Advertise on podcast: Thoughts on the Market

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang and senior leaders from Investment Management Andrew Slimmon and Jitania Kandhari unpack new investment trends from supportive monetary and fiscal policy and shifting market leadership.   Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Today we're revisiting the 2026 global equity outlook with two senior leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management.  Andrew Slimmon: I am Andrew Slimmon, Head of Applied Equity Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.  Jitania Kandhari: And I'm Jitania Kandhari, Deputy CIO of the Solutions and Multi-Asset Group, Portfolio Manager for Passport Strategies and Head of Macro and Thematic Research for Emerging Market Equities within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. It's Tuesday, February 3rd at 10 am in New York.  So as investors are entering in 2026, after several years of very strong equity returns with policy support reaccelerating. As regular listeners have probably heard, Mike Wilson, who of course is CIO and Chief Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley – his view is that we ended a three-year rolling earnings recession in last April and entered a rolling recovery and a new bull market.  Now, Andrew, in the spirit of debate, I know you have a different take on valuations and where we are at in the cycle. I’d love to hear how you're framing this for investment management clients.  Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I mean, I guess I focus a little bit more on the behavioral cycle. And I think that from a behavioral cycle we're following a very consistent pattern, which is we had a bad bear market in 2022 that bottomed down 25 percent. And that provided a wonderful opportunity to invest. But early in a behavioral cycle, investors are very pessimistic. And that was really the story of [20]23 and really 2024, which were; investors, you know, were negative on equities. The ratios were all very negative and investors sold out of equities. And that's consistent with a early cycle.  And then as you move into the third-fourth year, investors tend to get more optimistic about returns. Doesn't necessarily mean the market goes down. But what it does mean is the market tends to get more volatile and returns start to compress, and ultimately, bull markets die on euphoria. And so, I think it's late cycle, but it's not end of cycle. And that's my theme; is late cycle but not end of cycle. Serena Tang: And I think on that point, one very unusual feature of this environment is that you have both monetary and fiscal policy being supportive at the same time, which, of course, rarely happens outside of recession. So how do you see those dual policy forces shaping market behavior and which parts of the market tend to benefit?  Andrew Slimmon: Well, that's exactly right. Look, the last time I checked, page one of the investment handbook says, ‘Don't fight the Fed.’ And so, you have monetary policy easing. And what we; remember what happened in 2021? The Fed raised rates and monetary policy was tightening. Equities do well when the Fed is easing, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's not end of cycle. And then you layer in fiscal policy with tax relief coming, it is a reason to be relatively optimistic on equities in 2026. But it doesn't mean there can't be bumps along the way – and I think a higher level of optimism as we're seeing today is a result of that.  But I think you stick with those more procyclical areas: Finance, Industrials, Technology, and then you move down the cap curve a little bit. I think those are the winning trades. They really started to come to the fore in the second half of last year, and I think that will continue into 2026.  Serena Tang: Right. And we've definitely seen some bumps recently, but I think on your point around yields. So, Jitania, I think that policy backdrop really ties directly to your idea of the age of capped real rates. In very simple terms, can you explain what that means and what's behind that view?  Jitania Kandhari: Sure. When I say age of real rates being capped, I mean like the structural template within which I'm operating, and real rates here are defined by the 10-year on the Treasury yield adjusted for CPI. Firstly, I'd say there was too much linear thinking in markets post Liberation Day. That tariffs equals inflation equals higher rates. Now, tariff impacts, as we have seen, can be offset in several ways, and economic relationships are rarely linear. So, inflation may not go up to the extent market is expecting. So that supports the case for capped rates. And the real constraint is the debt arithmetic, right? So, if you look at the history of public debt in the U.S., whenever there was a surge in public debt during the Civil War, two World Wars, Global Financial Crisis, even during COVID. In all these periods, when debt spiked, real rates have remained negative. So, there can be short term swings in rates, but I believe that markets not necessarily central banks will even enforce that cap.  Serena Tang: You've described this moment, as the great broadening of 2026. What's driving this and what do you think is happening now after years of very narrow concentration?  Jitania Kandhari: Yes. I think like if last decade was about concentration, now it's going to be about breadth. And if you look at where the concentration was, it was in the [Mag] 7, in the AI trade. We are beginning to see some cracks in the consensus where adoption is happening, but monetization is lagging.  But clearly the next phase of value creation could happen from just the model building to the application layer, as you guys have also talked about – from enablers to adopters. The other thing we are seeing is two AI ecosystems evolve globally. The high cost cutting edge U.S. innovation engine and the lower cost efficiency driven Chinese model, each of them have their own supply chain beneficiaries. And as AI is moving into physical world, you're going to see more opportunities. And then secondly, I think there are limitations on this tariff policies globally; and tariff fears to me remain more of an illusion than a reality because U.S. needs to import a lot of intermediate goods And then lastly, I see domestic cycles inflecting upwards in many other pockets of the world. And you add all this up; the message is clear that leadership is broadening and portfolio should broaden too.  Serena Tang: And I want to sort of stay on this topic of broadening. So, Andrew, I think, you've also highlighted, you know, this market broadening, especially beyond the large cap leaders, even as AI investment continues, I think, as you touched on earlier.  So why does that matter for equity leadership in 2026? And can you talk about the impact of this broadening on valuations in general?  Andrew Slimmon: Sure. So I think, you know, I've been around a long time and I remember when the internet first rolled out, the Mosaic browser was introduced in 1993. And the first thing the stock market tried to do is appoint winners – of who was going to win the internet, you know, search race. And it was Ask Jeeves and it was Yahoo and it was Netscape. Well, none of those were the winners. We just don't know who's ultimately going to be the tech winner. I think it's much safer to know that just like the internet, AI is a technology productivity enhancing tool, and companies are going to embrace AI just like they embraced the internet. And the reason the stock market doubled between 1997 and the dotcom  peak was that productivity margins went up for a lot of companies in a lot of industries as they embraced the internet.  So, to me, a broadening out and looking at lower valuations, it is in many ways safer than saying this is the technology winner, and this is technology loser. I think it's all many different industries are going to embrace and benefit from what's going on with AI.  Serena Tang: You don't want to know where I was in 1993. And I don't recognize most of those names.  Andrew Slimmon: Sorry. I was 14!  Serena Tang: [Laughs] Ok. Investors often hear two competing messages now. Ignore the macro and buy great companies or let the big picture drive everything. How do you balance top-down signals with bottom-up fundamentals in your investment process?  Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I think you have to employ both, and I hear that all the time; especially I hear, you know, my competitors, ‘Oh, I just focus on my stock picks, my bottom up.’ But, you know, look statistically, two-thirds of a manager's relative performance comes from macro. You know, how did growth do? How did value do?  All those types of things that have nothing to do with what stock picks... And likewise, much of a return of an individual stock has to do with things beyond just what's happening fundamentally.  But some of it comes from what's happening at the company level. So, I think to be a great investor, you have to be aware of the macro. The Fed cutting rates this year is a very powerful tool, and if you don't understand the amplifications of that as per what types of stocks work, because you're so focused on the micro, I think that's a mistake.  Likewise, you have to know what's going on in your company [be]cause one third of term does come from actual stock selection. So, I'm a big believer in marrying a top down and a bottom up and try to capture the two thirds and the one third. Serena Tang: Since that 2022 bear market low that you talked about earlier. I mean, your framework really favored growth and value over defensives. But I think more recently you've increased your non-U.S. exposure. What changed in your top-down signals and bottom-up data to make global opportunities more compelling now? Is it the narrative of the end of U.S. exceptionalism or something else?  Andrew Slimmon:

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses how the nomination of Kevin Warsh to lead the Fed could move markets. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast: The implications of Kevin Warsh’s nomination as the next Fed Chair.  It's Monday, February 2nd at 10 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. Last Friday, President Trump officially nominated Kevin Warsh to be the next Chair of the Fed. The prevailing narrative around Warsh is fairly straightforward: he’s seen as more hawkish on the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, potentially more flexible on interest rates, and less comfortable with open-ended liquidity support than the current leadership. That characterization is fair, but it doesn’t answer the more important question—why pick Warsh now, and what problem is this nomination trying to solve? In my view, the answer starts with markets, not politics. Over the past several months, we’ve witnessed parabolic moves in precious metals alongside persistent weakness in the U.S. dollar. While this administration has been very clear that a weaker dollar is not inherently a bad thing—especially as part of a broader economic rebalancing strategy—there’s an important distinction between a controlled decline and a disorderly one. To understand why this matters so much, you need to zoom out. The administration is attempting to rebalance the U.S. economy across three dimensions simultaneously, all with the same ultimate goal—growing out of an enormous debt burden that’s been building for more than two decades. At this point, simply cutting spending isn’t realistic, economically or politically. Nominal growth is the only viable path forward. The current strategy is more supply side driven. It focuses on rebalancing trade through tariffs and a weaker dollar, shifting the economy away from over-consumption and toward investment, and addressing inequality through immigration enforcement and deregulation. The goal is to let companies—not the government—make capital allocation decisions, while boosting income through wages rather than entitlements. If it works, the result should be higher nominal growth with a healthier mix of real growth driven by productivity. Markets, to some extent, have already started to price this in. Since last spring, cyclical stocks have outperformed, market breadth has improved, and leadership has begun to rotate away from the mega-cap names that dominated the last cycle. Small and mid-cap stocks are working again too. That’s exactly what you’d expect in the middle stages of a ‘hotter but shorter’ expansion, my core view. At the same time, the surge in gold tells us something else is going on. Precious metals don’t move like that unless investors are questioning the endgame. That’s where Kevin Warsh comes in. His nomination appears designed to restore credibility around the balance sheet and slow the momentum of that skepticism. Based on Friday’s price action, it worked. Gold and silver sold off sharply, the dollar strengthened modestly, and equities and rates stayed relatively stable. That combination buys time—and time is exactly what this strategy needs to work. One of the best ways to track whether markets are buying into this story is by watching the ratio of the S&P 500 to gold. It’s a simple but powerful proxy for confidence in productive growth. The recent collapse was driven mostly by gold rising—and Friday’s sharp reversal was mainly gold prices falling, one of the largest on record. That doesn’t mean skepticism has been eliminated. Instead, it tells me the administration is paying attention and understands they need to restore confidence. If the ratio continues to recover, it will likely come first through lower gold prices and tighter liquidity expectations, and later through stronger earnings growth driven by productivity gains. That could mean near term risk for other risk assets, including equities.  Bottom line, the current ‘run it hot’ approach has a better chance of delivering sustainable growth than prior policy mixes—but it won’t be smooth, and confidence will ebb and flow along the way. Watching how markets respond, especially through signals like gold, the dollar, and capital spending trends, will tell us whether this strategy ultimately succeeds. My view is that it’s the best approach which keeps me bullish on 2026 even if the near term is more rocky. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets discusses key market metrics indicating that valuations should stay higher for longer, despite some investors’ concerns. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about key signposts for stability – in a world that from day to day feels anything but. It's Friday, January 30th at 2pm in London. A core theme for us at Morgan Stanley Research is that easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy in 2026 will support more risk taking, corporate activity and animal spirits. Yes, valuations are high. But with so many forces blowing in the same stimulative direction across so many geographies, those valuations may stay higher for longer. We think that the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of Japan, all lower interest rates more, or raise them less than markets expect. We think that fiscal policy will remain stimulative as governments in the United States, Germany, China, and Japan all spend more. And as I discussed on this program recently, regulation – a sleepy but essential part of this equation – is also aligning to support more risk taking. Of course, one concern with having so much stimulative sail out, so to speak, is that you lose control of the boat. As geopolitical headwinds swirl and the price of gold has risen a 100 percent in the last year, many investors are asking whether we're seeing too much of a shift in both government and fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy. Specifically, when I speak to investors, I think I can paraphrase these concerns as follows: Are we seeing expectations for future inflation rise sharply? Will we see more volatility in government debt? Has the valuation of the U.S. dollar deviated dramatically from fair value? And are credit markets showing early signs of stress? Notably, so far, the answer to all of these questions based on market pricing is no. The market's expectation for CPI inflation over the next decade is about 2.4 percent. Similar actually to what we saw in 2024, 2023. Expected volatility for U.S. interest rates over the next year is, well, lower than where it was on January 1st. The U.S. dollar, despite a lot of recent headlines, is trading roughly in line with its fair value, based on purchasing power based on data from Bloomberg. And the credit markets long seen as important leading indicators of risk, well, across a lot of different regions, they've been very well behaved, with spreads still historically tight. Uncertainty in U.S. foreign policy, big moves in Japanese interest rates and even larger moves in gold have all contributed to investor concerns around the potential instability of the macro backdrop. It's understandable, but for now we think that a number of key market-based measures of the stability are still holding. While that's the case, we think that a positive fundamental story, specifically our positive view on earnings growth can continue to support markets. Major shifts in these signposts, however, could change that. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Original Release Date: January 16, 2026 Our Head of Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the main themes for European stocks this year.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product here in Europe. Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist. Paul Walsh: Today, we are here to talk about the big debates for European equities moving into 2026. It's Friday, January the 16th at 8am in London. Marina, it's great to have you on Thoughts on the Market. I think we've got a fascinating year ahead of us, and there are plenty of big debates to be exploring here in Europe. But let's kick it off with the, sort of, obvious comparison to the U.S. How are you thinking about European equities versus the U.S. right now? When we cast our eyes back to last year, we had this surprising outperformance. Could that repeat? Marina Zavolock: Yeah, the biggest debate of all Paul, that's what you start with. So, actually it's not just last year. If you look since U.S. elections, I think it would surprise most people to know that if you compare in constant currency terms; so if you look in dollar terms or if you look in Euro terms, European equities have outperformed U.S. equities since US elections. I don't think that's something that a lot of people really think about as a fact. And something very interesting has happened at the start of this year. And let me set the scene before I tell you what that is. In the last 10 years, European equities have been in this constantly widening discount range versus the U.S. on valuation. So next one's P/E there's been, you know, we have tactical rallies from time to time; but in the last 10 years, they've always been tactical. But we're in this downward structural range where their discount just keeps going wider and wider and wider. And what's happened on December 31st is that for the first time in 10 years, European equities have broken the top of that discount range now consistently since December 31st. I've lost count of how many trading days that is. So about two weeks, we've broken the top of that discount range. And when you look at long-term history, that's happened a number of times before. And every time that happens, you start to go into an upward range. So, the discount is narrowing and narrowing; not in a straight line, in a range. But the discount narrows over time. The last couple of times that's happened, in the last 20 years, over time you narrow all the way to single digit discount rather than what we have right now in like-for-like terms of 23 percent. Paul Walsh: Yeah, so there's a significant discount. Now, obviously it's great that we are seeing increased inflows into European equities. So far this year, the performance at an index level has been pretty robust. We've just talked about the relative positioning of Europe versus the U.S.; and the perhaps not widely understood local currency outperformance of Europe versus the U.S. last year. But do you think this is a phenomenon that's sustainable? Or are we looking at, sort of, purely a Q1 phenomenon? Marina Zavolock: Yeah, it's a really good question and you make a good point on flows, which I forgot to mention. Which is that, last year in [Q1] we saw this really big diversification flow theme where investors were looking to reduce exposure in the U.S., add exposure to Europe – for a number of reasons that I won't go into. And we're seeing deja vu with that now, mostly on the – not really reducing that much in U.S., but more so, diversifying into Europe. And the feedback I get when speaking to investors is that the U.S. is so big, so concentrated and there's this trend of broadening in the U.S. that's happening; and that broadening is impacting Europe as well. Because if you're thinking about, ‘Okay, what do I invest in outside of seven stocks in the U.S.?’ You're also thinking about, ‘Okay, but Europe has discounts and maybe I should look at those European companies as well.’ That's exactly what's happening. So, diversification flows are sharply going up, in the last month or two in European equities coming into this year. And it's a very good question of whether this is just a [Q1] phenomenon. [Be]cause that's exactly what it was last year. I still struggle to see European equities outperforming the U.S. over the course of the full year because we're going to come into earnings now. We have much lower earnings growth at a headline level than the U.S. I have 4 percent earnings growth forecast. That's driven by some specific sectors. It's, you know, you have pockets of very high growth. But still at a headline level, we have 4 percent earnings growth on our base case. Consensus is too high in our view. And our U.S. equity strategists, they have 17 percent earnings growth, so we can't compete. Paul Walsh That's a very stark difference. Marina Zavolock: Yeah, we cannot compete with that. But what I will say is that historically when you've had these breakouts, you don't get out performance really. But what you get is a much narrower gap in performance. And I also think if you pick the right pockets within Europe, then you could; you can get out performance. Paul Walsh: So, something you and I talked about a lot in 2025, is the bull case for Europe. There are a number of themes and secular dynamics that could play out, frankly, to the benefits of Europe, and there are a number of them. I wondered if you could highlight the ones that you think are most important in terms of the bull case for Europe. Marina Zavolock: I think the most important one is AI adoption. We and our team, we have been able to quantify this. So, when we take our global AI mapping and we look at leading AI adopters in Europe, which is about a quarter of the index, they are showing very strong earnings and returns outperformance. Not just versus the European index, but versus their respective sectors. And versus their respective sectors, that gap of earnings outperformance is growing and becoming more meaningful every time that we update our own chart. To the point that I think at this rate, by the second half of this year, it's going to grow to a point that it’s more difficult for investors to ignore. That group of stocks, first of all, they trade again at a big discount to U.S. equivalent – 27 percent discount. Also, if you see adoption broadening overall, and we start to go into the phase of the AI cycle where adopters are, you know, are being sought after and are seen as in the front line of beneficiaries of AI. It's important to remember Europe; the European index because we don't have a lot of enablers in our index. It is very skewed to AI adopters. And then we also have a lot of low hanging fruit given productivity demographic challenges that AI can help to address. So that's the biggest one. Paul Walsh: Understood. Marina Zavolock: And the one I've spent most time on. But let me quickly mention a few others. M&A, we're seeing it rising in Europe, almost as sharply as we're seeing in the U.S. Again, I think there's low hanging fruit there. We're seeing easing competition commission rules, which has been an ongoing thing, but you know, that comes after decade of not seeing that. We're seeing corporate re-leveraging off of lows. Both of these things are still very far from cycle peaks. And we're seeing structural drivers, which for example, savings and investment union, which is multifaceted. I won't get into it. But that could really present a bull case. Paul Walsh: Yeah. And that could include pensions reform across Europe, particularly in Germany, deeper capital… Marina Zavolock: We're starting to see it. Paul Walsh: And in Europe as well, yeah. And so just going back to the base case, what are you advocating to clients in terms of what do we buy here in Europe, given the backdrop that you've framed? Marina Zavolock: Within Europe, I get asked a lot whether investors should be investing in cyclicals or value. Last year value really worked, or quality – maybe they will return. I think it's not really about any of those things. I think, similar to prior years, what we're going to see is stock level dispersion continuing to rise. That's what we keep seeing every month, every quarter, every year – for the last couple of years, we're seeing dispersion rising. Again, we're still far from where we normally get to, when we get to cycle peaks. So, Europe is really about stock picking. And the best way that we have at Morgan Stanley to capture this alpha under the surface of the European index. And the growth that we have under the surface of the index, is our analyst top picks – which are showing fairly consistent outperformance, not just versus the European index, but also versus the S&P. And since inception of top picks in 2021, European top picks have outperformed the S&P free float market cap weighted by over 90 percentage points. And they've outperformed, the S&P – this is pre-trade – by 17 percentage points in the last year. And whatever period we slice, we're seeing out performance. As far as sectors, key sectors, Banks is at the very top of our model. It's the first sector that non-dedicated investors ask me about. I think the investment case there is very compelling. Defense, we really like structurally with the rearmament theme in Europe, but it's also helpful that we're in this seasonal phase where defense tends to really outperform between; and have outsized returns between January and April. And then we like the powering AI thematic, and we are getting a lot of incoming on the powering AI thematic in Europe. We upgraded utilities recently. Paul, maybe if I ask you a question, one sector that I've missed out on, in our data-driven sector model, is the semis. But you've worked a lot w

Our Deputy Head of Global Research Michael Zezas explains why the risk of a new U.S. government shutdown is worth investor attention, but not overreaction. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Deputy Head of Global Research for Morgan Stanley.  Today, we’ll discuss the possibility of a U.S. government shutdown later this week, and what investors should – and should not – be worried about.  It’s Wednesday, January 28th at 10:30 am in New York.  In recent weeks investors have had to consider all manner of policy catalysts for the markets – including the impact to oil supply and emerging markets from military action in Venezuela, potential military action in Iran, and risks of fracturing of the U.S.-Europe relationship over Greenland. By comparison, a potential U.S. government shutdown may seem rather quaint.  But, a good investor aggressively manages all risks, so let's break this down.  Amidst funding negotiations in the Senate, Democrats are pressing for tighter rules and more oversight on how immigration enforcement is carried out given recent events. Republicans have signaled some openness to negotiations, but the calendar is really a constraint. With the House out of session until early next week any Senate changes this week could lead to a lapse in funding. So, a brief shutdown this weekend, followed by a short continuing resolution once the House returns, is a very plausible path – not because either side wants a shutdown, but because they haven’t fully coalesced around the strategy and time is short.  Of course, once a shutdown happens, there’s a risk it could drag on. But in general our base case is that the economic impact would be manageable. Historically, shutdowns create meaningful hardship for affected workers and contractors. But the aggregate macro effects tend to be modest and reversible. Most spending is eventually made up, and disruptions to growth typically unwind quickly once funding is restored. A useful rule of thumb is that a full shutdown trims roughly one‑tenth of a percentage point from the annualized quarterly GDP for each week it lasts. With several appropriations bills already passed, what we’d face now is a partial shutdown, meaning that figure would be even smaller.  For markets, that means the reaction should also be modest. Shutdowns tend not to reprice the fundamental path of earnings, inflation, or the Fed – which are still the dominant drivers of asset performance. So, the market’s inclination will likely be to look past the noise and focus on more substantive catalysts ahead.  Finally, it’s worth unpacking the politics here, because they’re relevant. But not in the way investors might think. The shutdown risk is emerging from actions that have contributed to sagging approval ratings for the President and Republicans – leading many investors to ask us what this means for midterm elections and resulting public policy choices. And taken together, one could read these dynamics as an early sign that the Republicans may face a difficult midterm environment. We think it's too early to draw any confident conclusions about this, but even if we could, we’re not sure it matters.  First, many of the most market‑relevant policies—on trade, regulation, industrial strategy, re‑shoring, and increasingly AI—are being executed through executive authority, not congressional action. That means their trajectory is unlikely to be altered by near‑term political turbulence. Second, the President would almost certainly veto any effort to roll back last year’s tax bill, which created a suite of incentives aimed at corporate capex. A key driver of the 2026 outlook.  Putting it all together, the bottom line is this: A short, calendar‑driven shutdown is a risk worth monitoring, but not one to overreact to.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review. And tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Our Head of Asian Gaming & Lodging and Hong Kong/India Real Estate Research Praveen Choudhary discusses the first synchronized growth cycle for Hong Kong’s major real estate segments in almost a decade. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Praveen Choudhary, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Asian Gaming & Lodging and Hong Kong/India Real Estate Research.  Today – a look at a market that global investors often watch but may not fully appreciate: Hong Kong real estate.  It’s Tuesday, January 27th, at 2pm in Hong Kong. Why should investors in New York, London, or Singapore care about trends in Hong Kong property? That’s easy to answer. Because Hong Kong remains one of the world’s most globally sensitive real estate markets. When [the] cycle turns here, it often reflects – and sometimes predicts – broader shift in liquidity, capital flows, and macro sentiment across Asia.  And right now, for the first time since 2018, all three major Hong Kong property segments – residential prices, office rents in the Central district of Hong Kong, and retail sales – are set to grow together. That synchronized upturn hasn’t happened in almost a decade.  What’s driving this shift?  Residential real estate is the engine of this turnaround. Prices have finally bottomed after a 30 percent decline since 2018, and 2026 is shaping out to be a strong year. We actually expect home prices to grow more than 10 percent in 2026, after going up by 5 percent in 2025. And we think that it will grow further in 2027. There are three factors that give us confidence on this out-of-consensus call.  The first one is policy. Back in February 2024, Hong Kong scrapped all extra stamp duty that had made it tougher for mainland Chinese or foreign buyers to enter the market. Stamp duty is basically a tax you pay when buying property, or even selling property; and it has been a key way for [the] government to control demand and raise revenue. With those extra charges gone, buying and selling real estate in Hong Kong, especially for mainlanders, is a lot more straightforward and penalty-free. In fact, post the removal of the stamp duty, [the] percentage of units that has been sold to mainlanders have gone to 50 percent of total; earlier it used to be 10-20 percent.  Why is it non-consensus? That is because consensus believes that Hong Kong property price can’t go up when China residential outlook is negative. In mid-2025, consensus thought that the recovery was simply a cyclical response to a sharp drop in the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate, or HIBOR. But we believe the drivers are supply/demand mismatch, positive carry as rental go up but rates go down, and Hong Kong as a place for global monetary interconnection between China and the world that’s still thriving.  Second, demand fundamentals are strengthening. Hong Kong’s population turned positive again, rising to 7.5 million in the first half of 2025. During COVID we had a population decline. Now, talent attraction scheme is driving around 140,000 visa approvals in 2025, which is double what it used to be pre-COVID level. New household formation is tracking above the long‑term average, and mainland buyers are now a powerful force.  The third factor is affordability. So, after years of declines, the housing prices have come to a point where affordability is back to a long‑term average. In fact, the income versus the price is now back to 2011 level. You combine this with lower mortgage rates as the Fed cut moves through, and you have pent‑up demand finally returning.  And don’t forget the wealth effect: Hang Seng Index climbed almost 30 percent in 2025. That kind of equity rebound historically spills over into property buying. As the recovery in residential real estate picks up speed, we're also seeing a fresh wave of optimism and actions across Hong Kong office and retail markets.  So big picture: Hong Kong property market isn't just stabilizing. It’s turning. A 10 percent or more residential price rebound, a Central office market finding its footing, and an improved retail environment – all in the same year – marks the clearest green lights this market has seen since 2018. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd discusses Morgan Stanley’s key investment themes for this year and how they’re influencing markets and economies. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research.  Today – the four key themes that will define markets and economies in 2026.  It’s Monday, January 26th, at 10am in New York.  If you're feeling overwhelmed by all the market noise and constant swings, you're not alone. One of the biggest hurdles for investors today is really figuring out how to tune out the short-term ups and downs and focus on the bigger trends that are truly changing the world.  At Morgan Stanley Research, thematic analysis has long been central to how we think about markets, especially in periods of extreme volatility. A thematic lens helps us step back from the noise and really focus on the structural forces reshaping economies, industries, and societies. And that perspective has delivered results. In 2025, on average, our thematic stock categories outperformed the MSCI World Index by 16 percent and the S&P 500 by 27 percent. And this really reinforces our view that long-term themes can be powerful drivers of alpha.  For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and Tech Diffusion, The Future of Energy, The Multipolar World, and Societal Shifts. Now three of these themes carry forward from last year, but each has evolved meaningfully – and one of our themes represents a major expansion on our prior work.  First, the AI and Tech Diffusion theme remains central, but has clearly matured and evolved. In 2025, the focus was on rapid capability gains. In 2026, the emphasis shifts to non-linear improvement and the growing gap between AI capabilities and real-world adoption. A critical evolution is our view that compute demand is likely to exceed supply meaningfully, even as software and hardware become more efficient. As AI use cases multiply and grow more complex, the infrastructure – especially computing power – emerges as a defining constraint.  Next is The Future of Energy, which has taken on new urgency. Energy demand in developed markets, long assumed to be flat, is now inflecting upwards. And this is driven largely by AI infrastructure and data centers. Compared with 2025, this theme has expanded from a supply conversation into one focused on policy. Rising energy costs are becoming increasingly visible to consumers, elevating a concept we call the ‘politics of energy.’ Policymakers are under pressure to prioritize low-cost, reliable energy, even when trade-offs exist, and new strategies are emerging to secure power without destabilizing grids or increasing household bills.  Our third theme, The Multipolar World, also builds on last year but with sharper edges. Globalization continues to fragment as countries prioritize security, resilience, and national self-sufficiency. Since 2025, competition has become more clearly defined by access to critical inputs – such as energy, materials, defense capabilities, and advanced technology. Notably, the top-performing thematic categories in 2025 were driven by Multipolar World dynamics, underscoring how geopolitical and industrial shifts are translating directly into market outcomes.  Now the biggest evolution comes with our fourth key theme – which we call Societal Shifts – and this expands on our prior work on Longevity. This new framework captures a wider range of forces shaping societies globally: AI-driven labor disruption and evolution, aging populations, changing consumer preferences, the K-economy, the push for healthy longevity, and challenging demographics across many regions. These shifts increasingly influence government policy, corporate strategy, and economic growth – and their impact spans far more industries than investors often expect.  Now crucially these themes don’t operate in isolation. AI accelerates energy demand. Energy costs shape politics. Politics influence supply chains and national priorities. And all of this feeds directly into societal outcomes: from employment to consumption patterns. The power of thematic investing lies in understanding these intersections, where multiple forces reinforce one another in underappreciated ways.  So to sum it up, the most important investment questions for 2026 aren’t just about growth rates. They’re about structure. Understanding how technology, energy, geopolitics, and society evolve together may be the clearest way to see where opportunity, and risk, are truly heading.  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.

In the second of their two-part roundtable, Seth Carpenter and Morgan Stanley’s top economists break down the forces influencing growth across different regions. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And yesterday I sat down with my colleagues, Michael Gapen, our Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jen Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. And we spent a lot of time talking about monetary policy around the world.  Today, let's go back to them, talk about the real side of the economy.  It's Friday, January 23rd at 10am in New York.  Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt.  Chetan Ahya: And 9pm in Hong Kong.  Seth Carpenter: Michael, let me start with you, back on the U.S. And when I think about the U.S. economy, we have to start by talking about the U.S. consumer.  Walk us through what investors need to understand about consumer spending in the U.S. What's driving it, what's going to hold it up, and where are the risks?  Michael Gapen: I think the primary thing to remember here is that the upper income consumer drives about 40 percent or more of total spending.  So, there can be higher inflation that eats into real labor market income growth. There can be inflation dispersion, which hits lower income households more than upper income households. We can have tariffs that get applied to goods and lower- and middle-income households buy goods more than upper income households.  But when asset markets continue to appreciate, when home prices hold on to their prior gains, sometimes that doesn't matter in the aggregate statistics because that upper income household keeps spending. I do think that's a lot of what happened in 2025. So, there is a K-shaped economy. I think one of the main risks about the U.S. is that its expansion is narrowly driven.  We think that will broaden out in 2026. If we're right, that inflation comes down and we're past, kind of, the peak effect of tariffs, then we think that lower- and middle-income household can have a little more residual spending power. And you might get the consumer operating on two fronts, rather than one.  Seth Carpenter:     Another part of domestic spending that gets a lot of attention is business investment spending, CapEx spending. First would you agree with that statement that CapEx spending last year was characterized by AI CapEx spending? Second, should we feel confident that that underlying sort of momentum in CapEx spending should continue for this year? And then third, what's it going to take for there to be a broadening out, maybe like what you said about consumers, but a broadening out of investment spending so that it's not just the AI story that's driving CapEx.  Michael Gapen:  I do agree that the primary, almost exclusive story in 2025 for business spending was AI. So, when you look at residential and non-residential spending, unrelated to AI, that I think did feel the effects of policy uncertainty in a changing environment.  what keeps kind of sustainability around business spending? Obviously, it's a multi-year investment story around AI. There's a level versus growth rate argument here where you can have a heck of a lot of CapEx spending. May not always show up in GDP because some of it is intermediate goods, some of it is imported. But that doesn't diminish, I think, the quality of the overall story. What gets business spending to broaden out, I do think is related to whether consumer spending broadens out. Most business spending kind of follows demand with a lag.  So, AI is a different story, but there's a cyclical component to business spending. There could be a housing related component, if mortgage rates come down and stimulate at least a little more turnover in the housing market. So, if the recovery does broaden out, we see greater real income growth in low- and middle-income households. The labor market stabilizes. Maybe mortgage rates come down a little bit, then I think you could get carry through momentum to non-AI related business spending. That would look more like a cyclical upswing for the economy. May be a heavy lift, but that's what I think it would take to get there.  Seth Carpenter: So, Jens, let me come to you. We talked yesterday about the ECB possibly easing more on disinflation. But when I think of disinflation, I think of a weak economy. And that's maybe not really the case. So, I guess the first question to you would you characterize euro area economic growth as strong, or a little bit more complicated?  Jens Eisenschmidt: A little bit more complicated. And that's always the right answer for an economist – I think it depends. Well, it is strong in some quarters. And these quarters will change from where it has been in the past. So concretely, we think the German economy has most potential to catch up and actually accelerate, and that's due to fiscal stimulus mainly.  While we have other quarters, the French and the Italian one, which will be below potential and so weak – each of them for their own reason. And then we have the Spanish economy, which performs exceptionally and is really strong, but it's only a small part of the euro area economy.  If we had everything together, I think the outlook is an economy that's accelerating mildly and only towards the end of our projection horizon, which is [20]27. So, in say two years, hits growth rates that are above potential. Here we are really talking about quarterly increments above 0.3. So, we are currently between 0.1 and 0.2. So, you sort of get the picture of a mildly accelerating economy that goes from 0.15 to 0.035 say in the span of two years.  Seth Carpenter: One of the key narratives in markets is about fiscal policy in Germany, potentially driving growth. I know in equity markets it’s been a key investing theme. So how excited should people be about the possibility of fiscal policy in Germany driving a resilient European economy?  Jens Eisenschmidt: Pretty excited, I would say, in a sense that the positioning of the German government for its economy is actually exceptional in terms of the amount of fiscal space that exists and that has been made available. It's just that, of course, the connection of that sort of abstract excitement that we economists have to what actually happens in markets is sometimes a little bit loose; in the sense that equity [markets would like to see everything coming online tomorrow, and that's going to be a more drawn-out process.  So, to my point before, it will take some time. We do have implementation lags. We do have lags in say, for instance, on defense procurement. There is maybe not as much capacity in the economy to deliver into everything. But the direction of travel is clear and up. So, from that perspective, I have no doubts that the future is better for the German economy over the medium term for all the reasons mentioned, but it won't be immediate. And we have just seen in recent headlines, Germany is the most trade exposed European economy. If we get more friction in global trade, that's not great. So, you could even have short term, more negative news on GDP than positive ones.  Seth Carpenter: Chetan, I'm going to turn to you. Yesterday when we talked about Asia, we focused on Japan. But, of course, when it comes to the real side of the economy, the big mover in Asia is China. So, let's talk a little bit about how you see China evolving. What the key themes are for China. Last year in particular, we talked a lot about the deflationary cycle in China and how it was protracted. It wasn't going away. That policy was not sufficient to drive a huge surge in demand to push things away. Are we in the same place for China in 2026? What kind of growth should we expect and what sort of policy reactions should we be expecting from China?  Chetan Ahya: Well, I think the macro backdrop for China we think will still be challenging in 2026. But at the same time, we expect the micro positives to continue. Now on the macro backdrop, when I say it's going to remain challenging because the number one issue that we are focused on from a macro perspective in China is deflation. Now we do expect some easing of deflationary pressures, but [the] economy will still stay in deflation in 2026.  And on the micro front what we've seen is that China is emerging from a situation where it is making inroads into advanced manufacturing, and that's enabling it to increase market share in global goods exports. And it's also one of the reasons why when you see the numbers coming out from China on exports, they seem to be outperforming. Even just the latest month number as we saw, China's exports were surprising on the upside relative to market expectations. And that's the micro story – that you'll see China continuing to gain market share in global goods export. And that supports the corporate micro positive story.  Seth Carpenter:   We know collectively that export is a key part of China's economy. The productive capacity, as you point out, important for China. When you think about exports from China, the currency has to come in. And recently the renminbi has been appreciating. Lots of questions from clients here or there. How important is the renminbi in reflating or rebalancing the China economy? Can you walk us through a little bit some of these considerations about the role that the currency is playing now and over the next few quarters for China and its economic outlook.  Chetan Ahya: Yeah, that's right, Seth. Actually, I've been getting a number of clients calling me and asking whether PBOC is going to allow a significant appreciation in RNB. We've seen it appreciate quite a lot in the last few days. And then whether this will mean China's economy will rebalance faster towards consumption. Loo

Our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter joins our chief regional economists to discuss the outlook for interest rates in the U.S., Japan and Europe. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And today we're kicking off our quarterly economic roundtable for the year. We're going to try to think about everything that matters in economics around the world. And today we're going to focus a little bit more on central banking. And when we get to tomorrow,  we'll focus on the nuts and bolts of the real side of the economy.  I'm joined by our chief regional economists.  Michael Gapen: Hi, Seth. I'm Mike Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist at Morgan Stanley.  Chetan Ahya: I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia economist.  Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe economist.  Seth Carpenter: It's Thursday, January 22nd at 10 am in New York.  Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4 pm in Frankfurt.  Chetan Ahya: And 9 pm in Hong Kong.  Seth Carpenter:  So, Mike Gapen, let me start with you as we head into 2026, what are we thinking about? Are we going into a more stable expansion? Is this just a different phase with the same amount of volatility? What do you think is going to be happening in the U.S. as a baseline outlook? And then if we're going to be wrong, which direction would we be wrong?  Michael Gapen: Yeah, Seth, we took the view that we would have more policy certainty. Recent weeks have maybe suggested we're incorrect on that front. But I still believe that when it comes to deregulation, immigration policy and fiscal policy, we have much more clarity there than we did a year ago.  So, I think it's another year of modest growth, above trend growth. We're forecasting something around 2.4 percent for 2026. That's about where we finished 2025.  I think what's key for markets and the outlook overall will be whether inflation comes down. Firms are still passing through tariffs to the consumer. We think that'll happen at least through the end of the first quarter. It's our view that after that, inflation pressures will start to diminish. If that's the case, then we think the Fed can execute one or two more rate cuts.  But we have those coming [in] the second half of the year. So, it looks like growth is strong enough. The labor market has stabilized enough for the Fed to wait and see, to look around, see the effects of their prior rate cuts, and then push policy closer to neutral if inflation comes down.  Seth Carpenter: And if we go back to last year to 2025, I will give you the credit first. Morgan Stanley did not shift its forecast for recession in the U.S. the way some of our main competitors did.  On the other hand, and this is where I maybe tweak you just a little bit. We underestimated how much growth there would be in the United States. CapEx spending from AI firms was strong. Consumer spending, especially from the top half of the income distribution in the U.S. was strong. Growth overall for the year was over 2 percent, close to 2.5 percent. So, if that's what we just came off of, why isn't it the case that we'd see even stronger growth? Maybe even a re-acceleration of growth in 2026?  Michael Gapen: Well, some of that, say, improvement vis-à-vis our forecast, the outperformance. Some of that I think comes mechanically from trade and inventory variability. So, . I'm not sure that that says a lot about an improving trend rate of growth.  Where there was other outperformance was, as you noted, from the consumer. Now our models, and I don't mean to get too technical here, but our model suggests that consumption is overshooting its fundamentals.  Which I think makes it harder for the economy to accelerate further. And then AI; it's harder for AI spending to say get incrementally stronger than where it is. So, we’re getting a little extra boost from fiscal. We've got that coming through. And I just think what it is, is more of the same rather than further acceleration from here.  Seth Carpenter:    Do you think there's a chance that the Fed in fact does not cut rates like you have in your forecast?  Michael Gapen: Yes, I do think... Where we could be wrong  is we've made assumptions around the One Big Beautiful Bill and what it will contribute to the economy. But as you know, there's a lot of variability around those estimates.  If the bill is more catalytic to animal spirits and business spending than we've assumed, you could get, say, a demand driven animal spirits upside to the economy, which may mean inflation doesn't decelerate all that much. But I do think that that's, say, the main upside risk that we're considering. Markets have been gradually taking out probabilities of Fed cuts as growth has come in stronger. So far, the inflation data has been positive in terms of signaling about disinflation, but I would say the jury's still out on how much that continues.  Seth Carpenter:   Chetan,   When I think about Japan, we know that it's been the developed market central bank that's been going in the opposite direction. They've been hiking when other central banks have been cutting. We got some news recently that probably put some risk into our baseline outlook that we published in our year ahead view about both growth and inflation in Japan. And with it what the Bank of Japan is going to do in terms of its normalization.  Can you just walk us through a little bit about our outlook for Japan? Because right now I think that the yen, Japanese rates, they're all part of the ongoing market narrative around the world.  Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, look, I mean, on a big picture basis, we are constructive on the Japan macro-outlook. We think normal GDP growth remains strong. We are expecting to see the transition for the consumers from them seeing, you know, supply side inflation. Keeping their real wage growth low to a dynamic where we transition to real wage growth accelerating. That supports real consumption growth, and we move away from that supply side driven inflation to demand side driven inflation.  So broadly we are constructive, but I think in the backdrop, what we are seeing on currency depreciation is making things a bit more challenging for the BOJ.  While we are expecting that demand side pressure to build up and drive inflation, in the trailing data, it is still pretty much currency depreciation and supply side factors like food inflation driving inflation. And so, BOJ has been hesitant.  So, while we had the expectation that BOJ will hike in January of 2027, we do see the risk that they may have to take up rate hike earlier to manage the currency not getting out of hand and adding on to the inflation pressures.  Seth Carpenter Would I be right in saying that up until now, the yen has swung pretty widely in both directions. But the weakening of the yen until now hasn't been really the key driver of the Bank of Japan's policy reaction. It's been growth picking up, inflation picking up, wanting to get out of negative interest rates first, wanting to get away from the zero lower bounds.  Second, the weaker yen in some sense could have actually been seen as a positive up until now because Japan did go through 25 years of essentially stagnant nominal growth. Is this actually that much of a fundamental change in the Bank of Japan's thinking – needing to react to the weakness of the yen?  Chetan Ahya: Broadly what you're saying is right, Seth, but there is also a threshold of where the currency can be. And beyond a point, it begins to hurt the households in form of imported inflation pressures. And remember that inflation has been somewhat high, even if it is driven by currency depreciation and supply side factors for some time. And so, BOJ has to be watchful of potential lift in inflation expectations for the households. And at the same time, they are also watching the underlying inflation impact of this currency depreciation – because what we have seen is that over period workers have been demanding for higher wages. And that is also influenced by what happens to headline inflation, which is driven by currency depreciation. So, I would say that, yes, it's been true up until now. But, when currency reaches these very high levels of range, you are going to see BOJ having to act.  Seth Carpenter:  Jens, let's shift then to Europe. The ECB had been on a cutting cycle. They came to the end of that. President Lagarde said that she thought the disinflationary process had ended.  In your year ahead forecast and a bunch of your writing recently, you've said maybe not so fast. There could still be some more disinflationary, at least risk, in the pipeline for Europe. Can you talk a little bit about what's going on in terms of European inflation and what it could mean for the European Central Bank? Because clearly that's going to be first order important for markets. Jens Eisenschmidt: I think that is right. I think we have a crucial inflation print ahead of us that comes out on the 4th of February. So, early February we get some signal, whether our anticipated fall of headline inflation here below the ECB’s target is actually materializing. We think the chances for this are pretty good.  There's a mix why this is happening. One is energy. Energy disinflation and base effects. But the other thing is services inflation resets always at the beginning of the year. January and February are the crucial month here. We had significant services upward pressure on prices the last years. And so just from base effects, we think we will see less of that. Another picture or another element of that picture is that wage disinflation is proceeding nicely. We have notably a significant weakness in the export-oriented manufacturing sector in Germany, which is a key sector of setting wages for the country. The

All eyes have been on President Trump’s address at the World Economic Forum. Michael Zezas, our Deputy Global Head of Research, and Ariana Salvatore, our Head of Public Policy Research, talk about potential implications for policy and the U.S. outlook. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley.  Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.  Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing our takeaways from President Trump's speech in Davos and what we think it means for investors.  It's Wednesday, January 21st at 1pm in New York.  Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, over the last couple of weeks, there's been a lot of news about policy proposals coming out of the U.S. and from President Trump around affordability, as well as some geopolitical events around the U.S. relationship with Europe. And investors really started looking towards President Trump's speech at Davos, which he gave earlier today, as a potential vehicle to learn more about what these things would actually mean and what it might mean for the economic outlook and markets.  Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. I think specifically investors were looking for the President to focus on affordability proposals pertaining to housing and some commentary around Greenland. Remember last weekend, President Trump proposed a 10 percent tariff on some EU countries related to this topic specifically.  So obviously that did feature in his speech. What did we learn and what do you think are the most important things for markets to know?  Michael Zezas: So, maybe the most important headline we got was President Trump appearing to take off the table the use of force when it comes to an attempt to acquire Greenland. And that would seem to, therefore, take off the table the idea of a broader rupture in the U.S.-EU relationship. Both the security relationship vis-a-vis NATO, as well as the economic relationship which could have been ruptured with higher tariffs on both sides, anti coercion measures around trade, and that would be of obvious economic importance.  Europe is obviously a major importer of U.S. goods. Not as big as Canada or Mexico, but still pretty significant. So, anything that would've created higher barriers between the two would've had meaningful economic consequences for the U.S. outlook.  Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. And we've been saying that the bilateral trade framework agreement between the U.S. and the EU is actually pretty tenuous in nature, right? So, this doesn't yet have formal backing from the European Parliament. They, in fact, delayed a vote on this exact deal, kind of on the back of these Greenland headlines.  So how are we thinking about, you know, what's been priced into markets and maybe what this could mean for something like the dollar going forward?  Michael Zezas: Yeah, so it's important to point out that we're not out of the woods yet in terms of potential trade escalation on both sides around the Greenland issue. However, it seems like that bigger tail problem of a decoupling might have gone away. And so, what you saw in markets so far today was that some of the actions over the past, kind of, 24-48 hours with equity market weakness. You know, the S&P was down about 2 percent yesterday. The dollar was weaker. It seemed like more term premium was being baked into the U.S. Treasury market. A lot of that appears to be unwinding today.  Said more simply, the idea of a kind of riskier investment environment for the U.S. is getting priced out. At least today, it's getting priced out. And it all makes sense when you think about if there was less of a relationship between the U.S. and Europe, there would be less demand for U.S. dollar holdings overseas. And that's the type of thing that should manifest in a weaker dollar and higher term premia, steeper yield curves for U.S. Treasuries.  Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, and that dovetails really nicely with the work that we just put out with the FX team, kind of highlighting some of the policy factors as push factors for countries to move away from the dollar. We think that's happening marginally. We think it's not really a risk in the immediate term, but some of these policy drivers can actually create dollar weakness over the medium to longer term.  Michael Zezas: Of course, to the extent that we get news that this is a head fake and that tensions are re-escalating, you'd expect some of those trades to start pushing markets back in the other direction again.  Now, President Trump also talked quite a bit about domestic policy, largely about affordability, and some of the policy proposals he's put forward over the last couple of weeks. Was there any new details that you heard that you think are meaningful for investors?  Ariana Salvatore: So, the short version is nothing really new, and the reality is that a lot of housing policy in particular is actually out of the hands of the executive. And even if you do see congressional action here, it's likely to be marginal. A lot of housing policy is done at the state level, and even bipartisan efforts to address both the demand and the supply sides of the equation have faced some resistance in Congress.  That doesn't mean they can't reemerge. But we would need to see a very large decline in the mortgage rate to get noticeable effects on economic indicators like GDP, inflation and employment. And in terms of what this means for the housing outlook, the programs talked about so far should push sales marginally higher but have little impact on our expectations for our home prices.  Now it's important to note that the president didn't spend that much time of the speech talking about housing affordability proposals, as was telegraphed ahead of time. And since that, the head of the NEC Kevin Hassett has said they plan to announce more details on housing in the coming days.  Michael Zezas: Got it. So, on the two pieces here that investors have really focused on, which are capping institutional ownership of single-family homes and potentially capping interest rates on credit cards, it sounded like the president talked about he would go to Congress for authorization on those things. Is that right? And if so, how plausible is it that Congress could actually deliver those authorities?  Ariana Salvatore: So, here's where I think it's really critical to understand the role that Congress has to play in all of these policy initiatives. So, there are not only political constraints, but there are also procedural ones. If we were to see Republicans kind of push for this 10 percent cap, for example, that likely would have to go through the reconciliation process. And that process, as we know, comes with a number of limitations because something like a 10 percent cap wouldn't have much of an impact on the federal budget in terms of revenues or outlays.  We think it's most likely not going to be permissible under that framework. So, understanding that the first filter here is Congress, and the second filter is these procedural limitations that exist in and of themselves is really important context for understanding the president's proposals on housing. Michael Zezas: So, is it fair to say the starting point is that we think Congress is unlikely to act on these things? And what would you have to see that might make you think differently?  Ariana Salvatore: I think where we're looking for signals from Republican leadership in Congress – because as of right now, it's been our thinking that a second reconciliation bill ahead of the midterm elections is not feasible. It's too difficult politically, it takes a lot of time, but if you see enough of a push from the president, we do think that can start to become feasible. Again, we have to keep in mind these procedural limitations and where the rest of the party falls on these issues. But I think they're possible if the administration pushes hard enough for them. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, even though we don't think it's likely, we obviously want to prepare in case that happens. When it comes to housing, it seems like our team has said institutional ownership of single-family housing is quite low, 1 percent or less. And so, restrictions there wouldn't necessarily change the game on home prices.  What about the 10 percent cap on credit card interests? What are the broader ramifications that our colleagues see?  Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so I'd say generally speaking, when it comes to consumer credit affordability policies, our strategists think that these could actually translate to a benefit for consumer ABS performance because they tend to be a tailwind for a consumer that's struggled with rising delinquencies and defaults post-COVID, right?  However, there are some specific proposals like this cap on credit cards, and that's likely going to have a negative consequence because it's going to limit credit access for consumers, especially for those carrying a balance. So, probably a little bit counterintuitive to the overall affordability agenda that the administration's trying to go for.  Michael Zezas: So, lots of interesting stuff coming out of the speech. Lots of things we have to track over the next few weeks and months. It certainly doesn't seem like it's going to be a boring year  two of the Trump term for investors.  Ariana Salvatore: Certainly not, and not for us either.  Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for finding the time to talk.  Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike.  Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our co-heads of Securitized Products Jay Bacow and James Egan explain why recent U.S. government measures won’t change much the outlook for mortgage rates, home prices and sales this year. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Jay Bacow: Jim Egan, I see you sitting across from me wearing a quarter zip. As old things become new again, my teenager would think that is trendy.  James Egan: I think this is one of, if not the first, times in my life that a teenager has thought I was trendy, including back when I was a teenager.  Jay Bacow: Well, as captain of the chess team in high school, I was never trendy. But Jim…  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.  Today, we're here to talk about some of the programs that are being announced and their implications for the mortgage and U.S. housing markets.  It's Tuesday, January 20th at 10am in New York.  Now, Jay, there have been a lot of announcements from this administration. Some of them focused on affordability, some of them focused on the mortgage market, some of them focused on the housing market. But I think one of them that had the biggest impact, at least in terms of trading sessions immediately following, was a $200 billion buy program from the GSEs. Can you talk to us a little bit about that program?  Jay Bacow: Sure. As you mentioned, President Trump announced that there would be a $200 billion purchase of mortgages, which later was confirmed by FHFA director Bill Pulte, to be purchased by Fannie and Freddie. Now, we would highlight putting this $200 billion number in context.  The market was probably expecting the GSEs to buy about a hundred billion dollars of mortgages this year. So, this is maybe an incremental a hundred billion dollars more. The mortgage market round numbers is a $10 trillion market, so in the scope of the size of the market, it's not huge. However, we're only forecasting about [$]175 billion of growth in the mortgage market this year, so this is the GSEs buying more than net issuance.  It's also similar in size to the Fed balance sheet runoff, which is something that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant mentioned in his comments last week. And so, the initial impact of this announcement was reasonably meaningful. Mortgage spreads tightened about 15 basis points and headline mortgage rates rallied to below 6 precent for the first time since 2022 on some mortgage measures.  James Egan: Alright, so we had a 15 basis point rally almost immediately upon announcement of this program. That took us, I believe, through your bull case for agency mortgages in our 2026 outlook. So, what's next here?  Jay Bacow: Well, we have a lot of questions about what is next. There's a lot of things that we're still waiting information on. But we think the initial move has sort of been fully priced in. We don't know the pace of the buying. We don't know if the purchases are going to be outright – like the Fed's purchase programs were. Or purchased and hedging the duration – like historically, the GSEs portfolios have been managed. We don't know how the $200 billion of mortgages will be funded. The way we're kind of thinking about this is if the program is just – and this is a podcast, not a video cast but I'm putting air quotes around just – $200 billion, it is probably priced in and then maybe and then some.  However, if the purchases are front loaded or the purchases are increased, or maybe this purchase program indicates possible changes to the composition of the Fed's balance sheet, then there could be further moves in spreads and in mortgage rates. But Jim, what does this mean to the mortgage market writ large?  James Egan: Right. So, when we think about what you're talking about, a 15 basis point move in mortgage rates, and we take that into the housing market, the first order implication is on affordability. And this is a move in the right direction, but it is small from a magnitude perspective. You mentioned mortgage rates getting below 6 percent for the first time since 2022. When we think about this in the context of our expectations for 2026, we already had the mortgage rate getting to about 5.75 in the back half of this year. This would take that forecast down to about 5.6 percent.  That has a very modest upward implication for our purchase volume forecast, but I want to emphasize the modest piece. We're talking about [$]4.23 million was our original existing home sales forecast. This could take it to [$] 4.25 [million], maybe as high as [$]4.3 [million] with some media effect layered in. But any growth in demand, when we think about the home price side of the equation, we think we'll be met with additional listings.  So, it really doesn't change our home price forecast for 2026, which was plus 2 percent. So very modest, slightly upward risk to some of our forecasts. And as we've been saying, when we think about U.S. housing in 2026, the risk to our modest growth forecasts, 3 percent growth in sales, 2 percent growth in home prices. The risk has always been to the upside.  That could be because demand responds more to a 5 percent handle in mortgage rates than we're expecting. Or because you get more and more of these programs from the administration. So, on that note, Jay, what else do we think can be done here?  Jay Bacow: I mean, there are a lot of potential things that could be done, which could be helpful on the margin or not, depending on how far they are willing to think about the possibilities.  Some of the easier changes to make would be changes to the loan level pricing adjustments and the guaranteed fees, and mortgage insurance premiums, which would lower the cost in the roughly 10 to 15 basis points. There are some other changes that could be put through which we think from a legal side which would be much more difficult to make retroactive. That would be either allowing you to take your mortgage with you to the next house, which is what we call portability. Or allowing you to transfer your mortgage to the new home buyer, which is what we call assumability. We think it's extremely difficult to make that retroactive, but that could have some larger impacts, if that were to go through.  Now, Jim, speaking of other impacts, mortgages spreads have tightened 15 basis points. What does that do to some of the other sectors that you cover?  James Egan: Right. We do think there is a portfolio channel effect here that could be good for risk assets broader than just the agency mortgage space, even though that is clearly the primary impact of that $200 billion buying program. Securitized credit, we think is one of the clear beneficiaries of that tightening, given the relationships it has to agency mortgages. The non-QM mortgage market in particular – one that we're looking at for positive tailwinds as a result of this.  Jay Bacow: All right, so we got a big announcement. We got a pretty quick market move after that, and now we're waiting to see what the next steps are. Likely going to have a marginal impact on housing activity, but we got to keep our ears and our eyes open to see what else might come. Jim, always great talking to you.  James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to all of you regular listeners, thank you for adding us to your playlist. Let us know what you think wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.  Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button. *** Disclaimer *** James Egan: It's a shame it's not a video podcast. What a great cardigan. 

Our Head of Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the main themes for European stocks this year.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product here in Europe. Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist. Paul Walsh: Today, we are here to talk about the big debates for European equities moving into 2026. It's Friday, January the 16th at 8am in London. Marina, it's great to have you on Thoughts on the Market. I think we've got a fascinating year ahead of us, and there are plenty of big debates to be exploring here in Europe. But let's kick it off with the, sort of, obvious comparison to the U.S. How are you thinking about European equities versus the U.S. right now? When we cast our eyes back to last year, we had this surprising outperformance. Could that repeat? Marina Zavolock: Yeah, the biggest debate of all Paul, that's what you start with. So, actually it's not just last year. If you look since U.S. elections, I think it would surprise most people to know that if you compare in constant currency terms; so if you look in dollar terms or if you look in Euro terms, European equities have outperformed U.S. equities since US elections. I don't think that's something that a lot of people really think about as a fact. And something very interesting has happened at the start of this year. And let me set the scene before I tell you what that is. In the last 10 years, European equities have been in this constantly widening discount range versus the U.S. on valuation. So next one's P/E there's been, you know, we have tactical rallies from time to time; but in the last 10 years, they've always been tactical. But we're in this downward structural range where their discount just keeps going wider and wider and wider. And what's happened on December 31st is that for the first time in 10 years, European equities have broken the top of that discount range now consistently since December 31st. I've lost count of how many trading days that is. So about two weeks, we've broken the top of that discount range. And when you look at long-term history, that's happened a number of times before. And every time that happens, you start to go into an upward range. So, the discount is narrowing and narrowing; not in a straight line, in a range. But the discount narrows over time. The last couple of times that's happened, in the last 20 years, over time you narrow all the way to single digit discount rather than what we have right now in like-for-like terms of 23 percent. Paul Walsh: Yeah, so there's a significant discount. Now, obviously it's great that we are seeing increased inflows into European equities. So far this year, the performance at an index level has been pretty robust. We've just talked about the relative positioning of Europe versus the U.S.; and the perhaps not widely understood local currency outperformance of Europe versus the U.S. last year. But do you think this is a phenomenon that's sustainable? Or are we looking at, sort of, purely a Q1 phenomenon? Marina Zavolock: Yeah, it's a really good question and you make a good point on flows, which I forgot to mention. Which is that, last year in [Q1] we saw this really big diversification flow theme where investors were looking to reduce exposure in the U.S., add exposure to Europe – for a number of reasons that I won't go into. And we're seeing deja vu with that now, mostly on the – not really reducing that much in U.S., but more so, diversifying into Europe. And the feedback I get when speaking to investors is that the U.S. is so big, so concentrated and there's this trend of broadening in the U.S. that's happening; and that broadening is impacting Europe as well. Because if you're thinking about, ‘Okay, what do I invest in outside of seven stocks in the U.S.?’ You're also thinking about, ‘Okay, but Europe has discounts and maybe I should look at those European companies as well.’ That's exactly what's happening. So, diversification flows are sharply going up, in the last month or two in European equities coming into this year. And it's a very good question of whether this is just a [Q1] phenomenon. [Be]cause that's exactly what it was last year. I still struggle to see European equities outperforming the U.S. over the course of the full year because we're going to come into earnings now. We have much lower earnings growth at a headline level than the U.S. I have 4 percent earnings growth forecast. That's driven by some specific sectors. It's, you know, you have pockets of very high growth. But still at a headline level, we have 4 percent earnings growth on our base case. Consensus is too high in our view. And our U.S. equity strategists, they have 17 percent earnings growth, so we can't compete. Paul Walsh That's a very stark difference. Marina Zavolock: Yeah, we cannot compete with that. But what I will say is that historically when you've had these breakouts, you don't get out performance really. But what you get is a much narrower gap in performance. And I also think if you pick the right pockets within Europe, then you could; you can get out performance. Paul Walsh: So, something you and I talked about a lot in 2025, is the bull case for Europe. There are a number of themes and secular dynamics that could play out, frankly, to the benefits of Europe, and there are a number of them. I wondered if you could highlight the ones that you think are most important in terms of the bull case for Europe. Marina Zavolock: I think the most important one is AI adoption. We and our team, we have been able to quantify this. So, when we take our global AI mapping and we look at leading AI adopters in Europe, which is about a quarter of the index, they are showing very strong earnings and returns outperformance. Not just versus the European index, but versus their respective sectors. And versus their respective sectors, that gap of earnings outperformance is growing and becoming more meaningful every time that we update our own chart. To the point that I think at this rate, by the second half of this year, it's going to grow to a point that it’s more difficult for investors to ignore. That group of stocks, first of all, they trade again at a big discount to U.S. equivalent – 27 percent discount. Also, if you see adoption broadening overall, and we start to go into the phase of the AI cycle where adopters are, you know, are being sought after and are seen as in the front line of beneficiaries of AI. It's important to remember Europe; the European index because we don't have a lot of enablers in our index. It is very skewed to AI adopters. And then we also have a lot of low hanging fruit given productivity demographic challenges that AI can help to address. So that's the biggest one. Paul Walsh: Understood. Marina Zavolock: And the one I've spent most time on. But let me quickly mention a few others. M&A, we're seeing it rising in Europe, almost as sharply as we're seeing in the U.S. Again, I think there's low hanging fruit there. We're seeing easing competition commission rules, which has been an ongoing thing, but you know, that comes after decade of not seeing that. We're seeing corporate re-leveraging off of lows. Both of these things are still very far from cycle peaks. And we're seeing structural drivers, which for example, savings and investment union, which is multifaceted. I won't get into it. But that could really present a bull case. Paul Walsh: Yeah. And that could include pensions reform across Europe, particularly in Germany, deeper capital… Marina Zavolock: We're starting to see it. Paul Walsh: And in Europe as well, yeah. And so just going back to the base case, what are you advocating to clients in terms of what do we buy here in Europe, given the backdrop that you've framed? Marina Zavolock: Within Europe, I get asked a lot whether investors should be investing in cyclicals or value. Last year value really worked, or quality – maybe they will return. I think it's not really about any of those things. I think, similar to prior years, what we're going to see is stock level dispersion continuing to rise. That's what we keep seeing every month, every quarter, every year – for the last couple of years, we're seeing dispersion rising. Again, we're still far from where we normally get to, when we get to cycle peaks. So, Europe is really about stock picking. And the best way that we have at Morgan Stanley to capture this alpha under the surface of the European index. And the growth that we have under the surface of the index, is our analyst top picks – which are showing fairly consistent outperformance, not just versus the European index, but also versus the S&P. And since inception of top picks in 2021, European top picks have outperformed the S&P free float market cap weighted by over 90 percentage points. And they've outperformed, the S&P – this is pre-trade – by 17 percentage points in the last year. And whatever period we slice, we're seeing out performance. As far as sectors, key sectors, Banks is at the very top of our model. It's the first sector that non-dedicated investors ask me about. I think the investment case there is very compelling. Defense, we really like structurally with the rearmament theme in Europe, but it's also helpful that we're in this seasonal phase where defense tends to really outperform between; and have outsized returns between January and April. And then we like the powering AI thematic, and we are getting a lot of incoming on the powering AI thematic in Europe. We upgraded utilities recently. Paul, maybe if I ask you a question, one sector that I've missed out on, in our data-driven sector model, is the semis. But you've worked a lot with our semi's team who are quite constructive. Can you t

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets looks at the implications of the U.S. government’s efforts to ease regulations, from bank balance sheets to asset valuations. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.  Today, a core theme of easing policy, and the latest iteration in the U.S. mortgage market.  It's Thursday, January 15th at 2pm in London.  Central to our thinking for the year ahead is that we're seeing an unusual combination of easing monetary policy, fiscal policy, and regulatory policy – all at the same time. This isn't normal, and usually this type of support is only deployed under much more dire economic conditions. All this is also happening alongside another large supportive force – over $3 trillion of AI- and datacenter-related spending that Morgan Stanley expects all to happen through the end of 2028.  This broad-based easing is a global theme. Equities in Japan have been rallying on hopes of even a larger fiscal leasing in that country. In Europe, we think that Germany will continue to spend more while the European Central Bank and Bank of England cut rates more than the market expects. But like many things these days, it's the United States that's at the heart of the story.  We think that the U.S. Federal Reserve will continue to lower interest rates this year, even as core inflation persists above its target. The U.S. government will spend about $1.9 trillion more than it takes in, even after adjusting for tariffs as tax cuts from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act kick in.  But my focus today is on the third leg of this proverbial three-legged stimulative stool. While easing monetary and fiscal policy probably get the most focus, easing regulatory policy is another big lever that's being pulled in the same direction. Regulatory policy is opaque, and let's face it can be a little boring. But it's extremely important for how financial markets function. Regulation drives the incentives for the buyers of many assets, especially in the all-important banking and insurance sectors.  It can set almost by definition what price an asset needs to trade at to be attractive, or how much of an asset a particular actor in the market can or cannot hold. Regulatory policy tightened dramatically in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, but now it's starting to ease. Our U.S. bank equity analysts expect that finalization of key capital rules later this year – an important regulatory step – could free up about [$]5.8 trillion – with a T – of balance sheet capacity across the Global Systematically Important Banks. In mid-December, the office of the comptroller of the currency and the FDIC withdrew lending guidelines from 2013 that had discouraged banks from making loans to more highly indebted companies.  And just last week, the U.S. administration announced that the U.S. mortgage agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy [$]200 billion of mortgages to hold on their own balance sheet; a significant move that quickly tightens spreads in this key market. For investors, we see several implications. This simultaneous easing across monetary, fiscal, and now regulatory policy supports a market that runs hot and where valuations may overshoot.  And in the specific case of these agency mortgages, my colleague Jay Bacow and our mortgage strategy team think that this shift is now very quickly in the price. Having previously been positive on agency mortgage spreads, they've now turned to neutral.  Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist Ridham Desai addresses a big debate: whether India stocks are poised for a recovery after underperforming other emerging markets in 2025. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley’s Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist.  Today: one of the big debates in Asia this year. Can Indian equities recover their strength after a historic slump?    It’s Wednesday, January 14th, at 2pm in Mumbai. India ended 2025 with its weakest relative performance versus Emerging Markets since 1994. That’s right – three decades. The reason? A mid-cycle growth slowdown, rich valuations, and the fact that India doesn’t offer an explicit AI-related trade. Add in delays on the U.S. trade deal plus India’s low beta in a global bull market, and you’ve got a recipe for underperformance.  But we think the tide is turning.   Valuations have corrected meaningfully and likely bottomed out in October. More importantly, India’s growth cycle looks poised for a positive surprise. Policymakers have gone all-in on reflation, deploying a mix of aggressive measures to revive momentum. The Reserve Bank of India has cut rates, reduced the cash reserve ratio, infused liquidity and gone in for bank deregulation which are adding fuel to the fire. The government has front-loaded capital expenditure and announced a massive ₹1.5 trillion GST rate cut to encourage people to spend more on goods and services.  All these moves – along with improving ties between India and China, Beijing’s new anti-involution push, and the possibility of a major India-U.S. trade deal – are laying solid groundwork for recovery. Put simply, India’s once-tough, post-pandemic economic stance is easing up. And that could open the door to a major shift in how investors see the market going forward.  India’s macro backdrop is also evolving. The reduced reliance on oil in GDP, the growing share of exports, especially in services, the ongoing fiscal consolidation – all indicate a smaller saving imbalance. This means structurally lower interest rates ahead. And flexible inflation targeting, and volatility in both inflation and interest rates should continue to decline.  High growth with low volatility and falling rates should translate into higher P/E multiples. And don’t forget the household balance sheet shift toward equities. Systematic flows into domestic mutual funds are evidence of this trend.  Investor concerns are understandable, but let’s keep them in context. More companies raising capital often signals growth ahead, not just high valuations. Domestic investment remains strong, thanks to a steady shift toward equities. India’s premium valuations reflect solid long-term growth prospects and expectations for lower real interest rates. On the policy front, efforts to boost growth are robust, and we see real growth potentially surprising to the upside. While India isn’t a leader in AI yet, the upcoming AI summit in February could help address concerns about India’s role in tech innovation.  What key catalysts should investors watch? Look for positive earnings revisions, further dovishness from the RBI, reforms from the government including privatization, and the long-awaited U.S. trade deal. But also keep an eye on key risks – slower global growth and shifting geopolitical dynamics.  So, after fifteen months of relative pain, could India be on the cusp of a structural re-rating? If growth surprises to the upside – and we think it will – the story of 2026 may just be India’s comeback. Stay tuned. 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 U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver and U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder discuss a North America Big Debate for 2026: Whether investments in efficiency and productivity will spark a transformation of U.S. manufacturing.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.  Chris Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst.  Michelle Weaver: Today: Will 2026 be the year of U.S. Manufacturing's transformation?  It's Tuesday, January 13th at 10am in New York.  U.S. reshoring has been an important component of our multipolar world theme, and manufacturing is one of those topics we have always had our eyes on. We've been making some big predictions about a transformation in this sector, so it makes sense that it features prominently in the big debates we've identified for North America in 2026.  In the last few years, there's been a steady stream of investments in automation controls and upgrades across U.S. manufacturing. And this is happening against a backdrop of shifting global supply chains and lingering policy uncertainty. Now, the big market debate is whether these investments will generate a whole wave of greenfield projects – that is brand new, multi-year construction initiatives to build facilities, factories, and infrastructure from the ground up.  Chris, what exactly is driving this current wave of efficiency and productivity investment in U.S. manufacturing? And how long term of a trend is it?  Chris Snyder: I think what's driving the inflection is tariffs. The view that has underpinned my U.S. reshoring call is that I believe companies have to serve the U.S. market. The U.S. accounts for 30 percent of global consumption – equal to EU and China combined. It is also the best margin region in the world. So, companies have to serve the market, and now what they're doing is they're going back and they're looking at their production assets that they have in the U.S. and they're saying, how can I get more out of what's already here?  So, the quickest, cheapest, fastest way to bring production online in the U.S. is drive better productivity and efficiency out of the assets you already have. And we're seeing it come through very quickly after Liberation Day.  Michelle Weaver: And you think these investments are an on ramp to larger greenfield projects. What evidence do we have that this efficiency spend is setting the stage for a ramp up in new factory builds?  Chris Snyder: I think this is absolutely the leading indicator for greenfields because this is telling us that the supply chain cost calculation has changed. What all of these companies are doing are saying, ‘Okay, how can I get products into the U.S. at the cheapest cost possible?’ What we're seeing is the cost of imports have gone higher with tariffs, and now it's more economically advisable for these companies to make the product in the United States. And if that's the case, that means that when they need a new factory, it's going to come to the United States. They might not need a factory now, but when they do, the U.S. is at least incrementally better positioned to get that factory.  Other data that we're seeing; I think the most interesting data that's come out of all of this is the bifurcation in global PPI or producer price data. If you look at it on a regional basis, North America markets saw PPI go higher in 2025. They were all the tariff exempt regions – U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Every other region in the world saw PPI down year-to-date.  That means that these companies and factories are having to lower prices to stay competitive in the global market and sell their products into the United States. That tells us also where the next factory is going. If you have a factory in the U.S. and a factory in Malaysia, and your U.S. factory is pricing up, that means the return profile is getting better. If your factory in Malaysia is pricing down, it means the returns are getting worse and you're pricing down because it's over-capacitized. That's not a region where you're going to add a factory. You know, what I like to say is – price drives returns, and supply is going to follow returns. And right now, that price data tells us the returns are in the United States.  Michelle Weaver: And, for people that might not be familiar with PPI, can you explain it to everyone? It's sort of like CPIs cousin, but how should people think about it?  Chris Snyder: Yeah, yeah, so PPI, Producer Price Inflation, it's effectively the prices that my companies, the producers of goods are charging. So maybe this is the price that they would then charge a distributor, who then the distributor ultimately is selling it to a store. And then that's, you know, kind of factoring its way into CPI. But it starts with PPI.  Michelle Weaver: And what are some of the key catalysts investors should be looking for in 2026 that could confirm that this greenfield ramp is underway?  Chris Snyder: The number one, you know, metric I think the market looks at is manufacturing project starts. Every month there's data that comes out and says how many manufacturing projects were announced in the U.S. that month. And what we've seen coming out of Liberation Day is that number on a project value has gone higher. You know, it hasn't totally inflected, but it has pushed higher.  The thing that has inflected is the number of announcements. So, this is not like two or three years ago where we had these mega projects. What we're seeing right now is very broad. And to me that's more important because that shows that there's durability behind it. And it shows that this is because the economics are saying it makes sense. It's not necessarily just because, okay, I got an incentive and I'm trying to follow alongside that.  Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. The market seems skeptical though, pointing out that the ISM manufacturing purchasing managers index has been shrinking. This could be a sign that demand isn't strong enough to justify building new factories right now. How would you address that concern?  Chris Snyder: Yeah, no, I mean, you're definitely right. Like the biggest pushback on the reshoring theme is the demand for goods is not very strong. Consumers are not in a good place. So why would companies add capacity in this backdrop? That's never happened before. Companies only add capacity when they're producing a lot and the utilization goes up. This is not a normal cycle. Throughout history, the motivation to add capacity was when your production rates go higher, your utilization hits a certain level, and then you add capacity. So, it always started with demand to your point.  The motivation right now is tariff mitigation. And you do not need higher demand to support that. The U.S. is a $1.2 trillion trade deficit. So, that more than anything gets me confident in the theme and the duration behind it. And I think it's a very different outlook when you look across the international markets. They're the ones that need to find incremental demand to justify investment.  Michelle Weaver: And given the scale of U.S. purchasing power and the shift in global capital flows, how do you see these manufacturing trends impacting broader performance in 2026?  Chris Snyder: We published our outlook and we're calling for the U.S. Industrial Economy to hit decade high growth levels in the back half of [20]26 and into [20]27. And this is a big reason why. We think about this a lot from a CapEx perspective. And we're seeing the investment, we think that ramps into larger greenfields. But we're also seeing it in the production economy.  If you look at the delta between U.S. consumer spend and U.S. manufacturing production, that has really narrowed in recent months. And that tells us that we're increasingly serving U.S. demand through domestic production. So that's another factor that's going to drive activity higher and it doesn't need a cycle. And I think that's what's really important. And I think that is what creates this as a more secular and also durable opportunity.  So obviously reassuring is something that's, you know, very close to me and important for the industrial economy. But as you think about the multipolar world theme more broadly, how do you think that evolves in 2026?  Michelle Weaver: Yeah, absolutely. Last year the multipolar world was an incredibly powerful theme. And when investors were thinking about the multipolar world last year, it was largely about how are companies going to mitigate the risk of tariffs in the near term.  We had the policies come out and surprise everyone in terms of the breadth and the magnitude of the tariffs we saw. We had a lot of policy uncertainty around what is that final level of tariffs going to look like. And a lot of the reaction was really short term. It's how can we use our inventory buffers to try and preserve our margins? How much of these additional tariff costs can we pass off to the end customer? How can we insulate ourselves in the near term?  I think this year it's going to turn to more longer-term strategic thinking. Reshoring and a lot of the greenfield projects you were talking about, I think will absolutely be an important component of the multipolar world this year. I think we're also likely to see a greater emphasis on U.S. defense. With the action we just saw in Venezuela. I think we're going to see more of that defense component of the multipolar world starting to be expressed in the U.S. It was a big part of the expression of the theme in Europe last year, but I think it will gain relevance in the U.S. this year.  Chris Snyder: Yeah. And I think the next chapter in U.S. industrial growth is just getting going. It's taken 25 years for the U.S. to seed roughly 12 percentage points of global share in manufacturing. We don't think the