Bölümler
-
Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses the potential impact of tariffs on China and other Asian countries following the US election.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today on the podcast – with a Republican White House now in place, tariffs are the key issue that will matter to Asia.
It’s Tuesday, November 12, at 2 PM in Hong Kong.
With the US election results in, the question now is not if there will be tariff hikes, but when and how much. Will China alone see rising tariffs, or will there be universal tariff imposed on all imports to the US?
The previous president Trump administration imposed several tariffs on Chinese imports beginning in 2018. And looking back, our learning is that weaker corporate confidence weighed more heavily on Asia’s growth outlook than the direct effect of tariffs on exports. Just to elaborate on the point on direct impact of tariffs: Despite the tariffs imposed on China during that period, what we observed is that China’s market share in global goods exports improved after the US started to impose tariffs on imports from China.
Looking forward, let’s consider a scenario of 50 per cent tariffs on China alone. The hit to global and China corporate confidence may not be as large as it was in 2018 and 2019. This is in part because US-China trade tensions have persisted for several years now. Companies have invested in diversifying their supply chains since then, and the US share in China's exports has declined since 2017. Given all this, the drag on China’s exports may be less than the 1 percentage point that we saw last time.
The rest of Asia would also experience a slowdown, but we think the overall drag on growth would be less significant this time. The effects on individual economies would differ based on their exposure to China. We think Australia and Indonesia will be more exposed. Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Thailand would be moderately exposed. And India and Japan would be less exposed given a low share of export to China.
But what happens if the US imposes 50 per cent tariffs on China and a 10 per cent universal tariff on the rest of the world? In this scenario, the damage to corporate confidence and the global capex and trade cycle would be much larger. The drag could be similar or greater than what we saw in 2018 and 2019. Asia excluding China has now become more dependent on the US as a source of end-demand. Global supply chains might have to be rewired yet again. This would cause a significant disruption to the corporate sector and a material impact on Asia’s growth trajectory.
Of course, the final effect of US tariffs on Asia growth would also depend on the scale of policy support. Asia’s policy makers could allow their currencies to depreciate in response to a strong dollar. Then, against a backdrop of weaker currencies, Asia’s central banks could be constrained in their ability to cut rates immediately – similar to what happened in 2018-[20]19.
Hence, they would prefer to take a fiscal easing first. Back in 2017-[20]19, Asia's fiscal deficit widened in aggregate by 1.1 percentage point as policymakers sought to provide some cushion to growth downside. Once currencies stabilize, they will take up monetary easing.
Things may move quickly once Trump takes office in January, and we will continue to keep you updated.
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.
-
With the Republican party poised to clinch control of the White House and Congress, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist says markets are readying for a lighter regulatory environment, supportive tax policy and a possible rebound in investor enthusiasm.
----- 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 talking about the results of last week’s election and its impact on equity markets.
It's Monday, Nov 11th at 11:30am in New York.
So let’s get after it.
Our work leading up to the election showed that stocks likely to benefit from a Republican sweep did not actually see material outperformance up and through November 5th. In other words, this political outcome was not fully priced. As a result, this allowed for significant outperformance of Financials, Industrials, and other cyclicals last week. We see further follow through to the upside in quality cyclicals as prospects for a lighter regulatory environment, supportive tax policy and a potential rebound in animal spirits should rise following the election outcome. These developments came on the back of a macro backdrop that was already becoming more supportive of cyclical outperformance – and why we upgraded this cohort to overweight in early October. We continue to be sellers though of tariff-exposed consumer stocks and renewable energy stocks.
Our upgrade to Financials in early October was rooted in our view that expectations were low going into earnings season while positioning remained light. Our work since then showed that the majority of the group's outperformance into the election could be explained by strong earnings revisions as opposed to rising odds of a Trump win in prediction markets. Now that we have the election results in hand, it appears that expectations for de-regulation are also driving performance upside in addition to improving fundamentals.
While the 2016 playbook would suggest small caps and lower quality equities could see a period of outperformance following the election, there are a couple of important differences worth considering. First, several of these areas of the market are exhibiting a negative correlation to interest rates today whereas they were showing a positive correlation in 2016. In other words, in today's later cycle environment, these cohorts' adverse sensitivity to rising rates is greater than it was in that period. Should rates see more upside post the election, there is likely less upside this time for small caps and lower quality cyclicals. Furthermore, relative earnings revisions breadth for small cap cyclicals is negative today, whereas it was positive in 2016. Finally, even with the increase in animal spirits following the 2016 election, small caps' relative performance peaked in early December of that year, just one month after the election.
While the momentum remains to the upside for US equity markets led by quality cyclicals, it's worth considering the potential risks. The first one is a material move higher in interest rates driven by a rising term premium. The 50 basis point rise in term premium so far has not been enough to worry equity investors yet. However, should the term premium accelerate materially from here driven by fiscal sustainability concerns, equity valuations would likely face headwinds. Second, one of the more popular views in the macro community is for a stronger dollar. If such strength continues into year-end, it could provide a headwind to multinationals' Earnings growth for 2024 and 2025.
A final risk to the positive price momentum is simply price itself. Over the past several months, the price change of the S&P 500 has distanced itself from the fundamentals. More specifically, the year-over-year change in the S&P has rarely been this disconnected from earnings revision breadth and business confidence surveys. However, given the positive reaction to the election so far in markets and from many business leaders, perhaps animal spirits can take earnings guidance higher – which is necessary to maintain the current trajectory in equity markets, especially since that is now expected by stock prices.
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.
-
Eksik bölüm mü var?
-
Our head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets provides an overview of uncertainty around policy following the election of a Republican administration.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about the US election - the implications in the past, present and future.
It's Friday, November 8th at 2pm in London.
The US Election is over, and the result was relatively clear. Republicans won control of the Presidency, the Senate, and on current projections, are likely to narrowly take the House of Representatives. The so-called ‘sweep’ will provide significant leeway to enact policy.
There is going to be lots of time over future weeks and months, and even years, to discuss what all of this is going to mean. But for now, I want to offer a few thoughts on the impact across the past, the present and the future.
Looking back, the US election has been a very well-known uncertainty that has hung over this market all year. The polling was close between two candidates with very different policy priorities. To the extent the simply not knowing was holding some investors back, or that investors were worried about a contested outcome, or even worse, political unrest – that issue has now passed. The relief from that passing may help explain some of the recent positive market reaction.
For the present, we now sit in this curious middle-place where the uncertainty of the result is behind us, but any uncertainty from policy changes have not yet arrived. Coupled with still strong US economic data, another interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve yesterday, and the tendency of markets to perform well in November and December, and the path of least resistance in the near term may be for markets to continue to trade well.
The future, however, may have just become less certain. Credit likes moderation and stability, and we think the current economic mix, with US GDP growth and inflation at both around 2.5 per cent, while the unemployment rate sits near historic lows at 4.2 per cent, has been a good one for credit. It’s been a major driver of our optimistic spread forecasts this year.
Yet based on exit polls, US voters were not happy with this economy, and voted for change. The question, which will now dominate investor conversations, is how much of what the new administration has said they will do, will end up happening – on everything from tariffs, to taxes, to immigration.
I can assure you that there’s a very wide investor expectations around this. The ambiguity isn’t necessarily a problem now, but we expect these questions to harden as we get into early next year. And given the likely sweep, the odds for larger changes in policy, especially much looser fiscal policy, have risen significantly. Whatever your average expectation for the US economy over the next 24 months now is, we think the bands around that have widened, and that’s also true globally, from Latin America, to Europe, to Asia.
To be a little more specific about these wider bands: To the downside, there are now scenarios where tariffs and deportations push up inflation and weaken growth. And to the upside, there are scenarios where potentially lower taxes and looser regulation could drive higher stock markets and more corporate animal spirits.
But for credit, both of these present challenges: tight spreads are absolutely not priced for stagflation, while animal spirits and more corporate aggression aren’t necessarily a great story if you’re a lender. A more benign, middle scenario is, of course, still possible, and we’re keeping an open mind. But the future has now become more uncertain.
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 panel of analysts discusses the health of the US consumer through the lens of spending, credit use and home ownership.
----- Transcript -----
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Egan, Morgan Stanley's co-head of Securitized Product Strategy, and today we're going to take a look at the state of the US consumer from several different perspectives.
Recent economic data suggests that the US economy is strong, and that inflation is on a downward trend. Yet, some of the underlying performance data is a little bit weaker. To understand what's happening, I'm joined by my colleagues Arunima Sinha and Heather Berger from the Global and US Economics teams.
It's Thursday, November 7th, at 10am in New York.
Now, the macro data on the consumer has looked pretty strong. Arunima, can you give a little bit more detail here? And specifically, how has consumer spending in the US been trending relative to where it was last year?
Arunima Sinha: So, a good place to start, Jim, would be just to see where consumption spending was last year. And there it ended on a strong note. And in the first three-quarters of 2023, the average quarterly analyzed growth for consumption was just under 3 per cent. And that's where we are this year. We've seen solid growth rates in all three quarters this year, with the third quarter at 3.7 per cent. A particularly interesting aspect has been that the spending on goods has actually accelerated this year, with the third [quarter] number at a blistering 6.0 per cent on a quarterly basis.
We have chalked this down to labor income growth remaining robust; and we did an analysis which showed that past growth in labor income boosts real consumption spending. Over this year, labor compensation has been growing strongly. So over 6 per cent in the first quarter and about 3.5 per cent in quarters two and three.
And so, we continue to expect that that solid labor income growth is going to continue to boost real consumption spending.
James Egan: All right. So, if I'm hearing you correctly – good spending, holding up; services, holding up. What about discretionary versus non-discretionary spend?
Arunima Sinha: That's a great question, Jim, especially because discretionary spending is 70 per cent of all nominal personal consumption spending in the US. So just for context, what does discretionary include? It's going to be all the spending on durable goods, some non-durables, and then non-essential services such as health and transport, financial services, etc. And what we also saw – that a larger share of labor income is now being spent on discretionary items relative to the pre-COVID phase.
So where are growth rates running? Discretionary spending is running strong on both a nominal and a real basis. So, on a nominal basis, we have about 5.5 to 6 per cent year on year, over this year, and over 3 per cent on a real basis. And these are largely in line with pre-COVID rates, if a little bit stronger now.
For non-discretionary spending – that's the spending on food at home, and clothing, energy, and housing services – nominal spending has been decent. So, 4 per cent year on year on the first three quarters this year, and real spending has been a little bit less than the pre-COVID rate. So, between 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent. And so, this suggests what we expected to see, which is there's likely greater price sensitivity among consumers for these non-discretionary categories.
What do we see going forward? We think that those increases in labor income are going to continue to provide boosts to discretionary spending. And one of the interesting aspects that we found was that lending standards seem to matter for discretionary spending. So, there's been some slowing down and the tightening of lending standards – and that could provide a further tailwind to discretionary spending.
James Egan: Alright, that all sounds pretty positive and makes sense as to why we're getting so many questions about economic data that looks very healthy from a consumer perspective. But then, Heather. Other consumer data is showing a little bit more weakness. Arunima just mentioned credit standards. What are we seeing from the performance perspective on the consumer credit side?
Heather Berger: Well, as you mentioned, the consumer credit data has shown more weakness, as more consumers are missing payments on their loans. We initially saw delinquency rates start to pick up in loans concentrated towards consumers with lower credit scores, such as subprime auto loans and unsecured personal loans, as those consumers were more affected early on by high inflation and then rising rates.
Delinquency rates for those lower credit score loans are near the highest we have on record in some cases. In the past year, though, we have also seen that delinquency rates have picked up in loans aimed at consumers with higher credit scores, such as credit cards and prime auto loans. The weakness in these is not as extreme as in subprime, but the delinquency rates of the loans taken out recently is still relatively high historically.
James Egan: So, it sounds like what you are describing is that there are pockets of consumers that are feeling more weakness than others.
Heather Berger: Yes, exactly. And so, on the prime consumer side, even if these consumers have higher credit scores or higher incomes, if they took out loans recently, they likely did so at higher rates, and they're really feeling the pressures of higher debt service costs.
We can also see some of the bifurcation between low income and high-income consumers. In some of the more detailed economic data, we have a breakdown of 2023 spending by income group, which is a bit outdated but still useful to see the narrative – and what it shows is that in 2023 higher income consumers made up near the largest share of discretionary spending as they have historically. For lower income consumers, their spending has shifted more towards essentials, with shelter increasing the most as a share of their spending from the prior year.
Now, Jim, we really think that the housing backdrop has played a role here, so can you explain a bit more of what's going on there?
James Egan: Yes, now my co-head of Securitized Product Strategy, Jay Bacow, and I have been on this podcast a few times talking about the role that the housing market is playing in the economy right now. We've really talked about the lock in effect. And when we're thinking about the role that housing plays in the consumer specifically, we're talking about lower income households, more discretionary spending, shelter increasing that's not happening at the higher end, and we think that's the lock in effect.
A majority of homeowners were able to get low fixed rate mortgages for 30 years with 3 or 4 per cent mortgage rates. The effective mortgage rate would be on the outstanding market right now is, average is 4 per cent. Prevailing rates are north of 6 per cent right now. So that has helped that higher end consumer who is more likely to be a homeowner – 65 per cent of the US households are homeowners – maintain that lower level.
But I don't want to gloss over that entirely. Other costs of homeownership are increasing. For instance, property taxes and insurance costs are up. Homeowners have realized swelling home equity amounts amid record home price growth in recent years; perhaps giving them more confidence to spend, but that equity hasn't exactly been easy to access.
Now, second lean and HELOC balances have been increasing; but the amount of equity that's being withdrawn falls well shy of previous highs, which were set back in 2009. And that's despite the fact that the overall equity in the housing market is $20 trillion larger today than it was back then. While the equity itself should provide a buffer for homeowning consumers from ultimately defaulting, these dynamics could be resulting in some of the short-term delinquency increases that we think we're seeing in products like Prime Auto, for example.
But Arunima, can you tie a bow on this for us? What does all of this mean for the consumer moving forward?
Arunima Sinha: Moving forward Jim, we really just see a solid consumer. So, for the end of this year, our forecast is real consumption spending growing at 2.6 per cent; at the end of next year at over 2 per cent. And that really is tied to our view on the labor market – that it's going to continue to decelerate, but not in any sudden ways.
So that's it. We are seeing a strong consumer, and we are going to be watching for pockets of weakness.
James Egan: All right. Arunima, Heather, thanks for taking the time to talk.
Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me on, Jim.
Heather Berger: Great talking to you both.
James Egan: And to our listeners, 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.
-
With a second Trump term at least partially reflected in the price of global markets, we focus on two key debates for the longer-term: Potential tariffs and fiscal policy.
----- 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 – some initial thoughts on the market implications of a second term for President Trump.
It’s Wednesday, Nov 6, at 2pm in New York.
As it became clearer on election night that Former President Trump was set to win a second term in the White House, markets began to price in the expected impacts of resulting public policy choices. The US dollar rallied, which makes sense when you consider that President Trump has argued for higher tariffs, something that could hurt rest of world growth more than the US.
US Treasuries sold off and yield rose, something that makes sense given President Trump supports tax policy choices that could meaningfully expand deficits. And US equity markets rallied led by key sectors that could benefit fundamentally from extended tax breaks and deregulation, including industrials and energy.
But with a second Trump term now at least partially reflected in the price of markets across assets, it gets harder from here to understand how markets move. There’s several key debates we’ll be tracking, here’s two that are top of mind.
First, how will tariffs be implemented? Per the work of our economists, higher tariffs can raise inflation and crimp growth. They estimated that a blanket 10 per cent tariffs and 60 per cent tariffs on China imports would raise inflation by 1 per cent and dampen GDP growth by 1.4 per cent. Some pretty big numbers that would really challenge the soft-landing narrative and positive backdrop for equities and other riskier assets. Other approaches may carry the same risks, but to a lesser degree. Tariffs exercised via executive authority would, in our view, likely have to be targeted to countries and products – as opposed to implemented on a blanket basis. So, the approach to tariffs could represent a substantial difference in the outlook for markets.
Second, how quickly and to what degree might US deficits expand? Our presumption has been that fiscal policy action, regardless of US election outcome, wouldn’t become clear until late 2025, largely governed by the need to address several provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire at the end of that year. But, while not our base case it's of course possible that a Republican Congressional majority could deliver on tax cuts earlier – and perhaps even in larger size. The resolution to this debate could make the difference between yields climbing even higher than they have recently and taking a pause at these levels.
Bottom line, as the election ends and the Presidential transition begins, there’s a lot about policy implementation that we can learn to guide our market strategy. We’ll be paying attention to all the key policymaker statements and deliberations, and feed through the signal to you.
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.
-
Analyst Nathan Feather discusses why the online dating market is slowing down, and whether or not it can get back on track.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nathan Feather, Morgan Stanley’s Online Dating and US Small- and Mid-Cap eCommerce Analyst.
Today, people across America are casting their votes. On this podcast, however, we're taking a break from our election coverage. And taking a leap into a different matter on many minds … and hearts. Online dating. Why it fell out of favor and how it might make a comeback.
It’s November 5, at 10am in New York.
Finding love is a tricky business. Dating has never been easy; but with an epidemic of loneliness and isolation, singles today are finding it harder than ever.
For those looking for love, online dating seems to offer endless possibilities. Since its inception just three decades ago, the stigma around online dating has faded, leading more and more daters to put their faith – and money – into the algorithm. In the US, three out of four actively dating singles have used it at some point in their journey.
But after years of consistent double-digit growth, the online dating market is now faltering, with US industry revenue growing just 1 per cent this year.
Why? Well, we think the issue lies primarily in weakening user trends with the US user bases of major dating apps in decline. Since last spring, we have seen around a 15 per cent decrease in dating app use by singles actively looking for a relationship. To us this indicates that the product is not matching user expectations as some daters have grown tired of the persistent swiping and dead ends. Consequently, daters' intentions to use online dating in the future have consistently declined.
Now, there are many theories about why this is happening. We think there may be residual impact from the pandemic when singles used online dating at record rates. People who found relationships during that time likely left the apps. And those who didn't find a partner also often left the apps, disappointed and less likely to return. But that’s not all; while Millennials embraced the fun and casual experience of swipe apps, Gen Z isn’t so enamored – instead searching for greater authenticity.
So, can online dating be fixed or are these issues beyond repair? Well, there are two main schools of thought. The first believes that the issue with online dating is a lack of innovation, and an improved product should lead to improved financials. The second camp argues that daters are fundamentally shifting away from these products to date in person or not at all.
We sit firmly in the first camp and think this is a product issue. The apps need to do a better job helping people find lasting relationships. Granted, fixing this is far easier said than done. Human relationships are messy and complicated. But we do think there are clear opportunities. Many of the large apps have stayed relatively unchanged over the past five to 10 years and are meeting the demands of users from then – and not now. With improvements to the user experience and better tailoring to the goals of today’s daters, we believe the apps can reaccelerate user growth. In fact, brands that have consistently improved the user experience have recently fared far better.
With that being said, we do think it will take time to find the product improvements that really work and convince daters to give the apps another shot. But as products evolve, we think daters and investors can rekindle their relationship with online dating.
If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market today, with a friend, colleague, significant other -- even a situationship. Thanks for listening.
-
On the eve of a competitive US election, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist joins our head of Corporate Credit Research and Chief Fixed Income Strategist to asses how investors are preparing for each possible outcome of the race.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.
Andrew Sheets: I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.
Vishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.
Mike Wilson: Today on the show, the day before the US election, we're going to do a conversation with my colleagues about what we're watching out for in the markets.
It's Monday, November 4th, at 1130am in New York.
So let's get after it.
Andrew Sheets: Well, Mike, like you said, it's the day before the US election. The campaign is going down to the wire and the polling looks very close. Which means both it could be a while before we know the results and a lot of different potential outcomes are still in play. So it would be great to just start with a high-level overview of how you're thinking about the different outcomes.
So, first Mike, to you, as you think across some of the broad different scenarios that we could see post election, what do you think are some of the most important takeaways for how markets might react?
Mike Wilson: Yeah, thanks, Andrew. I mean, it's hard to, you know, consider oneself as an expert in these types of events, which are extremely hard to predict. And there's a lot of permutations, by the way. There's obviously the presidential election, but then of course there's congressional elections. And it's the combination of all those that then feed into policy, which could be immediate or longer lasting.
So, the other thing to just keep in mind is that, you know, markets tend to pre-trade events like this. I mean, this is a known date, right? A known kind of event. It's not a surprise. And the outcome is a surprise. So people are making investments based on how they think the outcome is going to come. So that's the way we think about it now.
Clearly, you know, treasury markets have sold off. Some of that's better economic data, as our strategists in fixed income have told us. But I think it's also this view that, you know, Trump presidency, particularly Republican sweep, may lead to more spending or bigger budget deficits. And so, term premium has widened out a bit, so that’s been an area; here I think you could get some reversion if Harris were to win.
And that has impact on the equity markets -- whether that's some maybe small cap stocks or financials; some of the, you know, names that are levered to industrial spending that they want to do from a traditional energy standpoint.
And then, of course, on the negative side, you know, a lot of consumer-oriented stocks have suffered because of fears about tariffs increasing along with renewables. Because of the view that, you know, the IRA would be pared back or even repealed.
And I think there's still follow through particularly in financials. So, if Trump were to win, with a Republican Congress, I think, you know, financials could see some follow through. I think you could see some more strength in small caps because of perhaps animal spirits increasing a little further; a bit of a blow off move, perhaps, in the indices.
And then, of course, if Harris wins, I would expect, perhaps, bonds to rally. I think you might see some of these, you know, micro trades like in financials give back some along with small caps. And then you'd see a big rally in the renewables. And some of the tariff losers that have suffered recently. So, there's a lot, there's a lot of opportunity, depending on the outcome tomorrow.
Andrew Sheets: And Vishy, as you think about these outcomes for fixed income, what really stands out to you?
Vishy Tirupattur: I think what is important, Andrew, is really to think about what's happening today in the macro context, related to what was happening in 2016. So, if you look at 2016; and people are too quick to turn to the 2016 playbook and look at, you know, what a potential Trump, win would mean to the rates markets.
I think we should keep in mind that going into the polls in 2016, the market was expecting a 30 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months. And that rate hike expectation transitioned into something like a 125 place basis points over the following 12 months. And where we are today is very different.
We are looking at a[n] expectation of a 130-135 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months. So what that means to me is underlying macroeconomic conditions in where the economy is, where monetary policy is very, very different. So, we should not expect the same reaction in the markets, whether it's a micro or macro -- similar to what happened in 2016.
So that's the first point. The second thing I want to; I'm really focused on is – if it is a Harris win, it's more of a policy continuity. And if it's a Trump win, there is going to be significant policy changes. But in thinking about those policy changes, you know, before we leap into deficit expansion, et cetera, we need to think in terms of the sequencing of the policy and what is really doable.
You know, we're thinking three buckets. I think in terms of changes to immigration policy, changes to tariff policy, and changes to tax code. Of these things, the thing that requires no congressional approval is the changes to tariff policy, and the tariffs are probably are going to be much more front loaded compared to immigration. Or certainly the tax policy [is] going to take a quite a bit of time for it to work out – even under the Republican sweep scenario.
So, the sequencing of even the tariff policy, the effect of the tariffs really depends upon the sequencing of tariffs itself. Do we get to the 60 per cent China tariffs off the bat? Or will that be built over time? Are we looking at across the board, 10 per cent tariffs? Or are we looking at it in much more sequential terms? So, I would be careful not to jump into any knee-jerk reaction to any outcome.
Andrew Sheets: So, Mike, the next question I wanted to ask you is – you've been obviously having a lot of conversations with investors around this topic. And so, is there a piece of kind of conventional wisdom around the election or how markets will react to the election that you find yourself disagreeing with the most?
Mike Wilson: Well, I don't think there's any standard reaction function because, as Vishy said -- depending on when the election's occurring, it's a very different setup. And I will go back to what he was saying on 2016. I remember in 2016, thinking after Trump won, which was a surprise to the markets, that was a reflationary trade that we were very bullish on because there was so much slack in the economy.
We had borrowing capabilities and we hadn't done any tax cuts yet. So, there was just; there was a lot of running room to kind of push that envelope.
If we start pushing the envelope further on spending or reflationary type policies, all of a sudden the Fed probably can't cut. And that changes the dynamics in the bond market. It changes the dynamics in the stock market from a valuation standpoint, for sure. We've really priced in this like, kind of glide path now on, on Fed policy, which will be kind of turned upside down if we try to reflate things.
Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, that's a great point because, you know, I imagine something that investors do ask a lot about towards the bond market is, you know, we see these yields rising. Are they rising for kind of good reasons because the economy is better? Are they rising for less good reasons, maybe because inflation's higher or the deficit's widening too much? How do you think about that issue of the rise in bond yields? At what point is it rising for kind of less healthy reasons?
Vishy Tirupattur: So Andrew, if you look back to the last 30 days or so, the reaction the Treasury yields is mostly on account of stronger data. Not to say that the expectation changes about the presidential election outcomes haven't played a role. They have. But we've had really strong data. You know, we can ignore the data from last Friday – because the employment data that we got last Friday was affected by hurricanes and strikes, etc. But take that out of the picture. The data has been very strong. So, it's really a reflection of both of them. But we think stronger data have played a bigger role in yield rise than electoral outcome expectation changes.
Andrew Sheets: Mike, maybe to take that question and throw it back to you, as you think about this issue of the rise in yields – and at what point they're a problem for the equity market. How are you thinking about that?
Mike Wilson: Well, I think there's two ways to think about it. Number one, if it really is about the data getting better, then all of a sudden, you know, maybe the multiple expansion we've seen is right. And that, it's sort of foretelling of an earnings growth picture next year that's, you know, much faster than what, the consensus is modeling.
However, I'd push back on that because the consensus already is modeling a pretty good growth trajectory of about 12 per cent earnings growth. And that's, you know, quite healthy. I think, you know, it's probably more mixed. I mean, the term premium has gone up by 50 basis points, so some of this is about fiscal sustainability – no matter who wins, by the way. I wouldn't say either party has done a very good stewardship of, you know, monitoring the fiscal deficits; and I think some of it is definitely part of that. And then, look, I mean, this is what happened last year where, you know, we get financial conditions loosened up so much that inflation comes back. And then the Fed can't cut.
So to me, you know, we're right there and we've written about this extensively. We're right around the 200-day moving average for 10-year yields. The term premium now is up about 50 basis points. There's not a lot of wiggle room now. Stock market did trade poorly last week as we went through those levels. So, I think if rates go up another 10 or 20 basis points post the election, no matter who wins and it's driven at least half by term premium, I think the equity market's not gonna like that.
If rates kind of stay right around in here and we see term premium stabilize, or even come down because people get more excited about growth -- well then, we can probably rally a bit. So it's much a reason of why rates are going up as much as how much they're going up for the impact on equity multiples.
Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, how are you thinking about credit markets against this background?
Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think a few things are important for credit. So first is I do think credit is a[n] asset class that likes moderation. And so, I think outcomes that are likely to deliver much larger changes in economic, domestic, foreign policy are worse for credit. I mean, I think that the current status quo is quite helpful to credit given we're trading at some of the tightest spreads in the last 20 years. So, I think the less that changes around that for the macro backdrop for credit, the better.
I think secondly, you know, if I -- and Mike correct me, if you think I'm phrasing this wrong. But I think kind of some of the upside case that people make, that investors make for equities in the Republican sweep scenario is some version of kind of an animal spirits case; that you'll see lower taxes, less regulation, more corporate risk taking higher corporate confidence. That might be good for the equity market, but usually greater animal spirits are not good for the credit market. That higher level of risk taking is often not as good for the lenders. So, there are scenarios that you could get outcomes that might be, you know, positive for equities that would not be positive for credit.
And then I think conversely, in say the event of a democratic sweep or in the scenarios where Harris wins, I do think the market would probably see those as potentially, you know, the lower vol events – as they're probably most similar to the status quo. And again, I think that vol suppression that might be helpful to credit; that might be helpful for things like mortgages that credit is compared to. And so, I think that's also kind of important for how we're thinking about it.
To both Mike and Vishy, to round out the episode, as we mentioned, the race is close. We might not know the outcome immediately. As you're going to be looking at the news and the markets over Tuesday evening, into Wednesday morning. What's your process? How closely do you follow the events? What are you going to be focused on and what are kind of the pitfalls that you're trying to avoid?
Maybe Vishy, I'll start with you.
Vishy Tirupattur: I think the first thing I'd like to avoid is – do not make any market conclusions based on the first initial set of data. This is going to be a somewhat drawn out; maybe not as drawn out as last time around in 2020. But it is probably unlikely, but we will know the outcome on Tuesday night as we did in 2016.
So, hurry up and wait as my colleague, Michael Zezas puts it.
Mike Wilson: And I'm going to take the view, which I think most clients have taken over the last, you know, really several months, which is -- price is your best analyst, sadly. And I think a lot of people are going to do the same thing, right? So, we're all going to watch price to see kind of, ‘Okay, well, how was the market adjusting to the results that we know and to the results that we don't know?’
Because that's how you trade it, right? I mean, if you get big price swings in certain things that look like they're out of bounds because of positioning, you gotta take advantage of that. And vice versa. If you think that the price movement is kind of correct with it, there's probably maybe more momentum if in fact, the market's getting it right.
So this is what makes this so tricky – is that, you know, markets move not just based on the outcome of events or earnings or whatever it might be; but how positioning is. And so, the first two or three days – you know, it's a clearing event. You know, volatility is probably going to come down as we learn the results, no matter who wins. And then you're going to have to figure out, okay, where are things priced correctly? And where are things priced incorrectly? And then I can look at my analysis as to what I actually want to own, as opposed to trade
Andrew Sheets: That's great. And if I could just maybe add one, one thing for my side, you know, Mike – which you mentioned about volatility coming down. I do think that makes a lot of sense. That's something, you know, we're going to be watching on the credit side. If that does not happen, kind of as expected, that would be notable. And I also think what you mentioned about that interplay between, you know, higher yields and higher equities on some sort of initial move – especially if it was, a Republican sweep scenario where I think kind of the consensus view is that might be a 'stocks up yields up' type of type of environment. I think that will be very interesting to watch in terms of do we start to see a different interaction between stocks and yields as we break through some key levels. And I think for the credit market that interaction could certainly matter.
It's great to catch up. Hopefully we'll know a lot more about how this all turned out pretty soon.
Vishy Tirupattur: It's great chatting with both of you, Mike and Andrew.
Mike Wilson: 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 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.
-
With the US election as a backdrop, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets tells three stories that help encapsulate the state of global credit markets.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll go around the credit world in three short stories.
It's Thursday, October 31st at 2pm in London.
The US election next Tuesday continues to be a top issue on investor minds, and indeed is a top issue for us here at Thoughts on the Market, where it’s dominating your feed over this week.
For credit, our positive view this year has been closely tied to the idea that the asset class likes moderation. For example, in data released yesterday the US economy grew a solid 2.8 per cent in the third quarter, while core inflation moderated to just 2.2 per cent, close to the Fed’s target. And Morgan Stanley’s forecasts for the rest of this year and next see that pattern continuing: Solid US Growth, falling inflation, driving steady further rate cuts from the Federal Reserve and all creating a better-than-expected backdrop for credit that should support tighter than average spreads.
That idea that credit likes moderation is core to how we view the election. Outcomes that could drive larger changes in economic policy, domestic policy or foreign policy, are all larger risks. And outcomes that could drive more moderate outcomes across all of these factors are likely going to be better for credit, in our view.
But you may also be tired of hearing about the election. And so for you, here is a quick tour of the credit world in three non-election stories.
In Asia, Korea will be added to the FTSE World Government Bond Index, an important benchmark for global bond investors. This has significant implications across Korean assets, but for Credit, it may be most important for sparking more interest in Corporate Bonds denominated in local Korean Won.
This is a larger market than investors may initially realize, totaling roughly $1 trillion US equivalent in size. And meanwhile, the exposure of foreign investors to this market is historically low. A large market with little global exposure is a potential opportunity.
Moving to Europe, you could be forgiven for thinking the mood is pretty dour. Growth has been weaker than in the United States, while the US Election is raising questions around everything from disruptions to trans-Atlantic trade, to the future of NATO, to the war in Ukraine.
But over the last month, flows into European credit have been extremely good. Per work by my colleagues, inflows into European credit have reached record levels over the last several months. The start of rate cuts leading investors to lock in still-attractive all-in yields in Europe is a big part of this story.
Finally, in the US, we continue to see remarkable shifts in the ease with which investors can trade large volumes of corporate bonds. So-called portfolio trading, where investors buy or sell bonds as a group, continues to grow, with September seeing a new all-time high in activity. Year-to-date, through September, we estimate that roughly $760 billion – with a ‘b’ – has been traded this way. It’s never been easier to trade very large volumes of corporate bonds.
The US election on November 5th will continue to dominate investor focus over the coming days. As it should. Credit has been an enormous beneficiary of the recent backdrop that’s seen solid growth, moderating inflation, and moderating policy rates. The vote will have an important bearing on whether that moderation continues, or if something new takes its place.
But away from the election there are other important things happening. Korea’s Local Currency Corporate bond market is a large, underinvested market that may get more attention after index inclusion. European Credit is seeing record flows despite its macro uncertainties, an indicator of underlying investor demand. And in the US, the continued rise of portfolio trading is re-shaping market structure and improving the ability to trade ever larger volumes of corporate bonds.
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.
Oh, and Happy Halloween.
-
Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research, Michael Zezas, outlines how investors should navigate the closing days of the presidential campaign -- including a vote-counting period that could extend past Election Day.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today is going to be a little bit different. We’re exactly six days away from the US election. The race is neck-and-neck, and I want to sketch out what investors should expect in the next couple of weeks.
It’s Wednesday, October 30, at 10 AM in New York.
This is an historic election, and the outcome remains highly uncertain. What’s more, there’s a good chance we won’t know the winner on election night due to close vote counts. My colleagues and I have spent a lot of time on this show trying to give our listeners a sense of how the election might impact different economies around the word as well as markets, sectors, and specific industries. But today I want to take a step back and highlight a few things that investors should keep in mind right now.
To sum up what we’ve covered so far: The key policies at stake are taxes, tariffs, and immigration. Congressional composition will be critical in determining the extent of tax cut extensions in either win outcome. Domestic, consumer-oriented sectors are most exposed to tax changes, while clean-tech is the most exposed to potential efforts at a repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act. Macro impacts vary depending on the scope of policies and their sequencing, but we see downside risks to growth in a Republican win outcome.
As our listeners know, a candidate needs 270 Electoral College votes to win. Former President Trump’s most likely path to victory is through the Sun Belt – Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia; while Vice President Harris’ most likely path to victory is through the so-called Blue Wall – Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
In terms of the Senate, polling and prediction markets have consistently implied higher likelihood of Republicans winning control. Democrats are defending more seats in states that Trump won in 2020, as well as more seats in states Biden won by a small margin. As far as the House of Representatives, Republicans need 11 of the 25 toss-up seats to maintain control of the House, and Democrats need 15. The generic ballot is the most reliable House indicator, in our view. It’s a political poll which asks not which candidate you plan to vote for to represent you in Congress, but rather which political party – Democrat, Republican or Independent – that you would support. The generic ballot historically correlates with the House winner, and it currently favors Democrats.
All this leaves us with two key takeaways:
First, don’t expect conclusive results on election night. Early vote data from key states reflects our view that vote-by-mail levels are lower than in 2020 but still elevated versus historical levels. And it may take days to get all the mail-in votes counted.
Second, full election results may differ from early returns. Why is that? A candidate may have a deficit in election night vote counts but still come back to win the race once all ballots are counted. This depends on two key variables: The share of the electorate who vote by mail; and the skew among those ballots toward Democrats – a blue shift – or Republicans – a red shift.
So again, we need to be patient and wait for the final results. And when that happens, we will start digging deep into the post-election outlook for the economy and markets.
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 U.S. Public Policy and Valuation, Accounting & Tax strategists assess the possible scenarios in the upcoming elections, and what they could mean for both taxpayers and the market.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US public policy strategist.
Todd Castagno: And I'm Todd Costagno, Head of Global Valuation, Accounting, and Tax Research at Morgan Stanley.
Ariana Salvatore: With less than a week to go until the US election, the race is still neck and neck. Today, we dig into a key issue voters care about: Taxes.
Todd Castagno: It's Tuesday, October 29th at 10am in New York.
So, Ariana. Taxes are an issue that impact both businesses and individuals. It's a key component of both candidates plans and proposals. How have they evolved over the campaign?
Ariana Salvatore: I'd say in general we do tend to see a lot of overlap between Harris' proposals and the ones that the Democrats were campaigning on before she took over the mantle from President Biden in July. That being said, in some instances, her plans go beyond what was requested in the president's fiscal year [20]25 budget request.
For example, that $6,000 credit for newborns and the $25,000 homebuyer tax credit. These are areas where we've seen her campaign go beyond the scope of what Biden was campaigning on while he was still in the race. Of course, it's important to remember that any of these proposals would have to pass muster in a Democrat controlled or a split Congress – meaning that there will be some tempering of these plans at the margin.
Todd Castagno: So former President Trump campaigned in his first election on tax policy. He's campaigning on tax policy in his current campaign. What are his plans and views?
Ariana Salvatore: We've been talking about the Republican sweep outcome as the most deficit expansionary from tax policy changes because Republicans understandably have more fealty to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
That law is set to expire by the end of next year. So, in a Trump win scenario plus Republican Congress, we think you can get most of that 2017 law extended. While in a Trump win scenario with divided government, it's probably a little bit narrower. In general, as I said, deficits skew larger in Republican win outcomes for that reason, with an asymmetry across the other election scenarios. That being said, we do still expect to see deficit expansion in 2026, regardless of who's in power, because these tax cuts will be extended one way or another.
But Todd, you've done a lot of work in this area and there are some substantial impacts from a potential corporate rate increase to think through. Can you give us a little bit of detail on what that kind of increase would mean for stocks and bonds?
Todd Castagno: Yeah. So, investors have been very focused on the rate and where it matters and where it does not matter. So, if you really think about it, most companies that are exposed to a rate increase or decrease are domestic oriented, consumer companies, retail companies, you know, hospital facilities, industrials; those are the most exposed to a rate increase.
Multinationals this time around are less exposed. So, if we go back to 2017, we think about it; that was a different story. We had $2 trillion of trapped cash on the sidelines that did come back – buybacks, dividends, corporate hiring. You know, this time around, that's a different story. So there is exposure but it's mainly consumer-oriented companies.
Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. And you mentioned the 2017 almost as a blueprint for what we saw last time. You mentioned dividends and buybacks.
Do you have any sense of how this time around could be different? What do we think companies would likely spend these tax cuts on?
Todd Castagno: Well, there are tax cuts. I do think it's going to be different. I do think the $2 trillion does not exist. That's not going to happen. So, you're going to have fewer buybacks, fewer dividends. But you could see some changes in employment. You could see some changes in investment. Things like upfront expensing could help boost the economy, higher jobs, et cetera.
One thing, Ariana. You know, tax cuts are expensive. I think that's what we've all contemplated for almost 10 years now. How are we going to pay for these in this new world?
Ariana Salvatore: Well Republicans have proposed a few different pay forwards. But to your point, we're not in the same environment as 2017, and we don't expect to see the same ones that were part of the original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act negotiations this time around. Specifically, former President Trump has talked about not extending the SALT cap, which was a revenue raiser that capped the amount of deductions some individuals could take between state and federal taxes. That provision raised about $900 billion over 10 years.
Republicans in general are mainly focused on peeling back some parts of the IRA – or the Inflation Reduction Act – as a cost saving measure, as well as letting some of the tax cuts from the 2017 law roll off.
We contrast that with the Democrat sweep outcome, where we could see a corporate rate increase to 25 per cent in our view, in spite of Harris’ pledge to bring it up to 28 per cent from the current 21 per cent.
Todd Castagno: So, we could talk about the Inflation Reduction Act for a second. You know, that was a bill that was designed to bring energy, clean energy manufacturing back to the United States.
It was a very large bill; it was partisan. But what do we think about in this next election outcome of actually repealing some of those items?
Ariana Salvatore: It's a great question. And Republicans on the campaign trail have been talking a lot about peeling back the IRA. Importantly, in our view, we don't think a full-scale repeal is likely even in a Republican sweep outcome. There are a few reasons for that, but mainly because if you look at where these projects are being located, it's in Republican held states and districts. And Republicans in the house currently have said that they're not interested in rolling back the law. That being said, there are ways to potentially cap the amount of outstanding money that has not yet been allocated.
And the president could work with the treasury or other federal agencies to tighten up some of the criteria or the guidance around accessing some of the tax credits that will limit the overall deployment.
Todd Castagno: I think the recent Supreme Court decision also plays into that.
With candidates’ tax plans – I’ve run a lot of numbers from a company perspective. You've run a lot of numbers top down from a deficit perspective. What did you come to view?
Ariana Salvatore: We do see deficits expanding in 2026 and beyond. That's because, in our view, it's not really in lawmakers’ interest to allow all of the tax cuts – both individual and corporate – from 2017 to expire. We think the largest extension, as I mentioned before, comes in a Republican sweep. But in general, in some form or another, we think that at least a portion of these lower tax rates are going to stay around.
That adds $2.8 trillion to the deficit over 10 years on the high end per our estimates; and $700 billion over 10 years in our smallest expansion scenario, a Democrat sweep.
So finally, Todd, in either win outcome, what's the timeline of key tax-related events that investors should be paying attention to?
Todd Castagno: So, this is the trillion-dollar question. So, most of the individual side of the tax cuts and jobs act expires at the end of 2025. There are certain business provisions that have already started to phase out. There are certain provisions that are permanent, like the corporate rate.
When will Congress get to this? They will get to it at some point, but we just don't know when that is. Could it be early 2025? Could it be 2026? And I think investors should pay attention to that because Congress doesn't always act on time; and we also don't know what the extensions will look like. Some things could be extended three years, five years, 10 years. Some things could be permanent.
So that's the jigsaw puzzle that we'll have to put together after the election.
Ariana Salvatore: Great. Well, I guess three things in life are certain – death, taxes, and the fact that we will be following this issue very closely.
Todd, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.
Todd Castagno: Great to speak with you.
Ariana Salvatore: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.
-
As the U.S. presidential race continues to be neck and neck according to opinion polls, our Chief Fixed Income Strategist considers the possible market implications if some policies proposed during this campaign are implemented.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about understanding market dynamics against the backdrop of U.S. elections.
It's Monday, Oct 28th at 1 pm in New York.
The outcome of the U.S. elections, now just over a week away, has been at the center of every discussion I have had in the last several days. There have been significant moves, not so much in the opinion polls – but in prediction markets. In the opinion polls, the presidential race remains tight and neck-to-neck in key swing states with poll numbers well within the margin of error. But some prediction markets have shifted meaningfully toward Republicans in the contests for both the presidency and control of Congress.
Financial markets have also moved a lot. Stocks exposed to a Republican win outcome have risen a fair bit.
To understand the potential policy changes that can have an impact on markets, I think it is crucial to understand the sequencing of those policy changes.
Given the moves in the prediction markets, let us first frame a Trump win scenario. It seems reasonable to bucket the possible shifts into three categories – fiscal policy, immigration controls, and tariffs.
Meaningful changes in fiscal policy require control of both houses of Congress; and even in a Republican sweep, scenario legislation would still be time-consuming and likely come last. We don’t really have many details on how changes to immigration policy would be implemented and so their timing remains very unclear. On the other hand, given broad presidential discretion on trade policy, Trump’s expressed intentions in his campaign messaging, and the precedent of his first term, tariff changes would likely come first.
Our economists have looked at the potential impact of tariffs on the economy. They concluded that broad tariffs imply downside risks to growth through declines in consumption, investment spending, payrolls, and labor income, and upside risks to inflation. Their estimates suggest that imposing all the tariffs currently under discussion could result in a delayed drag of -1.4 per cent on real GDP growth and a more rapid boost of 0.9 per cent to inflation.
How do we reconcile the equity market’s reaction to the increasing odds of a Trump win in some prediction markets with the idea that there will be a drag on GDP growth and boost to inflation that our economists assess?
Two explanations. Markets could be counting on the prospect that all tariffs would not be imposed. Or at least would be sequenced over an extended period, with some coming much later than others. Also, markets could be putting greater emphasis on the revival of “animal spirits” driven by expectations of regulatory easing, which is hard to define or quantify.
Let us look at other markets.
In the bond markets, treasury yields have risen notably in the last month. Many investors see the Republican sweep outcome as most bearish for US Treasuries, based on the experience of the 2016 election. As Matt Hornbach, our global head of macro strategy has noted, there are meaningful differences between the Fed’s monetary policy today and the pre-election period in 2016, suggesting that any rise in Treasury yields would be more contained this time, even in a Republican sweep outcome.
In 2016, markets were pricing in about 30 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months. Contrast that to the current market expectation of about 135 basis points in rate cuts over the next 12 months. Also, in the year after the 2016 election, expectations for the Fed Funds Rate rose nearly 125 basis points. A similar rise in expectations for Fed policy now would require market participants to expect the Fed to stop cutting immediately; and refrain from further cuts through 2025. This seems like a remote possibility – even under a Republican sweep elections scenario.
Given the recent moves across markets and the expectations they are pricing in, markets may now be somewhat offside should Harris win, as they would have to reverse the course.
Elections are a known unknown. Based on opinion polls, this race remains extremely tight, and multiple combinations of presidential and congressional outcomes are very much in play. We must also contend with the prospect that determining the outcome may take much longer this time.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
-
After decades of offshoring, the pendulum for US manufacturing is swinging back toward domestic production. Our US Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder looks at what’s behind this trend.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley’s US Multi-Industry Analyst. Today I’ll discuss the far-reaching implications of shifting industrial production back to the United States.
It’s Friday, October 25th, at 10am in New York.
Global manufacturing is undergoing a seismic shift, and the United States is at the epicenter of this transformation. After decades of offshoring and relying on international supply chains, the pendulum is swinging back toward domestic production. This movement – known as reshoring – is not just a fleeting trend but a strategic realignment of manufacturing capabilities that is indicative of the “multipolar” theme playing out globally.
In fact, we believe the US is entering the early innings of re-Industrialization – a multi-decade opportunity that we size at $10 trillion and think has the potential to restore growth to the US industrial economy following more than 20 years of stagnation.
The reshoring of manufacturing to the US is fueled by a combination of factors that are making domestic production both viable and lucrative. While the initial sparks were ignited by policy changes, including tariffs and trade agreements, the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the risks of elongated supply chains and over-dependence on foreign manufacturing.
Meanwhile, the diffusion of cutting-edge technologies, such as automation, artificial intelligence, and advanced robotics, has diminished the cost advantages of low-wage countries. The US -- with its robust tech sector and innovation ecosystem -- is uniquely positioned to leverage technology to revitalize its manufacturing base.
Who are the direct beneficiaries? High-tech sectors, such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and advanced manufacturing systems, are likely to be the biggest winners. Traditional industrial sectors, such as automotive and aerospace, are also seeing a resurgence. Finally, companies that invest in more sustainable manufacturing processes stand to gain from both policy-driven incentives and a growing market demand. All told, these businesses should see shorter supply chains, reduced legal and tariff costs, and a more resilient operational structure.
As for the broader US economy? We think the implications are pretty profound. In altering the US industrial landscape, reshoring promises not only to boost GDP growth, but it could also stabilize and potentially reverse the trade deficits that have plagued the US economy for years.
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 European Head of Research Product Paul Walsh speaks to Betsy Graseck, Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance, and Bruce Hamilton, European Asset Managers Diversified Financials Analyst, about the implications of increasing life expectancy for the financial industry.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product, and today we dig into a topic that really affects us all. Retirement.
Life cycles are extending as people are living longer, healthier lives. Coupled with government pension funds that are increasingly under pressure, this means that consumers will need to build much more robust investment plans to substitute for salaries to carry them through a longer retirement.
And to understand more about the changing financial needs and challenges of an aging population, I'm delighted to be joined by my colleagues, Betsy Graseck, Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance, and Bruce Hamilton, our European Asset Managers Diversified Financials Analyst.
It's Thursday, October the 24th at 3pm in London.
Betsy Graseck: And it's 10 am in New York.
Paul Walsh: Now Bruce, let's start with you. As people live longer, they will likely spend more time in retirement. Managing and ensuring retirement income over a longer duration could have a significant impact on asset management. What are the broad trends you're seeing in the industry right now?
Bruce Hamilton: So, the asset management industry in large part has focused on the accumulation phase of investors journey. Whilst this remains critical as people build assets for retirement – and we see growing allocations from affluent investors to private markets as a trend which is likely to be reinforced by the aging theme – there's a significant need for decumulation products and solutions that can offer returns and income over a prolonged retirement.
We see a lot of innovation as asset managers look to develop products to meet this need.
Paul Walsh: So Betsy, people are living longer. How ready are consumers for retirement? Are most retirement plans or similar financial services ready to handle this challenge?
Betsy Graseck: Some are ready. But given how rapidly the global population is aging, there is an increasing need to provide solutions to individuals. Just to put a number on it, the global population that is 65 years old or older in the year 2000 was only 7 per cent. This is set to hit 10 per cent next year in 2025 and 16 per cent in 2050. All groups need service and advice – with the affluent group needing the most increase in services especially if government pension funds come under more pressure.
Paul Walsh: So, I think you set the scene really well there, Betsy, and I guess the obvious question is, how can wealth and financial planners best respond, do you think? Is it by creating new products? Or do we need a much deeper transformation?
Betsy Graseck: We see individuals today having a wide range of retirement choices. What we feel they really need here is personalized, customized advice, delivering solutions that can address their unique needs. These span from affluent individuals needing salary replacement strategies to high-net-worth individuals looking for philanthropic and wealth transfer strategies. A focus on integrated, personalized advice, innovative products, and high-quality service that meets clients as they wish to connect effectively will be critical.
Paul Walsh: It seems to me that it is – but is this a positive for the financial services sector? And if so, what do you think is the size of this revenue opportunity and over what time period do you think?
Betsy Graseck: Well, the way we've looked at this is across the global asset manager and global wealth manager industry, as they will be the ones called upon to address these needs. And we do see a roughly 30 per cent uplift in global revenues by 2028, which equates to [$]400 billion in incremental revenues across the global industry.
And that is driven by the expansion of individuals looking for advice, in particular from the affluent group, as well as an increase in fee-based products to address the income needs.
Paul Walsh: And there's some big numbers that you've quoted there, Betsy. So let's dig into the financial subsector and industries. What are the biggest untapped opportunities there?
Betsy Graseck: Well, the number one is the affluent customer base that we do see having the biggest need for advice, relative to advice seeking today. And as that group, reaches out and receives advice from wealth channels, that is one major driver here. The second driver is the increase in fee-based products to service the income replacement needs.
Paul Walsh: And what are the biggest challenges do you think? Obviously, we've talked about the opportunity there, but the biggest challenges to financial services that you see along the way.
Betsy Graseck: Well, the way I think about this is what is required to be a winner, and the winners need to be able to integrate their entire organizations to deliver for clients. And also leverage technology efficiently and effectively to be able not only to deliver the highest quality service in the way the client wants to be serviced; but also to optimize cost structures, which then can get reinvested – you know, higher pretext getting reinvested into the business.
The challenges are the opposite of institutions that remain siloed and institutions that have, you know, maybe a tech strategy that is not set to respond to the needs of this client set.
Paul Walsh: Thanks for that, Betsy; and Bruce, I just want to pivot back to you. Some asset managers are partnering with insurance companies to offer guaranteed income streams and wealth transfer solutions. What are some of the successful models that you've seen so far?
Bruce Hamilton: So, asset managers are adopting a range of approaches. Some have acquired insurance subsidiaries, some have taken significant minority stakes, while others have looked to deepen partnerships with insurance. Trade offs include the degree of control versus the capital intensity that ownership of insurance brings. So, we see more than one route, but a continued push towards greater collaboration between asset managers and insurers.
Given the potential for the asset managers to access stable, permanent capital, that can then be deployed in a range of investment strategies to offer diversified sources of income via private or structured credit to support returns for the end insurance clients.
Theoretically, the best place models to deliver retirement solutions will have elements of wealth advice, plus a hybrid asset management insurance product approach. Given the importance of providing investors with regular and variable income, a guaranteed minimum level of income, plus an ability to generate a return to offer potential for legacy to pass to heirs.
Paul Walsh: And of course, Bruce, it's very difficult to talk about product innovation, without bringing in the topic of AI. As asset managers are working to create ever more personalized retirement solutions as we've heard, how and to what extent do you think they are leveraging AI?
Bruce Hamilton: So, our interviews with a range of management players confirmed that many of the potential use cases being worked on 12 months ago have now been put into production. It's still early days, and so far, most use cases are focused on areas that can drive efficiencies.
So, for example, in RFP report writing, synthesis of research, and some of the middle and back-office processes for asset managers. But over time, AI can clearly feed more bespoke client service by wealth and asset managers with areas such as customized investment proposals and financial planning offering potential.
Paul Walsh: Fascinating topic. Betsy and Bruce, thank you so much for taking the time to talk.
It's clear that increasing lifespans are reshaping the financials sector by driving product innovation, influencing asset allocation strategies, and, of course, creating new market opportunities.
And to our listeners, thanks as always for taking the time to listen in. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please do leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.
-
Our Chief Europe Economist Jens Eisenschmidt and Europe Equity Strategist Regiane Yamanari discuss the strain of an aging population on the future of Europe’s economy and markets.
----- Transcript -----
Jens Eisenschmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist.
Regiane Yamanari: And I’m Regiane Yamanari from the European Equity Strategy Team.
Jens Eisenschmidt: Today we are discussing one of the most urgent challenges Europe is facing right now, a declining working age population – and its implication for Europe's economy and potential solutions.
It’s Wednesday, October 23rd, at 3 pm in Frankfurt.
Regiane Yamanari: And 2 pm in London.
So Jens, people are getting older around the world, living longer. Although the rate of change is different from country to country, can you tell us what's the situation in Europe right now?
Jens Eisenschmidt: Yes, Europe faces a declining working age population, so much is sure. We have just put out a big report, where we come up with numbers around this issue. We think for the large four Euro area countries – Germany, France, Italy, and Spain – we see a decline in Euro area working population by 2040 by 6.4 per cent. People also get older, so that doesn't necessarily mean the overall population is declining by as much. It simply means that working age population, as a sort of most direct, relevant measure for the economy, is declining.
Regiane Yamanari: Why does an aging population hamper economic growth?
Jens Eisenschmidt: So, think about the economy producing, in a very stylized sense, with two factors. One is capital and the other one is labor. And typically, these two factors are connected. So, you can't really produce just with one factor. Typically, you need at least some labor to produce something or at least some machinery to produce something with labor.
So we just; I mean, it's a very simple way of looking at the economy, but typically very powerful in explaining what's going on. So, if we take this approach and look at our economy through the lens of these two factors and we have one factor declining significantly, this will affect the amount the economy can produce.
So, we are talking here about so-called potential growth or potential output. And we think the declining working age population will lead to a decline in potential output. For the Euro area economies I was just mentioning, we think it could be around 4 per cent over the period 2000, from now to 2040. And that amounts to on an annual basis around 25 basis points lower growth potential.
Regiane Yamanari: Suppose policy makers want to boost Europe's working age population, which they do. What options do they have? Which European countries most benefit from these policies or options?
Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, the oldest policy measure, or if you want the most discussed one, typically has been birth rates.
Now, many of the policies being implemented here – and they have been implemented for decades already – have been found to be not really changing [the] situation in a profound way. So, birth rates have either stopped increasing again or actually continued dropping. So, policy makers’ attention probably for this reason has turned to other measures.
Other measures we think of here mostly in the current debate is increasing net migration, so you're basically getting your working age population replenished to some extent from the outside. Changing participation pattern in your own domestic labor market – typically, it's framed around the question, how much or how high is the share of one cohort versus the other.
For instance, males versus females. We have countries where there is a large gap between these two groups, just to name an example here. And you know, closing that gap could help you increasing or offset; some of the projected decline in working age population.
Another measure that's often discussed is increasing, retirement age. So essentially working age population is defined by those age between 15 and 64. And of course, if you work for longer, so you increase retirement age, that will also help, to stem against some of the projected decline in working age population.
Now, if you look around for the countries that we are discussing in the report, um, then there are different ways these policies affect these countries.
So, for instance, in Italy, closing the gap between male and female labor force participation would offset a large part of the projected fall in its working age population because that gap is so large. In France, in terms of our numbers, the most effective measure would be increasing the retirement age. And again, in Germany and Spain, it would probably be migration policies that are most effective.
Okay now let's consider the alternative, Regiane. Suppose nothing changes. There are fewer and fewer working age people in Europe. How would this affect companies earning growth?
Regiane Yamanari: So, if there are no policy action, and here assuming all else equal, I mean, no change in productivity, for example. Due to a lower GDP growth, we estimate the headwinds of European demographics could lower companies long term earnings growth by 90 basis points. So, from 5.1 to 4.2 per cent by the end of the decade. And this compares to an average growth of 6.4 per cent that we had in the past 10 years.
Jens Eisenschmidt: And how would this be reflected in the stock market?
Regiane Yamanari: Yeah, so potential lower earnings growth is negative for European equities, right? But it's worth highlighting two points here. First, is that European companies have been diversifying their activities and revenues across the globe in the recent decades. And the revenue exposure of European companies to develop Europe, including the UK has reached a 30-year low. So, we estimate that just 38 per cent of European companies’ revenues are generated in develop Europe, on a free flow market cap weighted basis.
And second, I think we see this impact being more idiosyncratic at sector at stock level. Just to give an example, so we have this factor analysis that we have done. We found that companies reducing headcount in Europe have been outperforming companies increasing. So in our view, this impact, it will be idiosyncratic, and it will depend by sector and the the stock.
Jens Eisenschmidt: What sectors and industries then do you expect to be most affected by an aging population and the declining labor force?
Regiane Yamanari: Yeah, so first of all, I think one thing to mention is that it's very clear that the theme of, aging population is gaining traction in European C-suite commentary. So we found using AlphaSense Large Language Model, when we analyze companies transcripts, a notable rise in mentions of aging population – and in particular, if we compare to the US, to the US companies, we know that labor intensive industries like kept goods, construction and materials, business services are among those at the top of the list.
And those mentions have been increasing in most cases when we compare to the average of the last five years.
Jens Eisenschmidt: So how are companies adjusting their business models to account for these challenging demographic trends?
Regiane Yamanari: So we see, for example, industrial automation, robotics, and software adoption accelerating in the face of declining working age population across Europe, which might surprise some people as some people is relatively under-penetrated by technology.
Regiane Yamanari: For example, if we look at industrial robot density in Germany, that is less than half of South Korea. And there are some sectors, for example, like hospitality that our analyst has flagged that the companies have been changing and adopting initiatives related to recruitment, technology adoption, portfolio rationalization – just a few examples here – and adjusting their business models as well to navigate a scenario of reduced labor availability and higher costs. And well, not to mention AI, which we have seen a rapid development and pace of adoption as well.
Jens Eisenschmidt: I'm glad you mentioned AI. It was on my mind. I was about to ask you. So, what do you think, uh, the role of AI could be in helping with the demographic challenge?
Regiane Yamanari: Our view is mainly on productivity gains. So, we them to start materializing, but they are likely to be small and grow consistently over time. An important portion of AI adopter companies cost base are related to R&D, marketing, distribution costs – and these areas we still are to see broad based application of AI, if this is really to be meaningful at the corporate level or even a national level.
So the way we see is that the productivity gains being reflected on margins, but still to be small at this level.
Jens Eisenschmidt: So, this one remains to be seen. We will surely be watching closely whether AI can deliver what it seems to be promising to generate productivity gains to offset the demographic challenge.
Regiane, thanks a lot for taking the time to talk.
Regiane Yamanari: Great speaking with you, Jens.
Jens Eisenschmidt: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.
-
Our Medical Technology expert analyzes the medical potential and market opportunity in technology that allows direct communication between the human brain and an external device.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kallum Titchmarsh, from Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Medical Technology Team. On today’s episode – a dive into a topic that sounds like it’s straight out of science fiction. Brain Computer Interfaces, or BCIs.
It’s Tuesday, October 22, at 10 AM in New York.
The latest version of Tony Stark – better known as his alter ego Iron Man – is a good example of a brain computer interface. When the billionaire businessman-inventor is critically wounded, he builds an armor suit that gives him superhuman abilities. Flying through air. Clearing out obstacles with repulsor blasts. Shooting enemies with guided missiles. All controlled by his brain.
This, of course, is the stuff of science fiction. Real world examples of brain computer interfaces – or BCIs – aren’t fantastical. But they are fascinating. Translating thoughts into actions like generating text on a screen or moving a robotic limb.
BCIs have been in development for more than a century, but recent advances have brought them much closer to becoming a reality. We expect to see BCIs in commercial medical use in about five years, at which point they can help treat a wide range of health disorders, from motor neuron disease – such as ALS – to depression.
The market opportunity for BCIs looks enormous – $400 billion of total addressable market – or TAM – in the US alone. This figure includes two types of BCIs: enabling BCIs, which facilitate behaviors like moving a cursor on a screen, and preventive BCIs, which can prevent adverse events like depressive states or epileptic seizures.
We divide the BCI healthcare opportunity into two segments: early TAM and intermediate TAM. The early TAM includes individuals with critical upper limb impairment and select variants of neurological conditions like epilepsy and depression. These patients will likely be the first to receive a BCI. The intermediate TAM includes patients with moderate upper limb impairment and severe lower limb impairment. As BCI technology develops, these patients will eventually become eligible for treatment.
There are at least 2.8 million patients in the US forming the early TAM and an additional 6.8 million within the intermediate TAM. Together, these groups represent the $400 billion of potential revenue I already mentioned based on a single implant procedure.
The opportunity may be significantly larger when factoring for potential replacement cycles and recurring revenues from software upgrades. But while the estimated TAM is indeed vast, we think penetration will remain limited through the first 20 years of launch. By 2035, we expect just under $1.5 billion of revenue to be generated from BCI implant procedures, hitting north of a $500 million annual run rate in 2036, and reaching the $1 billion annual run rate by 2041.
It’s exciting to think BCIs will begin their healthcare application in the coming years, but we anticipate a number of regulatory hurdles on the way to widespread adoption in healthcare and beyond. Will BCIs push into fields like neurogaming, warfare, and even biological optimization of humans?
The potential is certainly there, and with it the burden of the safe and responsible use of this cutting-edge technology.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
-
Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist explains his preference for cyclical stocks amid a rise in global money supply and current US election dynamics.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about our recent upgrade of quality cyclicals and how it will be affected by the US election and liquidity.
It's Monday, Oct 21st at 11:30am in New York.
So let’s get after it.
We continue to have conviction in our recent cyclical shift and Financials upgrade. Indeed, cyclicals traded well last week as most economic data came in stronger than expected. It’s worth noting we recommend investors stay up the quality curve within the cyclical space, however. While Financials have been the best performing sector in the S&P 500 since our upgrade, institutional investors remain under-exposed to Financials based on our data suggesting the sector can run further.
In addition to better economic data, there are other factors affecting pro-cyclical stocks. We are focused on two, in particular. The election and global liquidity.
We believe a Trump win with a split Congress would provide a pro-cyclical bias with small caps keeping pace with large caps. The markets seem to agree, with the recent cyclicals outperformance led by financials. Meanwhile, consumer stocks negatively exposed to tariff risks under a Trump win have underperformed. Interestingly, there is some overlap between this recent leadership and the post Biden debate period in early July as well as the months surrounding the 2016 election. Finally, we've also witnessed higher interest rates and a stronger US Dollar more recently, which is something to watch closely as a possible headwind for liquidity post election and into 2025.
While some argue a Trump win would be a headwind for growth and equity markets, due to tariff risks and slower immigration, we think there's an additional element from the 2016 experience that’s worth considering—rising animal spirits. More specifically, in 2016 Trump's pro-business approach led to the largest three-month positive impact on small business confidence in the past 40 years. It also translated into a spike in individual investor sentiment. It appears to me that markets may be trying to front-run a repeat of this outcome as Trump's win in 2016 came as a surprise to pundits and markets alike.
This also means a Harris win could lead to some reversion in terms of overall equity market performance and leadership. Most notably, bonds could potentially rally with defensive and quality growth stocks doing better like earlier this year. Secondarily, even with a Trump win, certain areas of the market may be vulnerable to a ‘sell the news’ phenomena if the upside is already priced amid bullish positioning.
On this front, we would also point out that the economic set-up today is very different than the 2016 period when the economy had much more slack and could absorb additional pro-cyclical policies like tax cuts or other forms of fiscal stimulus.
Turning to liquidity, we note that global money supply in US dollars has surged at an 18 per cent annualized rate since the end of June. I believe this has also had a positive effect on equity prices, not to mention credit spreads, precious metals, cryptocurrencies and real estate.
Bottom line, in the absence of a major swing in election probabilities or global liquidity between now and the election, equity markets are likely to trade with a bullish tilt both at the index level and from a style, sector, factor standpoint.
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.
-
Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses why uncertainty around the election’s outcome could be detrimental for credit investors.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the US Election, and how it might matter for Credit.
It's Friday, October 18th, at 4pm in London.
Morgan Stanley’s positive view on credit this year has been anchored on a simplistic thesis. Credit is an asset class that hates extremes, as it faces losses if a company fails, but doesn’t earn extra if that company’s profits double or even triple. Credit, to an unusual degree, is an asset class that loves moderation.
And here at Morgan Stanley, we’ve been forecasting … a lot of moderation. Moderate growth for the U.S. and Europe. Moderating inflation, that continues to fall into next year. And a moderation of central bank interest rates, rather than the type of sharp declines that you tend to see around recessions; as we think Fed funds will settle in a little bit below three-and-a-half per cent by the middle of next year. This moderate economy, coupled with moderate levels of corporate aggressiveness should be music to a credit investor’s ears, and support richer-than-average valuations, in our view.
So how does the upcoming U.S. election on November 5th fit into this otherwise benign picture?
Who runs a government matters, especially when it’s the government of the world’s largest and strongest economy. This election is also notable for the differences between the two candidates, who are presenting sharply contrasting visions of economic, domestic and foreign policy. Against this backdrop, we suggest credit investors try to keep a few things top of mind.
First, and most broadly, the idea that “credit likes moderation” remains our north star. Outcomes that could drive larger changes of economic policy, or larger uncertainty in policy in general, are probably going to be a larger risk for credit.
Second, of all the various policies under discussion, tariffs feel especially important as they can be largely implemented without congressional approval, and are thus far easier to see go into effect. Tariff proposals could create significant dispersion at the single-name level in credit, and pose significant risks for sectors like retail, which import a large share of their ultimate goods. For time-limited investors, tariffs are the policy area where we’d spend the most time – and where much of our Credit Research around the election has been focused.
Third, it’s notable that as we head into this election, expected volatility, in equities or credit, is elevated even as the stock market sits near all time highs, and credit spreads are historically low. So this begs the question. Do these options markets know something that the rest of the market does not? We’re skeptical. Historically, when you’ve seen high volatility alongside all-time-highs in the market – and it’s not all that common – it’s tended to be a positive short-term indicator, rather than a negative one. And one way we could perhaps explain this is that it suggests that investors are still a little bit nervous, and not as positive as they otherwise could be.
The U.S. election is close in time, uncertain in outcome, and has stakes for future policy. That high implied volatility we see at the moment, in our view, could reflect known unknowns, rather than some hidden factor. Tariff policy, being largely independent of congress and thus easier to implement, is probably the most relevant for single-name credit exposures. And most broadly, credit likes moderation, and should do best in outcomes that are more likely to achieve that.
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 expert panel explains whether the US election will impact energy policy, including how the Inflation Reduction Act’s possible fate and increased tariffs could transform the sector.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.
David Arcaro: I'm Dave Arcaro, Morgan Stanley's US Power and Utilities Analyst.
Andrew Percoco: And I'm Andrew Percoco, the North American Clean Tech Analyst here at Morgan Stanley.
Michael Zezas: And today we're discussing another key election related topic that generates a lot of political and market debate: Energy policy.
It's Thursday, October 17th at 10am in New York.
The outcome of the 2024 election will likely determine the direction of U.S. climate policy for years to come. David, what are the key focus areas for investors as they evaluate the various election outcomes on the utilities and clean energy industries?
David Arcaro: Yeah, Mike, investors are highly focused on the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, especially as it pertains to the election and the clean energy space. This was a law that was passed in 2022, and it really has supportive policies across the entire clean energy spectrum. It's got tax credits and incentives for solar, wind, offshore wind, green, hydrogen, nuclear, you name it. Battery storage. And some of those tax credits go all the way to 2032 and beyond in some cases.
So, it's a very supportive policy when it comes to the clean energy industry and the growth outlook. So, the big question is what's going to happen to the Inflation Reduction Act – depending on which administration is in place following the election.
Our core view is that the IRA stays in place; that the core wind, solar storage and nuclear tax credits all remain, regardless of the outcome of the election. And then separately, investors are focused on tariff policy as it pertains to clean energy. It is a global industry. A lot of the equipment and materials are imported around the world. And so, any changes to the tariff approach could have an impact on the space as well.
Michael Zezas: Got it. And so how does the outlook for renewables change under different election outcomes?
David Arcaro: Yeah, really, the outlook for renewables growth is not very different in our view, regardless of the outcome of the election.
We think it's a strong growth outlook either way. And part of that is because we've got policies that we expect to stay in place that will be supportive regardless of the outcome, as I mentioned with the Inflation Reduction Act. And then we've also got demand. It's a very strong demand backdrop for the renewable space – and that's because in the electric industry, we're seeing an inflection in electricity usage across the US.
It's been stagnant for years and years, but now with data center growth, with industrial production accelerating, and manufacturing and onshoring, we're seeing a big change in the growth outlook for electricity usage. And that means we need more power plants. We need more to be built, and renewables are going to be the predominant new resource for producing electricity in the US.
Some of these companies like data centers, they want renewables to power their operations. And most utilities, electric companies that are building power plants, they're going to be using renewables more than anything else. There are impediments to building fossil plants, it's challenging to permit and there's supply chain delays and issues.
So, we think there's a very strong growth outlook for renewables based on that demand and the policy support going forward, regardless of the outcome.
Michael Zezas: And Andrew, how about corporate tax policy, including renewable energy tax credits?
Andrew Percoco: I mean, as Dave mentioned, we think IRA repeal risk is very low, and I think the only scenario where IRA repeal is a relevant conversation is in a Republican sweep scenario. But even under this scenario, we would expect any repeal measures to be targeted in nature and not a wholesale repeal of the bill. So, the question then becomes, you know, what is safe and what's at risk of getting cut.
So, to start off with what's safe; maybe three items that I'll highlight. One would be domestic manufacturing tax credits. There's been a lot of bipartisan support for the onshoring of manufacturing. So, the clean energy manufacturing tax credits within the IRA look like they are on solid footing, regardless of the election outcome.
Now, why do domestic manufacturing tax credits have bipartisan support? One, there's a general view that we need to reduce our reliance on China for our energy infrastructure and, two, the job creation angle. The IRA has created over 150, 000 new jobs, and a lot of those jobs are in states where there is a large representation of Republican voters. So, the local pushback would be pretty severe if IRA was repealed in full.
Number two, area of IRA that we think is safe would be nuclear tax credits. There's a general understanding across both sides of the aisle that nuclear is an important and reliable form of clean energy, and that we need to support the existing fleet of assets.
And then third again, as Dave mentioned, solar storage and wind investment tax credits. These have been around for a while, well before the IRA was in place and they've had bipartisan support. They've been extended multiple times, even under past Republican administrations. So, we would not expect any changes to those core tax credits in a Republican sweep.
On the flip side, you know what's potentially at risk in a Republican sweep? Number one would be consumer facing tax credits like the EV tax credits. This is something that the Republicans have definitely taken aim at on the campaign trail.
Number two would be offshore wind. Former President Trump has definitely had [a] very candid view of offshore wind, and the issues that it poses on local communities. So, this could be another area where, they look for some targeted repeal. And then the third would just be delayed implementation of any unfinalized rules, by the time they take office.
Michael Zezas: Makes sense. And finally, what other key election implications should investors focus on at this point when it comes to clean energy?
Andrew Percoco: Yeah, I think the biggest would be around tariffs. It's frankly the hardest to predict but could have some pretty meaningful near-term implications for clean energy.
Just to zoom out for a second, the clean energy supply chain is global with a heavy concentration in China and Southeast Asia. So, if there is higher tariffs put in place against these regions, it could create some disruption in supply chains and impact the pace at which we deploy renewables in the US. But frankly, at the same time, it should just accelerate a trend that we're already seeing in the US, which is the onshoring of manufacturing, thanks in part due to the IRA.
So ultimately could create some near-term disruption but doesn't change the secular growth for the renewable space since developers in the US have already started to make the shift towards domestic supply.
Michael Zezas: Yeah, that makes sense, Andrew. And obviously tariffs have been top of mind for investors as we've talked about here. Well, David, Andrew, thanks for taking the time to talk.
And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
-
Mortgage rates aren’t directly influenced by Federal Reserve policy. However, the Fed’s recent cut likely will have a domino effect on the US housing market, say our Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.
James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And on this episode of the podcast, we're going to discuss the impacts of a 50-basis point cut from the Fed on the US housing and mortgage markets.
It's Wednesday, October 16th at 1 pm in New York.
Now, Jay, the Fed cut 50 basis points at its last meeting. What are your views on the mortgage market in the aftermath of that cut?
Jay Bacow: We think that is constructive for mortgages and we recommended a long mortgage basis versus rates. The healthy economy and a Fed that doesn't want to fall behind the curve should be good for risk assets in general. We think there's a likelihood of vol possibly falling and that is constructive for agency mortgages in particular.
Now it's a positive narrative. But, the valuations matter, and we have to admit that the valuations are not that compelling with spreads on agency mortgages trading near the tights since the regional bank crisis. However, if you look further back, mortgages start to look attractive, particularly relative to other high quality fixed-income assets.
For instance, agency mortgages are basically trading at the average spread they've traded at since the GFC. Corporate credit, on the other hand, is trading within a few basis points of the tights since the GFC. If risk assets are going to do well, and we're certainly seeing that in corporate credit and in the stock market, we think mortgages are particularly priced attractively relative to most of them.
James Egan: Alright, so relative value for mortgages makes sense, but can you talk a little bit about the technicals here?
Jay Bacow: The technicals are where we feel more confident. One of the reasons why mortgage spreads have been wide for the past two years – it's an environment where the Fed and the domestic banks, the two largest holders of mortgages, have been reducing their holdings.
Now, we still expect the Fed to reduce their holdings of mortgages, but we think the bank demand is going to turn positive. That's due to not just clarity around the Basel III Endgame that should be coming soon, but more directly related to this conversation – as the Fed cuts rates that directly impacts the amount of yield that banks earn of the cash sitting at the Fed.
Now, that is projected to continue to go down as the Fed cuts rates. What's not projected to continually go down very much is the yield on the securities that they can be buying in mortgages. So, the incentive for them to move out of cash and into securities, and those securities likely to be mortgages, is picking up as the Fed cuts rates. And it's not just the banks that are going to be more active. It's also overseas investors. As the Fed cuts rates and the Bank of Japan hikes, the FX (foreign exchange) hedging costs, which is basically a function of the interest rate differential between the two banks is likely to decrease, which means that overseas investors will be more active.
A steeper curve is going to be positive for REIT demand. And then over time, as the Fed cuts rates and money market yields go down, those retail investors are likely to be incentivized to move out of money market funds into core funds with higher yields, which will be supportive of money manager demand – although that's likely a 2025 story.
James Egan: All right, Jay, thank you for that. But one of the questions that you and I have received a lot since the Fed's cut is: Okay, the Fed cut 50 basis points. Why haven't mortgage rates come down by 50 basis points on the follow?
Jay Bacow: Well, so, mortgage rates, obviously in the US, the vast majority of them are 30-year fixed rate mortgages. And so, if you have one, the Fed actions don't impact that. If you have an adjustable-rate mortgage, it will reset – but typically those resets happen every six months. Although you're probably getting asked about the prevailing mortgage rate; and the prevailing mortgage rate – because it's the 30-year fixed rate, it's not a function of Fed funds – but it's more of a function of the yields further out the curve. Although maybe Jim, you can do a better job explaining this.
James Egan: So, when it comes to interest rates and mortgages, Jay, as you mentioned, we're going to be more focused on the five- and 10-year part of the curve than we are on Fed funds.
To provide a little bit of an example there, from the fourth quarter of 2023 until the Wednesday morning that the Fed cut, 30-year mortgage rates had decreased by 180 basis points. The Fed had yet to cut a single basis point. But, just taking a step back from that cut specifically, mortgage rates have come down significantly from the fourth quarter of 2023.
Jay Bacow: Right, and those mortgage rates coming down significantly has improved affordability. But what's maybe a little surprising is that hasn't really led to a pickup in sales volumes. How should we think about that moving forward?
James Egan: So as mortgage rates have come down, we have seen an increase in mortgage applications, but that's been driven almost entirely by refinance applications.
Purchase applications, and that's going to be what's behind home sales, those have been more or less treading water for the past 12 months. This relationship makes sense, in our view. As mortgage rates have come down, housing remains unaffordable. It's just more affordable than it was in the second half of 2023.
But, if you were one of the people who bought a home over the past 24 months, and, to put that into context, that was the lowest number of home sales over a 24-month period since the second quarter of 2013. But if you were one of those people, there's a good chance that you're in the money to refinance right now.
Jay Bacow: And that's something that we're seeing in the data. We've talked about the truly refinance indicators on this podcast in the past, and it measures the share of mortgages that have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance after accounting for closing costs.
Right now, only about one in six of the outstanding borrowers have incentive to refinance. Now, that's up from pretty close to zero at the end of 2023, but if you just look at borrowers that have taken out their mortgage in the past two years, almost two-thirds of them have incentive to refinance.
Now, Jim, does that mean that purchase volumes are doomed to languish around these levels?
James Egan: No, but the reaction might not be as strong as some people are hoping for. While affordability has improved, it remains challenged. And the lock in effect has become a very popular phrase in the US housing and mortgage markets. And that's still in play. 75 per cent of the conventional mortgage universe still has a mortgage rate below 5 per cent.
Even with the prevailing rate at 6 per cent today, the effective mortgage rate on the outstanding universe is 200 basis points out of the money. That's better than 350 [basis points] out of the money like we saw last year. But that would still be the worst that it's been in 40 years.
Jay Bacow: And presumably, that is why we have this continually tight inventory.
James Egan: Exactly. Now, as rates come down, we are starting to see listings increase, but it's barely made a dent in the historically low nature of the existing housing supply. The existing home sales typically grow in the 12 to 24 months following affordability improvement, but not necessarily in that initial period while affordability is improving.
So relative to history, we're actually not underperforming that much from a sales perspective. And we should be beginning that 12 to 24 months sweet spot in the fourth quarter of [20]24. We just started that two to three weeks ago. While we expect existing home sales to increase, we think the growth is going to be modest relative to history and we're calling for 5 per cent growth in the coming 12 months.
On the home price side, a lot of this is in line with our current view. So, we think you're going to continue to see the pace of growth slow. It's already started to slow. We think we get from about 5 per cent today to 2 percent by the end.
Jay Bacow: All right, so the Fed cutting rates is not likely to cause mortgage rates to drop materially. We expect a modest pickup in housing activity. We expect home price growth to slow, but still end the year positive; and it should be supportive for mortgage spreads versus treasuries.
Jim, always a pleasure talking to you.
James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay.
Jay Bacow: Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
- Daha fazla göster
