacceptable because these patients will move to the next provider who's providing them a better retail experience.
The final macro driver we call enabling technology. Health care has lagged many other industry segments in the use of technology as a source of efficiency. I like to give the example of chemotherapy treatments, right? Technology would produce a new chemotherapy treatment, and while that's great for patient care and outcomes. It actually could lead to increased costs to the system because it was an added route that people would go down.
Now there's technology which allows a provider to say, “Start with this one because of your genetic makeup.” And not only will you have a better outcome more quickly, but it will be less cost to the system. We're also seeing that kind of efficiency happen on the administrative side of healthcare as well.
The way we think about these macro trends and how they work together is really thinking about demand versus supply. So, we see demand drivers coming from demographics and consumerism. We see supply drivers coming from cost containment and really enabling technology has impacts on both demand and supply.
Craig Hettenbach: Let's focus more specifically on just how digitization and cost containment dovetail. When people talk about the impact of AI and ML on healthcare, typically the focus is on things like big pharma, medical equipment, and hospitals. But there's actually a whole intricate infrastructure that helps healthcare run.
Can you talk about these behind-the-scenes businesses and why investment managers are so interested in the opportunities they offer?
Steve Rodgers: Yeah, it's really important. We focus on investments that are using technology to enable their businesses. And so that's automation. That's machine learning. It's AI. But all of these technologies are being used behind the scenes to make care more efficient and they're a better use of our dollars.
For example the personalization of communications from health plans. So historically a health plan would send the same communication, you know, to – the same form to every patient.
Well now, technology allows the health plan, at the point of generating that communication, to know that information about the person that's getting it. And having the ability to personalize it in ways that might help them be more likely to interact with it. Maybe they're trying to get them to do something about their health. Well, they can take an administrative communication, you know, called an explanation of benefit, which really just explains how much you owe versus how much the health plan owes. And you can also add important information to that that might help you utilize your benefits better.
Another example that we see is on the hospital side. As people I think have heard, hospitals have been very inefficient, right? They pay bills the wrong bills, they're duplicative invoices, and there haven't been really good ways to figure that out. Well, we now have technology that can identify those duplicative invoices, that can actually identify that there are multiple contracts that they have with a vendor and direct them to use the cheapest one.
Last one that I would highlight is around the procurement of pharmaceuticals. So, again, if you imagine a hospital system that has 50 different hospitals and one person at each hospital might be buying the pharmaceuticals that fit to the needs they have in that facility. Well, now there's technology that's really helping consolidate those purchases, get the benefits of scale. Also tracking what is a very dynamic pricing market and figuring out today this channels is less costly than that one, so buy it from here; tomorrow it might be different.
We're seeing behind-the-scenes uses of technology in all of those types of areas, which are leading to efficiencies.
Craig Hettenbach: That's really interesting and I agree. Sometimes investors can overlook healthcare infrastructure as an area offering a lot of hidden growth. Let's take a subsector like Revenue Cycle Management or RCM. What is it exactly and what opportunities does it offer when it comes to technology and cost containment?
Steve Rodgers: What it is, it really is the whole process from start to finish of a healthcare episode. So, starting with something as simple as eligibility, or is this patient eligible for this procedure?
Then once that procedure happens, it has to be documented and coded and billed. And then once that bill goes out that needs to be collected and paid on. So, this whole process is really how healthcare works and it's one of the most important business processes for healthcare companies .
And what we've seen with revenue cycle is it's been a very, historically, a very manual process that involved a lot of human effort. So early on, some of the most basic functions of revenue cycle were automated. So, the example I can give there would be the front-end entry of a claim.
So that used to be sent over by fax and a person would have to look at that and type it into a computer and start the processing that way. Well that, for a long time, that's now been automated with either what's called OCR, which is a scanning technology. But even, you know, now, a lot of that's coming in digitally. But a lot of the rest of the process is still manual. And the reason is because the tasks are so complex. So, to resolve a claim, you often need to pull data from multiple sources. There'd be some subjective determinations about what's allowed or not allowed.
You would then need to apply [it] against a multiple complex rules and benefits. And sometimes the sheer dollars involved would make it too risky to just pay that claim without someone actually looking at it. Really we're entering an automation cycle where some of these new technologies are making it possible to reliably automate these more complex functions.
And so it's a combination of machine learning and AI but it's really driving efficiencies that are really exciting from an investment perspective to us right now.
Craig Hettenbach: Got it. In addition to revenue cycle management, are there any other subsectors that look interesting to you right now?
Steve Rodgers: We also, we call it cost cycle management. This is the idea of applying the same principles that we're seeing in revenue cycle to the purchasing of providers. So that can be supply costs, inventory management. Another area that we think is interesting is self insured employer outsourcing. One of the main frustrations that we hear time and time again from self insured employers is that their employees are not utilizing the benefits that they have. With technology, companies that are finding ways to get broader and better adoption; then in turn allowing these employers to see better utilization, which is going to lead to a healthier workforce and hopefully do so also, with some cost containment.
So Craig, it's clear that there's an overlap between what we look at from the investment management side and what you and your colleagues focus on in research. How do you think about analyzing how AI and machine learning are impacting healthcare?
Craig Hettenbach: Yeah, so for research across the department, we came up with a framework to look at and that's the NEXT framework. So number one, new business opportunities to evaluate. Number two, efficiencies. Number three, external productivity. And number four, content creation. So those are four things to help kind of frame what the opportunity set looks like, when leveraging AI and technology.
Steve Rodgers: And how does this framework apply to your space, healthcare services and technology specifically?
Craig Hettenbach: The second point of that next framework, the E for efficiencies, is something that we're already starting to see the tangible benefits. And so, just to give you some context here, the CEO of a leading hospital, at a conference recently said that 25 to 30 per cent of overall healthcare costs are tied to administrative.
So there is a lot of low hanging fruit there. There's other areas within whether you think about things like prior authorizations that are still done manually, either via fax, phone, email. Those are things that some health plans and technology partners are looking to automate. So, I think the efficiencies – we’re still early on, but you're starting to see at least the business case in terms of investments there.
And then there's the longer term look on the clinical side. And I think the understanding there is that's going to take longer. An executive at a recent industry conference I was at, I thought he said it best when he said, ‘You know, AI is going to save time before it saves lives.’
Steve Rodgers: How is this technology changing how physicians or providers do their jobs?
Craig Hettenbach: When we look at what's happened with physicians and nurses and still not too far removed from COVID and just burnout, it's palpable. And I think it's something that technology can certainly be used as an enhancer.
So ambient listening is a new technology. When we think about electronic health records; yes, it's great to get that information into that record, but it's also timely and consuming. And so, I think things like that – that can listen to and populate notes – is going to be a real time saver for both doctors and patients.
And on the patient side as well, when we think about just our experience, right? Healthcare just has a long ways to go in terms of response time. And that's something that I think more automation and technology, whether it's things like scheduling or check-ins and things like that, I think ultimately you'll see more technology deployed.
Okay, Steve, are there any other potentially overlooked near term or longer-term pockets of opportunity within health care that you think investors should focus on?
Steve Rodgers: Yeah, I think a general rule for investors or, you know, a heuristic that they should think about is, really trying to invest behind the things that are providing – really trying to stay on the right side of healthcare. And so, when we look at things like cost containment, you know, we see companies out there where they might be benefiting from inefficiency in the system. Those are things that I'd stay away from.
I'd focus on companies that are providing better quality care at a lower cost and staying on the right side of healthcare. Because I do believe that a lot of these investments – the AI, the technology – are going to drive efficiency and really eradicate some of these business models that are really taking advantage of the inefficiencies in the healthcare system.
Craig Hettenbach: Great, Steve, well that's very helpful and thanks for taking the time to talk today.
Steve Rodgers: Great speaking with you, Craig.
Craig Hettenbach: 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 colleagues today.
-
Morgan Stanley Research analysts see a strong start following Black Friday but question whether the short shopping season will hurt retailers.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.
Simeon Gutman: I'm Simeon Gutman, U.S. Hardlines, Broadlines, and Food Retail analyst.
Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, North America Softlines, Retail, and Brands analyst.
Michelle Weaver: Thanksgiving and Black Friday are behind us; and now that the holiday shopping season is in full swing, we have some interesting new data we wanted to dig into. We also recently concluded Morgan Stanley's Global Consumer and Retail Conference in New York, and we'll share some key takeaways from that.
It's Friday, December 6th at 10am in New York.
I was recently on the show to talk about our holiday shopping outlook and survey takeaways, and noted that overall, we're expecting stronger spending this holiday season relative to last year. Inflation's cooled, and U.S. consumers are more positive on spending this season versus the past two holiday seasons. Now that we've got Black Friday in the rearview mirror, Simeon, within your space, how's holiday season tracking so far?
Simeon Gutman: Better. And the three key metrics – traffic, physical store sales, digital sales – all seem to be tracking better. The question is the magnitude and the length of ahead that the entire industry is – and what does that give us through the rest of the season? As we all know, the holiday season, shopping season is shorter; with the later fall of Thanksgiving, we're losing a weekend. The tone at our conference affirmed all of this, all the data points we heard were pretty upbeat. And it seems like the weather couldn't have broken at a better time, which is different from the October lead up to holiday.
So, it seems like we're off to a pretty healthy start. I think there's some questions of what do we make up in the last three weeks in this final push. Some companies at our conference sounded good on that. Some were a little bit, call it cautiously optimistic about the rest of the season.
Michelle Weaver: And what are you expecting for the rest of the holiday season?
Simeon Gutman: In theory, and as we do our models what the good start typically portends a pretty good finish. There will be like a frenetic, frantic rush till the end. And because we lose that last weekend, you know, we might just lose some days. That's what history has told us. And those couple of days, it could end up being a couple of points or a couple hundred points of growth. That's understandable. I think the market knows that. And if that were to happen, as long as the underlying tone of business is healthy, I think it's pretty excusable because it's either made up in the subsequent months, and it'll especially be made up in the following year.
Michelle Weaver: Great. And then Alex, in your space with Black Friday now behind us, were there any surprises?
Alex Straton: The headline on Black Friday out of the apparel and footwear space was very positive. That's the message everyone should hear. I think I'll break down how we thought about – and what we observed – into two buckets. One being what we saw on demand, and the other being what we saw on promotional or discounting activity.
Now, starting with demand, I think context is really important here, and we had a pretty lackluster September and October trend line in the space. To us, this was a function of adverse weather; it was much hotter than usual, really deterring apparel spending. We also had high hurricane activity, which deterred overall discretionary spending. And then also we had the election overhang upon consumers, which can, you know, deter spending as well.
So as a result, we had fall apparel spending not necessarily as robust as many retailers would have liked. We've seen that in third quarter earnings reports. And we viewed Black Friday as, almost this very powerful potential catalyst for pent up demand. It was very weather dependent, though, and Simeon mentioned this briefly. We got a cold front across the country, and I think that created this important catalyst to kick off the holiday season. So, demand was strong.
Just to put some numbers around it. Our line counts were up 30 per cent year-over-year. That's a data set that typically grows mid-single digits. So, speaks to, you know, outstanding demand. It doesn't capture conversion, so it's not perfect, but it gives you a sense for our confidence and how strong it was.
The second piece that I wanted to cover is just promotions. And what we saw there was consistent activity year-over-year. That was a positive surprise for me. We were braced for discounting to be higher across the group because we exited both the second quarter and out of the early third quarter reporters with some excess inventory. So, we thought they might look to clear it.
We had seen a recent uptick in promotional activity in October across the group. And then also, we're facing down a pretty competitive fourth quarter set up because of a number of the dynamics that Simeon mentioned. So, the fact that we didn't see retailers, kind of, push the panic button on discounting and promotions to drive that strong sales result, I think further underscores how strong it was; and also tells you retailers are willing to wait later for the consumer, similar to how they behaved last year.
Michelle Weaver: In your outlook for holiday shopping this year, you cautioned about some potential headwinds. What were they and have they been playing out as you expected?
Alex Straton: Yeah. So, since the start of the year, there's been a number of dynamics that we're going to weigh on the fourth quarter, no matter what. The first is that it's companies in my coverage most difficult year-over-year comparison quarter from both the sales and a profitability perspective. The second is that we have a compressed holiday shopping period, five fewer days, one less weekend; that’s very impactful for these retailers. And the last thing is that most retailers are lapping an extra week last year. They have a 53rd week calendar dynamic that reverses out this week. So, think about it as one last less week of sales opportunity.
And so, I could have sat here in January and told you all of that. What we've learned since is that these retailers are now also facing incremental freight headwinds in the back half. Some of which are just repercussions from the Red Sea dynamic. And then second, this inventory build that I mentioned that started to show up in the second quarter and some of these earlier third quarter reporters. So, all of those headwinds, I'm putting them on the table.
I think the good news is that the market seems to now mostly appreciate those. There's not really high bars as we think about fourth quarter results expectations or even sentiment more broadly. So, while it is a very challenging set up, I feel like it's mostly appreciated.
Michelle Weaver: Great. And final question for both of you. What are some of your key takeaways from the fireside chats you hosted at the conference that just closed?
Simeon Gutman: A few thoughts. First on the tone of holiday, I'll reiterate again: companies that are most exposed to holiday, in my coverage – ones that have weather exposure, ones that have seasonal exposure, ones that have large Black Friday promotions and into Cyber Monday – sounded good. There was a sense of relief that we're making up sales, especially on cold weather categories, and there's momentum that's being carried into the rest of the year.
Second, in our chats with some of the largest companies, a discussion around how starting from a retail point of view and leveraging into Omnichannel has actually been beneficial, because now as these companies gain scale and leverage, the economies of scale in Omnichannel are actually more beneficial for profits than they thought; and in some cases that's just getting started. So, an interesting dichotomy, or almost an irony for the way that these businesses were positioned about 10 to 15 years ago.
Third inventories – building; companies acknowledge that, but generally feel good. That reflected underlying optimism on sales trends and buying good inventory they think the customer will respond to. And then lastly, on housing; acknowledgment that the backdrop and the rebuild will be slow and steady, but at the same time that the industry is bottoming.
Alex Straton: Yeah, on my end, I would underscore what Simeon said on demand in the holiday. Clearly a strong start in terms of the weather finally turning around this big initial event with Black Friday.
Secondly, on inventory we're asking our companies the same question is – how do they feel about this build that we're seeing? And they attributed to a little bit of a pull forward of receipts in advance of holiday. Some also pulling forward even further than normal to offset some of the freight expense, or they were worried about some degree of freight disruption that could have impacted the receipts. So they have explanations for why that's the case, but we're monitoring it nonetheless.
And then lastly, the one magic dynamic we didn't mention yet is tariff, of course, and what the outlooks are there. I would say most companies in my space feel that they have a number of levers that they can pull to offset any potential incremental tariff next year. But the reality there is that apparel is a deflationary category. There's no pricing power. So I'll be really interested to see how this plays out next year.
Michelle Weaver: Simeon and Alex, thank you for taking the time to talk. And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.
-
Our Europe MedTech Analyst digs into the transformational impact of AI-driven diagnostic imaging on healthcare systems.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, I’m Robert Davies, Morgan Stanley’s Head of the Europe MedTech research team. Today I want to take you behind the scenes to show you how AI is revolutionizing our approach to medical diagnostics via Smart Imaging.
It’s Thursday, December 5, at 10 AM in Boston.
When was the last time you needed to get an X-Ray, a CT scan, or an ultrasound? Depending on where you live, your wait time could be as long as a month.
Medical diagnostics through imaging is facing enormous challenges right now. Population growth, rising longevity, and intensifying chronic disease burdens are driving ever increasing volumes of medical scans. In the U.S. alone, CT scan volumes have quadrupled since 1995. So, what is the impact of this? Imagine a radiologist interpreting a CT or MRI image every 3-4 seconds during an eight-hour workday. This is the current pace needed to meet the soaring demand.
At the same time, the U.S. population is getting older and a growing number of people are signing up for Medicare. Healthcare costs are continually rising, total U.S. healthcare spend is now hitting $4.5 trillion. That's nearly 20% of U.S. GDP. On top of that, patients need fast, accurate diagnosis. But long wait times often mean that patients don’t get the diagnostic done in time or sometimes not at all. All of this indicates that more and more stress is being placed on hospital systems each year in terms of diagnostic imaging.
Smart Imaging uses AI tools to improve imaging processing and workflows to enhance traditional image gathering, processing, and analysis. It sits at the intersection of Longevity and Tech Diffusion, two of Morgan Stanley Research’s big themes for 2024. And it can help solve these acute demand challenges. In fact, AI is already transforming the $45 billion Diagnostic Imaging market.
AI-driven Smart Imaging integrates into the diagnostic imaging workflow at multiple stages—from preparation and planning, all the way to image processing and interpretation. The primary benefits of using AI are twofold. Firstly, it enhances image quality, which ensures more accurate diagnoses. And secondly it improves the speed, efficiency, and overall comfort of the patient journey. At the same time, AI effectively acts as a second set of eyes for the radiologist, often surpassing human accuracy in pattern recognition. That's crucial in reducing diagnostic errors—a problem costing the U.S. healthcare system around $100 billion annually at the moment.
In addition to minimizing misdiagnosis, AI is not only capable of identifying the primary disease, but also registering any potential secondary diseases. Otherwise, this isn’t normally a priority for the radiologist who is only able to spend 3-4 seconds looking at any individual image. But it’s a potentially life-saving benefit for using Smart Imaging applications.
So how does AI fit into the clinical setting? There are multiple stages to the Diagnostic Imaging workflow and AI can play a role across the entire value chain from preparing a patient’s scan, to processing the images, and finally, aiding in the diagnosis, reporting, and treatment planning.
Radiology is currently dominating the FDA list of AI/Machine Learning-Enabled Medical Devices. And when we look at the broader economic implications, it's clear Smart Imaging represents a pivotal development in healthcare technology that has broad implications for healthcare costs, quality of care, and better healthcare outcomes.
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 Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research explains why President-elect Trump’s proposed tariff plans may look different than the policies that are ultimately put in place.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast I'll be talking about what investors need to know about tariffs.
It’s Wednesday, Dec 4, at 2 pm in London.
There’s still over a month before Trump takes office again. But in the meantime he’s started sending messages about his policy plans. Most notably, for investors, he’s started talking about his ideas for tariffs. He’s floated the idea of tariffs on all imports from China, Mexico, and Canada. He’s talked about tariffs on all the BRICs countries unless they publicly dismiss the idea of pursuing an alternative reserve currency to the US dollar. In short, he’s talking about tariffs a lot.
While we certainly don’t dismiss Trump’s sincerity in suggesting these tariffs, nor the ability for a President to execute on tariffs like these – well, mostly anyway – it’s important for investors to know that the ultimate policies enacted to address the concerns driving the tariff threats could look quite different than what a literal interpretation of Trump’s words might suggest. After all, there are plenty of examples of policies enacted on Trump’s watch that address his concerns that were not implemented exactly as he initially suggested.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs act is a good example, where Trump advocated for a 15 percent corporate tax rate but signed a bill with a 21 percent tax rate. Another is the exceptions process for the first round of China tariffs, where some companies got exceptions based on modest onshoring concessions. These examples speak to the idea that procedural, political, and economic considerations can shape policy in a way that’s different from what’s initially proposed.
This is why our base case for the US policy path in 2025 includes higher tariffs announced shortly after Trump takes office; but with a focus on China and some exports from Europe; and implementation of those tariffs would ramp up over time, as has been suggested by key policy advisors. There's broad political consensus on a stronger tariff approach to China, and there’s already executive authority to take that approach. Something similar can be said about Europe, but with a focus more on certain products than across imports broadly. However, we see scope for Mexico to avoid incremental tariffs through negotiation. And a global tariff via executive order risks getting held up in court, and we’re skeptical even a Republican-controlled Congress would authorize this approach.
Of course we could be wrong. For example it's possible the incoming administration might be less concerned about the economic challenges posed by a rapid escalation of tariffs. So if they start quicker and are more severe than we anticipate, then our 2025 economic projections are probably too rosy, as are our expectations for equities and credit to outperform over the next 12 months. The US dollar and US Treasuries might be the outperformer in that scenario.
So stick with us, we’ll be paying attention and trying to tease out the policy path signal from the media noise from the new administration.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
-
Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and Leveraged Finance Strategist Joyce Jiang discuss how the dynamic between private and public credit markets will evolve in 2025, and how each can find their own niches for success.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today we'll be talking about how private credit has evolved over 2024 and the outlook for 2025. I'm joined by my colleague, Joyce Jiang, from our Leveraged Finance Strategy team.
It's Tuesday, December 3rd at 10am in New York.
A lot has happened over 2024 in private credit. We are credit people. Let's talk about defaults and returns. How has 2024 been thus far for private credit in terms of defaults and returns?
Joyce Jiang: It's always tricky to talk about defaults in private credit because the reported measures tend to vary a lot depending on how defaults are defined and calculated. Using S&P's credit estimate defaults as a proxy for the overall private credit defaults, we see that defaults appear to have peaked, and the peak level was significantly lower than during the COVID cycle.
Since then, defaults have declined and converged to levels seen in public loans. In this cycle, the elevated policy rates have clearly weighed on the credit fundamentals, but direct lenders and sponsors have worked proactively to help companies extending maturities and converting debt into PIK loans. Also, the high level of dry powder enabled both private credit and PE funds to provide liquidity support, keeping default rates relatively contained.
From a returns perspective for credit investors, the appeal of private credit comes from the potential for higher and more stable returns, and also its role as a portfolio diversifier. Data from Lincoln International shows that over the past seven years, direct lending loans have outperformed single B public loans in total return terms by approximately 2.3 percentage point annually, largely driven by the better carry profile. And this year, although the spread premium has narrowed, private credit continues to generate higher returns.
So, Vishy, credit spreads are close to historical tights. And the market conditions have clearly improved compared to last year. With that, the competition between the public and private credit has intensified. How do you see this dynamic playing out between these two markets?
Vishy Tirupattur: The competition between public and private credit has indeed intensified, especially as the broadly syndicated market reopened with some vigor this year.
While the public market has regained some share it lost to private credit, I think it is important to note that the activity has been, especially the financing activity, has been really more two-way. Improved market conditions have lured some of the borrowers back to the public markets from private credit markets due to cheaper funding costs.
At the same time, borrowers with lower rating or complex capital structure seem to continue to favor private credit markets. So, there is really a lot of give and take between the two markets. Also, traditionally, private credit markets have played a major role in financing LBOs or leveraged buyouts. Its importance has really grown during the last Fed's hiking cycle when elevated policy rates and bouts of market turmoil weaken banks’ risk appetite and tighten the public-funding access to many leveraged borrowers.
Then, as the Fed's policy tightening ended, and uncertainty about the future direction of policy rates began to fade, deal activity rebounded in both markets, and more materially in public markets. This really led to a decline in the share of LBOs financed by private credit. Of course, the two markets tend to cater for deals of different sizes. Private credit is playing a bigger role in smaller size deals and a broadly syndicated loan market is relatively much more active in larger sized LBOs. So, overall, public credit is both a complement and competitor to private credit markets.
Joyce Jiang: The decline in spread basis is evident in larger companies, but more recently, the spread basis have even compressed within smaller-sized deals, although they don't have the access to public credit. This is likely due to some private credit funds shifting their focuses to deals down in the site spectrum. So, the growing competition got spilled over to the lower middle-market segment as well. In addition to pricing conversions, we've also seen a gradual erosion in covenant quality in private credit deals. Some data sources noted that covenant packages have increasingly favored borrowers, a reflection of the heightened competition between these two markets.
So Vishy, looking ahead, how do you see this competition between public and private credit evolving in 2025, and what implications might this have for returns?
Vishy Tirupattur:, The competition, I think, will persist in [the ]next year. We have seen strong demand from hold to maturity investors, such as insurance companies and pension funds; and this demand, we think, will continue to sustain, so the appetite for private credit from these investors would be there.
On the supply side, the deal volume has been light over the last couple of years. Next year, acquisition LBO activity, likely to pick up more materially given the solid macro backdrop, lower rates that we expect, and sponsor pressure to return capital to investors. So, in 2025, we could see greater specialization in terms of deal financing. Instead of competing directly for deals, public and private credit markets can find their own niches. For example, public credit might dominate larger deals, while private credit could further strengthen its competitive advantage within smaller size deals or with companies that value its unique advantages, such as the flexible terms and speed of execution.
Regarding returns, while spread premium in private credit has indeed come down, a pickup in deal activity could to some extent be a release valve. But sustained competition may keep the spreads tight. Overall, private credit should continue to offer attractive returns, although with tighter margins compared to historical levels.
Joyce, it was great speaking with you on today's podcast.
Joyce Jiang: Thank you, Vishy, for having me.
Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you all for listening. If you enjoy today's podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
-
Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets recaps an exceptional year for credit — but explains why 2025 could be a more challenging year for the asset class.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing the Outlook for global Credit Markets in 2025.
It’s Monday, Dec 2nd at 2 pm in London.
Morgan Stanley Strategists and Economists recently completed our forecasting process for the year ahead. For Credit, 2025 looks like a year of saying goodbye.
2024 has been an exceptionally good environment for credit. As you’ve probably grown tired of hearing, credit is an asset class that loves moderation and hates extremes. And 2024 has been full of moderation. Moderate growth, moderating inflation and gradual rate cuts have defined the economic backdrop. Corporates have also been moderate, with stable balance sheets and still-low levels of corporates buying each other despite the strong stock market.
The result has been an almost continuous narrowing of the extra premium that companies have to pay relative to governments, to some of the lowest, i.e. best spread levels in over 20 years.
We think that changes. The U.S. election and resulting Republican sweep have now ushered in a much wider range of policy outcomes – from tariffs, to taxes, to immigration. These policies are in turn driving a much wider range of economic outcomes than we had previously, to scenarios that include everything from much greater corporate optimism and animal spirits, to much weaker growth and higher inflation, under certain scenarios of tariffs and immigration.
Now, for some asset classes, this wider range of outcomes may simply be a wash, balancing out in the aggregate. But not for credit. This asset class doesn’t stand to return more if corporate activity booms; but it stands to still lose if growth slows more than expected. And given the challenges that tariffs could pose to both Europe and Asia, we think these dynamics are global. We see spreads modestly wider next year, across global regions.
But if 2025 is about saying goodbye to the credit-friendly moderation of 2024, we’d stress this is a long goodbye. A key element of our economic forecasts is that even if major changes are coming to tariffs or taxes or immigration policy, that won’t arrive immediately. Today’s strong, credit-friendly economy should persist – well into next year. Indeed, for most of the first half of 2025, Morgan Stanley’s forecasts look much like today: moderate growth, falling inflation, and falling central bank rates.
In short, when thinking about the year ahead, 2025 may be a turning point for credit – but one that doesn’t arrive immediately. Our best estimate is that we continue to see quite strong and supportive conditions well into the first half of the year, while the second half becomes much more challenging. We think leveraged loans offer the strongest risk-adjusted returns in Corporate Credit, while Agency Mortgages offer an attractive alternative to corporates for those looking for high quality spread.
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.
-
Original Release Date November 15, 2024: Our head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why a stronger economy, moderate inflation and future rate cuts could prompt deal-making.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll discuss why we remain believers in a large, sustained uptick in corporate activity.
It's Friday, November 15th at 2pm in London.
We continue to think that 2024 will mark the start of a significant, multiyear uplift in global merger and acquisition activity – or M&A. In new work out this week, we are reiterating that view. While the 25 percent rise in volumes this year is actually somewhat short of our original expectations from March, the core drivers of a large and sustained increase in activity, in our view, remain intact.
Those drivers remain multiple. Current levels of global M&A volumes are still unusually low relative to their own historical trend or the broader strength that we see in stock markets. The overall economy, which often matters for M&A activity, has been strong, especially in the US, while inflation continues to moderate and rate cuts have begun. We see motivations for sellers – from ageing private equity portfolios, maturing venture capital pipelines, and higher valuations for the median stock. And we see more factors driving buyers from $4 trillion of private market "dry powder," to around $7.5 trillion of cash that's sitting idly on non-financial balance sheets, to wide-open capital markets that provide the ability to finance deals.
These high level drivers are also confirmed bottom up by boots on the ground. Our colleagues across Morgan Stanley Equity Research also see a stronger case for activity – and we polled over 60 global equity teams for their views. While the results vary by geography and sector, the Morgan Stanley Equity analysts who cover these sectors in the most depth also see a strong case for more activity.
The policy backdrop also matters. While activity has risen this year, one reason it might not have risen as much as we initially expected was uncertainty about both when central banks would start cutting rates and the outcome of US elections.
But both of those uncertainties have now, to some extent, waned. Rate cuts from the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of England have now started, while the Red Sweep in US elections could, in our view, drive more animal spirits. And Europe is an important part of this story too, as we think the European Union’s new approach to consolidation could be more supportive for activity. For investors, an expectation that corporate activity will continue to rise is, in our view, supportive for Financial equities.
Where could we be wrong? M&A activity does fundamentally depend on economic and market confidence; and a weaker than expected economy or weaker than expected equity market would drive lower than expected volumes. Policy still matters. And while we view the incoming US administration as more M&A supportive, that could be misguided – if policy changes dent corporate confidence or increase inflation.
Finally, we think that a more multipolar world could actually support more M&A, as there’s a push to create more regional champions to compete on the global stage. But this could be incorrect, if those same global frictions disrupt activity or confidence more generally. Time will tell.
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.
-
Original Release Date November 1, 2024: Our US Fintech and Payments analyst reviews a recent survey that reveals key trends on how Gen Z and Millennials handle their personal finances.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Faucette, Morgan Stanley’s Head of US Fintech and Payments. Today I’ll dig into the way young people in the US approach their finances and why it matters.
It’s Friday, November 1st, at 10am in New York.
You’d think that Millennials – also commonly known as Gen Y – and Gen Z would come up with new ways to think about money. After all, they live most of their lives online, and don’t always rely on their parents for advice – financial or otherwise. But a survey we conducted suggests the opposite may be true.
To understand how 16 to 43 year-olds – who make up nearly 40 per cent of the US population – view money, we ran an AlphaWise survey of more than 4,000 US consumers.
In general, our work suggests that both Millennials and Gen Z’s financial goals, banking preferences, and medium-term aspirations are not much different from the priorities of previous generations. Young consumers still believe family is the most important aspect in life, similar to what we found in our 2018 survey. They have a positive outlook on home ownership, college education, employment, and their personal financial situation. 28-to-43-year-olds have the second highest average annual income among all age cohorts, earning more than $100,000. They spend an average of $86,000 per year, of which more than a third goes toward housing.
Gen Y and Z largely expect to live in owned homes at a greater rate in five to 10 years, and younger Gen Y cohorts' highest priority is starting a family and raising children in the medium term. This should be a tailwind for many consumer-facing real estate property sectors including retail, residential, lodging and self-storage. However, Gen Y and Z are less mobile today than they were pre-pandemic. Compared to their peers in 2018, they intend to keep living in the same area they're currently living in for the next five to 10 years.
Gen Y and Z consumers reported higher propensity for saving each month relative to older generations, which could be a potential tailwind for discretionary spending. And travel remains a top priority across age cohorts, which sets the stage for ongoing travel strength and favorable cross-border trends for the major credit card providers.
In addition to all these findings, our analysis suggests several surprising facts. For example, our survey results contradict the widely accepted notion that younger generations are "credit averse." The vast majority of Gen Z consumers have one or more traditional credit cards – at a similar rate to Gen X and Millennials. Although traditional credit card usage is higher among Millennials and Gen Z than it was in 2018, data suggests this is driven by convenience, not financing needs. Younger people’s borrowing is primarily related to auto and home loans from traditional lenders rather than fintechs.
Another unexpected finding is that while Gen Y and Z are more drawn to online banking than their predecessors, about 75 per cent acknowledge the importance of physical branch locations – and still prefer to bank with their traditional national, regional, and community banks over online-only providers. What’s more, they also believe physical bank branches will be important long-term.
Overall, our analysis suggests that generations tend to maintain their key priorities as they age. Whether this pattern holds in the future is something we will continue to watch.
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.
-
Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson joins Andrew Pauker of the U.S. Equity Strategy team to break down the key issues for equity markets ahead of 2025, including the impact of potential deregulation and tariffs.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.
Andrew Pauker: And I'm Andrew Pauker from our US Equity Strategy Team.
Mike Wilson: Today we'll discuss our 2025 outlook for US equities.
It's Tuesday, November 26th at 5pm.
So let's get after it.
Andrew Pauker: Mike, we're forecasting a year-end 2025 price target of 6,500 for the S&P 500. That's about 9 percent upside from current levels. Walk us through the drivers of that price target from an earnings and valuation standpoint.
Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, this is really just rolling forward what we did this summer, which is we started to incorporate our economists’ soft-landing views. And, of course, our rate strategist view for 10-year yields, which, you know, factors into valuation.
We really didn't change any of our earnings forecast. That's where we've been very accurate. What we've been not accurate is on the multiple. And I think a lot of clients have also -- investors -- have been probably a little bit too conservative on their multiple assumption. And so, we went back and looked at, you know, periods when earnings growth is above average, which is what we're expecting. And that's just about 8 percent; anything north of that. Plus, when the Fed is actually cutting rates, which was not the case this past summer, it's just very difficult to see multiples go down. So, we actually do have about 5 percent depreciation in our multiple assumption on a year-over-year basis, but still it's very high relative to history.
But if the base case plays out, but from an economic standpoint and from a rate standpoint, it's unlikely earnings rates are going to come down. So, then we basically can get all of the appreciation from our earnings forecast for about, you know, 10-12 percent; a little bit of a discount from multiples, that gets you your 9 percent upside.
I just want to, you know, make sure listeners understand that the macro-outcomes are still very uncertain. And so just like this year, you know, we maybe pivot back and forth throughout the year … as [it] becomes [clear], you know, what the outcome is actually going to be.
For example, growth could be better; growth could be worse; rates could be higher; the Fed may not cut rates; they may have to raise rates again if inflation comes back. So, I would just, you know, make sure people understand it's not going to be a straight line no matter what happens. And we're going to try to navigate that with, you know, our style sector picks.
Andrew Pauker: There are a number of new policy dynamics to think through post the election that may have a significant impact on markets as we head into 2025, Mike. What are the potential policy changes that you think could be most impactful for equities next year?
Mike Wilson: Yeah, and I think a lot of this started to get discounted into the markets this fall, you know, the prediction polls were kinda leaning towards a Republican win, starting really in June – and it kind of went back and forth and then it really picked up steam in September and October. And the thing that the markets, equity market, are most excited about I would say, is this idea of deregulation. You know, that's something President-elect Trump has talked about. The Republicans seem to be on board with that. That sort of business friendly, if you will, kind of a repeat of his first term.
I would say on the negative side what markets are maybe wary about, of course, is tariffs. But here there’s a lot of uncertainty too. We obviously got a tweet last night from President-elect Trump, and it was, you know, 10 percent additional tariffs on certain things. And there’s just a lot of confusion. Some stocks sold off on that. But remember a lot of stocks rallied yesterday on the news of Scott Bessent being announced as Treasury Secretary because he's maybe not going to be as tough on tariffs.
So, what I view the next two months as is sort of a trial period where we're going to see a lot of announcements going out. And then the people in the cabinet positions who are appointed along with the President-elect are going to look at how the market reacts. And they're going to want to try to, you know, think about that in the context of how they're going to propose policy when they actually take office.
So, a lot of volatility over the next two months as these announcements are kind of floated out there as trial balloons. And then, of course, you also have the enforcement of immigration and the impact there on growth and also labor supply and labor costs. And that could be a net negative in the first half of next year. And so, look, it's going to be about the sequencing. Those are the two easy ones that you can see – tariffs of some form, and of course, immigration enforcement. And those are probably the two biggest potential negatives in the first half of next year.
Andrew Pauker: Mike, the title of our Outlook is “Stay Nimble Amid Changing Market Leadership,” and I think that reflects our mentality when it comes to remaining focused on capturing the leadership changes under the surface of the market. We rotated from a defensive posture over the summer to a more pro-cyclical stance in the fall. Talk about our latest views when it comes to positioning across styles, themes, and sectors here.
Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, you know, you have to understand that that pivot was not about the election as much as it was about kind of the economy, moving from the risk of a hard landing, which people were worried about this summer to, soft landing again. And then of course we got the Fed to, you know, aggressively begin a new rate cutting cycle with 50 basis points, which was a bit of a surprise given, you know, the context of a still decent labor markets.
That was the main reason for kind of the cyclical pivot, and then, of course, the election outcome sort of turbocharges some of that. So that's why we're sticking with it for now.
So, to be more specific, what we basically did was we went to quality cyclical rotation. What does that mean? It means, you know, we prefer things like financials, maybe industrials, kind of a close second from a sector standpoint. But this quality feature we think is important for people to consider because interest rates are still pretty high. You know, balance sheets are still a little stretched and, you know, price levels are still high.
So that means that lower quality businesses -- and the stocks of those lower quality businesses -- are probably a higher risk than we want to assume right now. But going into year end first and in 2025, we're going to stick with what we've sort of been recommending. On the defensive side. We didn't abandon all of them – because of , you know, we don't know how it's going to play out. So, we kept Utilities as an overweight because it has some offensive properties as well – most notably lever to kind of this, power deficiency within the United States. And that, of course with deregulation, a new twist on that could be things like natural gas, deployment of, you know, natural gas resources, which would help pipelines, LNG facilities potentially, and also, new ways to drive electricity production.
So, with that, Andrew, why don't you maybe dig in a little bit deeper on our financials column, and why it's not just, you know, about the election and kind of a rotation, but there's actually fundamental drivers here.
Andrew Pauker: Yeah, so Financials remains our top sector pick, following our upgrade in early October. And the drivers of that view are – a rebounding capital markets backdrop, strong earnings revisions, and the potential for an acceleration in buybacks into next year. And then post the election, expectation for deregulation can also continue to drive performance for the sector in addition to those fundamental catalysts. And then finally, even with the outperformance that we've seen for the group, over the last month and a half or so, relative valuation remains on demand – and kind of the 50th percentile of historical levels.
So, Mike, I want to wrap up by spending a minute on investor feedback to our outlook. Which aspects of our view have you gotten the most questions on? Where do investors agree and where do they disagree?
Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, it's sort of been ongoing because, as we noted, we really pivoted, more constructively on kind of a pro-cyclical basis a while ago. And the pushback then is the same as it is now, which is that equities are expensive. And I mean, quite frankly, the reason we pivoted to some of these more cyclical areas is because they're not as expensive. But that doesn't take away from the fact that stocks are pricey. And so, people just want to understand this analysis that, you know, we did this time around, which kind of just shows why multiples can stay higher.
They do appreciate that, you know, things can change. So, you know, we need to be, you know, cognizant of that. I would say, there's also debate around small caps. You know, we're neutral on small caps; we upgraded that about the same time after having been underweight for several years.
I think, you know, people really want to get behind that. It's been a; it's been a trade that people have gotten wrong, repeatedly over the last couple years trying to buy small caps. This time it seems like there may be some more behind it. We agree. That's why we went to neutral. And I think, you know, there are people who want to figure out, well, why? Why don't we go overweight now? And what we're really waiting for is for rates to come down a bit more. It's still sort of a late cycle environment. So, you know, typically you want to wait until you kind of see the beginnings of a new acceleration in the economy. And that's not what our economists are forecasting.
And then the other area is just this debate around government efficiency. And this is where I'm actually most excited because this is not priced at all in my view. There's so much skepticism around the ability or, you know, the likelihood of success in shrinking the government. That's not really what we're, you know, hoping for. We're just hoping for kind of a freezing of government spending. And it's so important to just, to think about it that way because that's what the fiscal sustainability question is all about, where then rates can stay contained. But then if you take it a step further, you know, our view for the last several years has been that the government has been essentially crowding out the private economy, and that really has punished small, medium businesses as well as many consumers.
And so, by shrinking or at least freezing the size of the government and redeploying those efforts into the private economy, we could see a very significant increase in productivity, but also see a broadening out in this rally. I mean, one of the reasons the market's been; equity market's been so narrow is because is because scale really matters in this crowded out, sort of environment.
If that changes, that creates opportunity at the stock level and that broadening out, which is a much healthier bull market potential.
So, what are you hearing from investors, Andrew?
Andrew Pauker: Yeah, I mean, I think the debate now, in addition to the factors that you mentioned, is really around the consumer space. A lot of pessimism is in the price already for consumer discretionary goods on the back of – kind of wallet share shift from goods to services, high price levels and sticky interest rates in addition to the tariff risk.
So, what we did in our note this week is we laid out a couple of drivers that could potentially get us more positive on that cohort. And those include a reversion in terms of the wallet share shift actually back towards goods. I think that would be a function of lower price levels. Lower interest rates – our rate strategists expect the 10-year yield to fall to 355 by year end 2025. So that would be a constructive backdrop for some of the more interest rate sensitive and housing areas within consumer discretionary.
Those are all factors that watching closely in order to get more constructive on that space. But that is another area of the market that I have received a good amount of questions on.
Mike Wilson: That's great, Andrew. Thanks a lot. Thanks for taking the time to talk today.
Andrew Pauker: Thanks, Mike. Anytime.
Mike Wilson: 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.
-
As Black Friday approaches, our US Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver explains why some US consumers will increase their spending and which industries could benefit.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, US Thematic and Equity Strategist. The holiday season is just around the corner, and today I'll be discussing what US consumers are planning for this year's holiday shopping.
It's Monday, November 25th at 10am in New York.
It's that time of year when New York City goes from skyscrapers to sky high trees. So, cue the holiday music, holiday shopping season is here. My colleagues Jim Egan, Arunima Sinha, and Heather Berger recently came on this show to discuss the current state of the US Consumer. Today, I want to expand a little bit on their analysis by looking specifically at how holiday shopping could fare this year.
Overall, consumer spending trends have been robust year to date, which does bode well for holiday spending. We recently ran a proprietary survey of around 2000 US Consumers that showed a more positive outlook for holiday shopping this year versus in 2023 and 2022. Not surprisingly, though, higher income households – who've really been the key drivers of aggregate consumer spending – are likely to drive the spending this holiday season as well.
Overall, we expect to see increased holiday budgets this year. Our survey found that 37 percent of US consumers are planning to keep their holiday budgets roughly the same as last year. Around 35 percent are expecting to spend more and 22 percent are expecting to spend less. So, this yields a net gain of around +13 percent. It's not off to the races, though, and consumers will continue to be selective on where they're planning to allocate their dollars.
Discounts and promotions are going to have an impact on shoppers. And in fact, if retailers don't offer discounts, 44 percent of shoppers say they may pull back or trade down somewhat, and another quarter of purchasers say they'll scale back substantially. Only about a quarter of people would go ahead with all the planned purchases if there were no discounts or promotions.
We also asked questions in our survey looking at the categories shoppers are planning to make purchases in. We looked at the net difference between the percent of consumers expecting to spend more and the percent expecting to spend less. And the lowest net spending intentions are reported for big ticket categories like sports equipment, home and kitchen, and electronics. And then the results were more positive for apparel and toys, which are cheaper items.
Let's dive in now to some of the specifics around consumer facing industries. Within airlines, we're expecting a strong holiday season for air travel based on encouraging TSA data. This lines up with continued strong demand for travel and live experiences.
Within durable goods, which are the kind of things you might find at a big box store or a furniture store, spending has slowed this year, but the backdrop is normalizing, which could create a more favorable setup this holiday season. E-commerce, though, on the other hand, has been pressured recently, and the weakness has impacted discretionary goods, while outsized growth has come from non-discretionary categories like groceries and everyday essentials.
The shorter holiday shopping season may also have an impact on e-commerce. This year, there are only 27 days between Black Friday and Christmas, which is the shortest that range could possibly be. So, this could affect e-commerce players with longer average delivery times. We're cautious on consumer electronic sales this holiday season. Consumer hardware spending intentions remain negative as we near the holiday season. And then finally for toys, leisure products, and services, we're cautiously optimistic that the holiday season could prove better than feared.
So, all in all, the holidays are looking reasonably bright for many businesses, especially those with more exposure to the high-end consumer; but like consumers, we think that the results will vary by industry and by company.
Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and Share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
-
Our US Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore and Chief Latin America Equity Strategist Nikolaj Lippmann discuss what Trump’s victory could mean for new trade relationships.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Strategist.
Nikolaj Lippmann: And I'm Nik Lippmann, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin American Equity Strategist.
Ariana Salvatore: Today, we're talking about the impact of the US election on Mexico's economy, financial markets, and its trade relationships with both the US and China.
It's Friday, November 22nd at 10am in New York.
The US election has generated a lot of debate around global trade, and now that Trump has won, all eyes are on tariffs. Nik, how much is this weighing on Mexico investors?
Nikolaj Lippmann: It’s interesting because there's kind of no real consensus here. I'd say international and US investors are generally rather apprehensive about getting in front of the Trump risk in Mexico; while, interestingly enough, most Mexico-based investors and many Latin American investors think Trump is kind of good news for Mexico, and in many cases, even better news than Biden or Harris. Net, net, Mexican peso has sold off. Mexico's now down 25 per cent in dollar terms year to date, while it was flat to up three, four, 5 per cent around May. So, we've already seen a lot being priced then.
Ariana, what are your expectations for Trump's trade policy with regards to Mexico?
Ariana Salvatore: So, Mexico has been a big part of the trade debate, especially as we consider this question of whether or not Mexico represents a bridge or a buffer between the US and China. On the tariff front, we've been clear about our expectations that a wide range of outcomes is possible here, especially because the president can do so much without congressional approval.
Specifically on Mexico, Trump has in the past threatened an increase in exchange for certain policy concessions. For example, back in 2019, he threatened a 5 per cent tariff if the Mexican government didn't send emergency authorities to the southern border. We think given the salience of immigration as a topic this election cycle, we can easily envision a scenario again in which those tariff threats re-emerge.
However, there's really a balance to strike here because the US is Mexico's main trading partner. That means any changes to current policy will have a substantial impact.
So, Nik, how are you thinking about these changes? Are all tariff plans necessarily a negative? Or do you see any potential opportunities for Mexico here?
Nikolaj Lippmann: Look, I think there are clear risks, but here are my thoughts. It would be very hard for the United States to de-risk from China and de-risk from Mexico simultaneously. Here it becomes really important to double-click on the differences in the manufacturing ecosystems in North America versus Southeast Asia and China.
The North American model is really very integrated. US companies are by a mile the biggest investor. In Mexico – and Mexican exports to the US kind of match the Mexican import categories – the products go back and forth. Mexico has evolved from a place of assembly to a manufacturing ecosystem. 25 years ago, it was more about sending products down, paint them blue, put a lid on it. Now there's much more value add.
The link, however, is still alive. It's a play on enhancing US competitiveness. You can kind of, as you did, call it a China buffer; a fender that helps protect US competitiveness. But by the end of the day, I think integration and alignment is going to be the key here.
Ariana Salvatore: But of course, it's not just the direct trade relationship between the US and Mexico. We need to also consider the global geopolitical landscape, and specifically this question of the role of China. What's Mexico's current trade policy like with China?
Nikolaj Lippmann: Another great question, Ariana, and I think this is the key. There is growing evidence that China is trying to use Mexico as a China bridge.
And I think this is an area where we will see the biggest adjustments or need for realignment. This is a debate we've been following. We saw, with interest, that Mexico introduced first a 25 per cent tariff and then a 35 per cent tariff on Chinese imports. And saw this as the initial signs of growing alignment between the two countries.
However, Mexican import from China never really dropped. So, we started looking at like the complicated math saying 35 per cent times $115 billion of import. You know, best case scenario, Mexico should be collecting $40 billion from tariffs; that's huge and almost unrealistic number for Mexico. Even half of that would go a long way to solve fiscal challenges in that country.
However, when we started looking at the actual tax collection from Chinese imports, it was closer to $3 billion, as we highlighted in a note with our Mexico economist just recently. There's just multiple discounts and exemptions to effective tariffs at neither 25 per cent nor 35 per cent, but actually closer to 2.5 [or] 3 per cent. I think there's a problem with Chinese content in Mexican exports, and I think it's likely to be an area that policymakers will examine more closely. Why not drive-up US or North American content?
Ariana Salvatore: So, it sounds like what you're saying is that there is a political, or rhetorical at least, alignment between the US and Mexico when it comes to China. But the reality is that the policy implementation is not yet there.
We know that there's currently nothing in the USMCA treaty that prevents Mexico from importing goods from China. But a lot has changed over the past four years, even since the pandemic. So, looking forward, do you expect Mexico's policy vis-a-vis China to change after Trump takes office?
Nikolaj Lippmann: I think, I certainly think so, and I think this is again; this is going to be the key. As you mentioned, there's nothing in the USMCA treaty that prevents Mexico from buying the stuff from China. And it's not a customs union. Mexican consumers, much like American consumers, like to buy cheap stuff.
However, the geopolitics that you refer to is important. And when I reflect, frankly, on the bilateral relationship between the two countries, I think Mexican policymakers need to perhaps pause and think a little bit about things like the spirit of the treaty and not just the letter of the treaty; and also about how to maintain public opinion support in the United States.
By the end of the day, when we see what has happened with regards to China after the pandemic, it has been a significant change in political consensus and public opinion. When I think Americans are not necessarily interested in just using Mexico as a China bridge for Chinese products.
During the first Trump administration, the NAFTA agreement was renegotiated as the US Mexico Canada agreement, the USMCA, that took effect or took force in mid 2020. This agreement will come under review in 2026.
Ariana, what are the expectations for the future of this agreement under the Trump administration?
Ariana Salvatore: So, I think this USMCA review that's coming up in 2026 is going to be a really critical litmus test of the US-Mexico relationship, and we're going to learn a lot about this China bridge or buffer question that you mentioned. Just for some very brief context, that agreement as you mentioned was signed in 2020, but it includes a clause that lets all parties evaluate the agreement six years into a 16-year time horizon.
So, at that point, they can decide to extend the agreement for another 16 years. Or to conduct a joint review on an annual basis until that original 16 years lapses. So, although the agreement will stay in force until at least 2036, the review period, which is around June of [20]26, provides an opportunity for the signing parties to provide recommendations or propose changes to the agreement short of a full-scale renegotiation.
We do see some overlapping objectives between the two parties. For example, things like updating the foundation for digital trade and AI, ensuring the endurance of labor protections, and addressing Mexico's energy sector. But Trump's approach likely will involve confronting the auto EV disputes and could possibly introduce an element of immigration policy within the revision. We also definitely expect this theme of Chinese investment in Mexico to feature heavily in the USMCA review discussions.
Finally, Nik, keeping in mind everything that we've discussed today, with global supply chains getting rewired post the pandemic, Mexico has been a beneficiary of the nearshoring trend. Do you think this is going to change as we look ahead?
Nikolaj Lippmann: So, look, we [are] still underweight Mexico, but I think risk ultimately biased with the upside over time with regards to trade.
We need evidence to be able to lay it out, these scenarios; Mexico could end up doing quite well with Trump. But much work needs to be done south of the border with regards to all the areas that we just mentioned there, Ariana.
When we reflect on this over the next couple of years, there's a couple of things that really stand out. Number one is that first wave of reshoring or nearshoring, which was really focused on brownfield. It was bringing our manufacturing ecosystems where we already had existing infrastructure.
What is potentially next, and what we're going to be watching in terms of sort of policy maker incentives and so on, will be some of the greenfield manufacturing ecosystems. That could involve things like IT hardware, maybe EV batteries, and a couple of other really important sectors.
Ariana Salvatore: And that's something we might get some insight into when we hear personnel appointments from President-elect Trump over the coming months. Nik, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.
Nikolaj Lippmann: Thank you very much, Arianna.
Ariana Salvatore: And thank you 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 Sustainability analysts Stephen Byrd and Laura Sanchez discuss the range of impacts that the Republican sweep may have on energy policy and the ESG space.
----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research and Head of Research Product for the Americas.
Laura Sanchez: And I'm Laura Sanchez, Head of Sustainability Equity Research for the Americas.
Stephen Byrd: Today, Laura and I will talk about the potential impact of the next Trump administration on the US energy transition, and on the US ESG Investing landscape.
It's Thursday, November 21st at 8 am in New York.
Now that Donald Trump has been re-elected, all eyes are on potential changes to the Inflation Reduction Act or IRA. So Laura, what are your expectations and on what kind of timeframe?
Laura Sanchez: There has been a lot of dialogue internally between our clean tech and public policy teams exactly on this question, Stephen. Basically, we continue to believe that a full repeal of the IRA is unlikely because a significant amount of investment has gone to Republican states that has in turn driven a good amount of good paying jobs. On the back of this, we have seen a large number of Republican legislators, as well as large oil and gas companies, write letters to high members of Congress supporting portions of the IRA.
Now, unfortunately, that doesn't mean that it won't be noisy. We do think that a partial repeal is likely, potentially a rebranding, and/or a clear phase out of the tax credits, by, let's say, the end of the decade.
It will take some time to get clarity around what's in and what's out to the second part of your question. We believe clarity on final changes is likely by the end of 2025 at the earliest, which is when the TCJA, or the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, is set to expire. And so, a lot of tax related conversations and concessions will happen then.
Lastly, a point that I want to make here is that many technologies received support in the IRA, and even though the next 12 months will be volatile or noisy, as I said before, we do think that some of them are relatively safe. And those include the domestic manufacturing tax credit, the production tax credit for nuclear power, and the tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration technology, as well as for clean hydrogen.
Stephen Byrd: That's really interesting, Laura. So, it really is a bit more nuanced than we often hear from many investors with portion of the IRA that are clearly at risk, others much less so at risk. That's really helpful. And Laura, a related topic that comes up a lot is concern around tariffs. So, do you see any risk to clean technologies from elevated trade tensions?
Laura Sanchez: Yes, I see multi multilayered risks. The first, which is I think well understood by investors, is the potential risk for higher tariffs on goods imported from China. We know that the supply chain for energy storage specifically, and particularly lithium-ion storage batteries, is highly linked to China. And even though solar equipment also tends to come up in conversations with investors, the supply chain there has somewhat decoupled from China.
However, a significant amount of supply is still sourced from China domiciled entities that operate in low-cost countries, such as those in Southeast Asia. But another risk, and I think this one is less understood or discussed by investors, is the potential inflationary pressure that could result from number one, higher tariffs on imported materials that are needed in the manufacturing of clean energy technologies. And number two, the potential risk of China responding to US imposed tariffs with additional export bans on minerals or materials that are key for the energy transition.
We have analyzed a long list and believe that those at the highest risk of disruption include rare earths, graphite, gallium, and cobalt, which are all used in electric vehicles, but also in other clean tech equipment such as wind and solar systems, stationary battery storage, and electrolysers.
Now, Stephen. Along with tariff escalation, President-elect Trump may look to roll back important EPA regulations that were put in place by the current administration to put the country on track to meet Paris aligned goals. What are the most important regulations investors should watch in your view?
Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Laura, I think there are going to be several EPA regulations that are going to be targeted for rollbacks. Let me just start first on the truck side of things, the Clean Trucks Plan that's commonly known as the EPA Tailpipe Emissions Rule – could be rolled back. We could also see the greenhouse gas standards and guidelines for fossil fuel fired power plants get rolled back. And lastly, we could see waste emissions charged for petroleum and natural gas systems get rolled back.
So, I think the overall message is actually; that the stock implications of this are actually relatively modest in most cases. What this does, in my view, is it sends a signal in terms of greater support from the Trump administration for fossil fuel. Usage in a number of areas, transport, infrastructure, et cetera I think we'll see that in power. And this does line up with some of the work we've done around the growth in data centers that we think will be powered by natural gas fire generation. So, this is consistent with that, and we do expect to see multiple layers of rollback at EPA.
Laura Sanchez: And outside of changes to the stick – which are the EPA regulations that you mentioned – and changes to the carrot – which is the IRA – what are other factors or risks that investors with a mandate on sustainability should consider during a second Trump presidency?
Stephen Byrd: Yes, for investors that do focus on sustainability, a few things that are on our mind. We could see additional states restrict the ability of state pension funds to consider ESG factors in their investment decision making process. We also, I think will see a lack of federal regulation that will require corporates to disclose certain ESG information. I think that's quite clear. And then also there could be additional legal and regulatory challenges around corporates and asset managers using sustainability as part of their decision-making process, as part of their fiduciary duties. So those are all the things that are on our mind.
Laura Sanchez: I think it's worth noting that some states, California particularly, are moving forward with their state level decarbonization goals and greenhouse gas emissions rules. But there is one dynamic to consider or track and that is the EPA granting the state of California a waiver that is needed for the state to move forward with heavy duty low NOx rules. So, linking this back to the EPA rules commentary, Stephen, I think that one, the EPA 2027 low NOx rules is one to keep an eye on because it links to the California waiver and the California rules; and is something that could potentially impact some of those stocks.
Stephen Byrd: Well, that's a good point, Laura, and I think that highlights this potential distinction between actions at the state level versus at the federal level, but sometimes those do intersect, such as, with the California heavy duty low NOx rules. So that’s helpful.
Well, Laura, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.
Laura Sanchez: Great speaking with you, Stephen.
Stephen Byrd: 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.
- Se mer
