Thoughts on the Market

Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya joins Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist Ridham Desai to break down India’s macro outlook, capital flows and sector opportunities.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Ridham Desai: And I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist.Chetan Ahya: Today, the biggest takeaways from our India Investment Forum in Mumbai. From the shifting outlook for India's markets and flows to the sectors driving the next phase of corporate earnings and CapEx.It's Friday, June 12th at 7PM in Hong Kong.Ridham Desai: And 4:30PM in Mumbai.Chetan Ahya: Ridham, the Morgan Stanley's India Investment Forum took place in Mumbai last week, and I was there with you. These events are a great opportunity to speak with investors who come across from the globe to attend. Now that we have had a few days to process the conversations, what stood out to you? What was the biggest shift in investor sentiment that you picked on?Ridham Desai: So, Chetan, I think it's been the case of a continuing story about India. Domestic investors look that they are bullish, and foreign investors continue to stay rather cautious on the Indian markets. We could see that in the overall attendance. In contrast, I think domestic investors were looking for the next stock that they wanted to buy. They were seeking opportunities, and there was a lot of interest in meeting companies.Before we get into markets, let me turn back to you from a macro side. India's growth story remains strong, but relative growth appears to be cooling. This is in contrast to markets like Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and the US. How should investors think about India's macro positioning in that context?Chetan Ahya: So, Ridham, when I look at the macro data in India, they're all indicating a meaningful upside in the growth trend. So I'll just cite two key cyclically sensitive macro data points. One is the banking system credit growth, and number two is the auto sales, particularly the passenger vehicle. So bank credit growth is growing as of the last biweekly data point that we got. It's growing at seventeen point seven percent year-on-year, and car sales are growing at twenty-seven percent in the month of May.But as you were mentioning earlier, the relative growth opportunity is a challenge for India and to just share the numbers on the earnings growth for the first quarter that we saw across the region. So we saw Korea's earnings growth at one hundred and seventy percent. We saw Taiwan's earnings growth at forty-eight percent year on year. Japan at thirty-three percent. The US has seen a growth of about twenty-seven percent year on year.So in that context, when India is reporting thirteen percent growth, it's becoming a challenge for investors to look for opportunities in India relative to other markets. Either they are more focused on the other markets than India. So let me come back to you, Ridham. Staying with the investment implications, India projects stable valuations and strong corporate earnings, but its relative growth advantage has narrowed. How should investors reconcile this contradiction?Ridham Desai: If I go back thirty-five years, as long as we have the MSCI index series, and as far as I have been in this industry, this is the lowest relative multiple that India has traded at. And indeed, growth last year was weak. But if you see QOQ, we have started to accelerate. The broad market earnings growth trajectory has shown a doubling in the quarter that ended March over the quarter that ended December.But it underscores the point you made about the relative growth complex. It's clearly not in India's favor. And a lot of the capital in the world is short-term oriented, and it cares for what growth is gonna come in the next quarter or two. And that's the state of the market right now.However, what I would say is that equities is a quintessential long-duration asset class. In the long run, what matters is terminal growth. I don't really think India's terminal growth has moved much. It remains far superior to a lot of other countries around the world. And therefore, I think this does present itself as a great opportunity for a long-term investor while the markets are digesting this relative growth disadvantage that India seems to have over the next, say, three or four quarters.Chetan Ahya: And Ridham, another theme from the forum was policy action to attract capital. Policymakers announced a number of measures right as our conference ended and they aimed to withdraw withholding tax on debt investors, also providing banks with an incentive to take up more dollar borrowing. How central are these measures to sustaining foreign inflows into Indian markets?Ridham Desai: I think the measures taken by policymakers are very important, probably amongst the most important policy actions this year. The removal of taxation on debt investors will make a difference. The provision for hedging to external commercial borrowings as well as to foreign currency deposits will make a difference.It should boost flows into India over the next twelve months. That said, these measures may not help the equity flows because the equity flows, I think, are going to depend on the relative growth situation. Now, there's only that much India can do to lift its growth. It may accelerate to the high teens. So growth elsewhere needs to decelerate for equity investors to return. Or India needs to see the start of a major IPO cycle because in primary issuances, foreigners do come to buy, and that may change the net picture on FBI flows in the equity markets.But as far as the debt markets are concerned, I think the measures taken last week are going to prove to be quite potent, and India should see the benefits accruing over the next few weeks and months.Chetan, from your perspective, how important is the policy backdrop right now in determining whether India can keep attracting long-term global capital despite more competitive returns elsewhere in the short run?Chetan Ahya: So Ridham, I think the key focus for the policymakers had been with these measures to boost short-term capital inflows to stabilize the currency. There has been a balance of payment deficit. So from that perspective, the short-term capital inflow augmentation effort as you mentioned, has been the correct move. But from the long-term perspective, we think that the government needs to boost competitiveness of the Indian manufacturing. Because in the context in which AI could affect India's services exports, there is a need to augment more export receipts from the manufacturing sector. At the same time, if they improve the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector, it will help India to attract more capital inflows from long-term investors for the purpose of FDI.And the good news is that the government is on it. They are taking a number of measures to boost that competitiveness in the manufacturing. But we think that there is more action needed and hopefully in the intention to improve the balance of payment dynamics and exports from manufacturing sector, we will see more actions from the government in the coming months.Ridham Desai: Chetan, you've also written extensively about the structural capital spending cycle in Asia and India. Can you walk us through the key details here, especially in the Indian context?Chetan Ahya: I think the key story that we are observing, it's sort of more or less global, but definitely very clearly seen in Asia, that there seems to be a super cycle for CapEx as well as industrial activity. This CapEx cycle is effectively driven by spending in four key sectors, and that is AI and AI-related digital infrastructure, energy, defense, and industrial onshoring-related CapEx.Now, as far as India is concerned, we are seeing investments in all the four segments that I just mentioned. In fact, it's seeing a significant amount of activity in the space of energy. And, similarly, we are seeing a lot of policy measures, I mentioned earlier, in terms of boosting manufacturing competitiveness.But at the heart of it is government's effort to onshore industrial supply chain. So India's CapEx has also inflected higher. Having said that, the difference between India and, let's say, North Asia, which is Korea, Taiwan, Japan and China, is that they are also a big player in the export market for capital goods when there is global CapEx cycle upswing happening. Nevertheless, India will see the benefit of this CapEx cycle in terms of its own growth push, as well as improvement in productivity.So Ridham, how would you think about the sectoral opportunity within the Indian markets?Ridham Desai: We see a lot of interest in some of these sectors which you mentioned. But actually, I would like to start off with financials. I see the banks in a very sweet spot. Balance sheets are in pristine condition. The interest rate cycle has troughed, which means margins for the banks have also bottomed and credit growth is finally accelerating. If this CapEx cycle unfolds like the way you are describing it, I think financials will stand to gain the most.And interestingly, the valuations are quite good, both on an absolute as well as on a relative basis. Also, of course, investors can go directly into those sectors which are doing this capital spend. Energy to start with, semiconductors, fertilizers, data centers and aerospace.The only thing to note here is that not everywhere are the valuations attractive enough because in some cases the market has recognized the coming growth cycle and has started to price that in. So we have to be careful about the valuations. But I think financials and industrials are clearly great opportunities in the context of this CapEx recovery that India is likely to see in the coming five years.Chetan Ahya: And additionally, the most requested companies at the summit, Ridham, were consumer sector companies. What do you think investors are looking for at this sector over others?Ridham Desai: So, Chetan, I think from a structural perspective, the Indian consumer is quite clearly the best place to be. In fact, I would say that it's the leverage that India enjoys over the rest of the world.The one point five billion people in this country are split across, say, a hundred and fifty cohorts of ten million each, and each of these cohorts have got different consumption opportunities. So depending on what product or service you're offering to your consumers, there's a market in India, and which in nominal terms is growing between ten and fifteen percent.As we know, last year India accounted for something around seventeen or eighteen percent of global GDP growth, which means depending again on what you are selling to your consumer, India could be between ten and hundred percent of your revenue growth. So India's consumer is something that hardly anybody can avoid.So in summary, Chetan, when I look at it from an investment opportunity, financials, industrials, and consumption, not necessarily in that particular order, are probably the best places for investors to look at. However, IT services, I think could be the dark horse. It's a sector right now which is disrupted or potentially disrupted by AI, and there's a lot of confusion there.But I think as the dust settles on this, it may emerge as one of the most interesting areas for investors to look at. So there's a lot of stuff in India happening right now. I think growth is accelerating. Valuations are looking quite interesting. In fact, the best that they've been in many, many years.Trading performance suggests that investors are not positioned at all. And if things start looking up, then India could be a very good market in the coming twelve months.Chetan Ahya: Ridham, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ridham Desai: Great speaking with you, ChetanChetan Ahya: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy our Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or a colleague today.

Morgan Stanley analysts Ravi Shanker and Jeff Adelson take a look at what the fight for affluent, loyal travelers could mean for banks and airlines. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Airlines analyst. Jeff Adelson: And I'm Jeff Adelson, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Consumer Finance analyst. Ravi Shanker: Today, who really owns your travel loyalty? The airline, the bank, the rewards platform, or you? It's Wednesday, June 10th at 7am in New York. Jeff Adelson: So, Ravi, you just came from your annual travel conference, and I'm about to head into the second day of Morgan Stanley's 17th Annual Financials Conference here in New York, where we're hosting roughly 135 corporates.A lot of themes are coming up there: retail engagement, product innovation, regulatory change, AI digital assets, capital markets recovery, and so on. All of these connect back to a bigger question. Who owns the customer relationship? Ravi Shanker: And that's exactly where travel co-branded cards come in. They sit at the crossroads of premium consumer spending, loyalty, and the competition for wallet share. They've become a more important revenue stream across travel, banking, and hospitality.But it's not as simple as more travel means more co-brand growth. Most customers still want flexibility, cashback, and low fees. Premium travelers and loyal airline customers behave differently. Let's start with the cardholder. Most consumers have a credit card, but travel co-branded cards are still a much smaller piece of the overall wallet. So, how big is the opportunity here, and how hard is it to get consumers to switch? Jeff Adelson: So, what's actually interesting, Ravi, is that travel co-branded cards are still relatively under-penetrated. In our survey, about 90 percent of cardholders have a general purpose card, while only about 22 percent have an airline card, and 12 percent have an hotel co-brand card. So, on the surface, the runway for growth does look significant. The upshot is also that once you get these consumers in the door, they are much higher spending and drive a ton of volume and incremental card economics for both the banks and their co-brand travel partners. The challenge is that consumers are pretty loyal to their cards or airlines that they already use, so most people aren't actively looking to switch. They tend to add a new card only when the value proposition is compelling enough. And sometimes given these one-time nature of the signup bonuses, it results in some churning without keeping the customer for the long term. So ultimately, what this all means is issuers and travel brands aren't just competing with each other, they're competing against habit. So, to win, they need to offer something that's meaningfully better than what's already in the consumer's wallet. Ravi Shanker: Got it. So, consumers seem to care most about value, fees, rates, and reward. Cashback still leads by a wide margin. So where do travel-specific rewards fit in? Jeff Adelson: The nuance here matters. Travel rewards don't need to win with everybody to be valuable. What makes them so powerful is they resonate with a specific group of customers, specifically the ones who are traveling – the frequent travelers, the ones who spend more, and those who engage more deeply with loyalty airline programs, for instance. For those consumers, lounge access, status benefits, upgrades, and airline or hotel points can create a level of engagement that's difficult for just a basic cashback card to replicate. The nuance here matters. Travel rewards don't need to win with everybody to be valuable. What makes them so powerful is they resonate with a specific group of customers, specifically the ones who are traveling – the frequent travelers, the ones who spend more, and those who engage more deeply with loyalty airline programs, for instance. For those consumers, lounge access, status benefits, upgrades, and airline or hotel points can create a level of engagement that's difficult for just a basic cashback card to replicate. Ravi Shanker: So, the premium consumer looks different. Why is that customer so important to card issuers? Jeff Adelson: So, higher income consumers frankly just spend a lot more. They're more loyal, they carry more cards, and they're more willing to pay a higher annual fee if they feel like they're getting the value from the card back after they pay that fee. In our survey, consumers earning over [$]150,000 per year of income spent roughly twice the amount on their primary card, and they were willing to pay almost twice the annual fee as other income cohorts. They're also attractive from a credit standpoint, from a, you know, delinquency perspective. These customers are more likely to pay their balances in full each month, and as a result, have lower credit risk. And often they keep long-standing relationships with their banks or their airline partner. That's why premium card and travel partnerships remain such an important customer acquisition tool for a bank. It has a really long lifetime value. The battle isn't really for the average card holder; it's for the affluent consumer who's driving a disproportionate share of spend in the U.S. economy.Ravi Shanker: Got it. So, the banks and travel brands are partners today. But they're also starting to potentially compete more directly for the same customer. What should investors watch to see whether this stays a partnership or becomes more of a tug-of-war? Jeff Adelson: So historically, this has been a successful partnership, especially in recent years as high-income consumer spending pie has grown in the U.S. How this works is airlines provide loyalty and travel experiences. Banks provide the card issuance, distribution scale, and share back those card economics to the airlines. Everybody wins when the travel spend grows. But we're starting to see some things overlap. Banks are building their own premium travel ecosystems. That includes things like flexible rewards points with the ability to transfer to any airline you want, proprietary lounges away from the airlines, and travel benefits that increasingly compete with airline loyalty programs. So, what investors should watch from here, in our view, are two things. Number one, is the high-income consumer and the travel pie continuing to grow? That's really what's held everything up and frankly, driven the airlines that you cover to realize that they hold this golden ticket. They hold the access to that consumer, so they've begun negotiating for more of the economics away from the card issuers. The second thing we think that you need to watch out for is whether consumers really continue to value these airline-specific rewards enough to justify the existing partnership model. Our survey indicated that most consumers still prefer flexible rewards over points tied to a single airline. But among frequent travelers and airline loyalists, the airline ecosystem does remain powerful. So, the future does seem to depend in part on whether these travel brands can continue to deliver on experiences that the consumers really can't get elsewhere. So, Ravi, maybe switching to you. For the airlines, the question I have for you is a little different. How do you turn loyalty into a durable, profitable revenue stream without losing sight of the core travel product? Ravi Shanker: That's exactly it. Kind of you referenced the strength of the travel ecosystem in your previous response, and I think that's exactly what the airlines need to focus on. I think the takeaways for the airlines from the survey is very clear. You cannot have a co-brand revenue opportunity in isolation. It is just a layer on top of your core revenues. You cannot build an incredible loyalty or co-brand franchise without having a very strong core airline product. The analogy we use in our report is that it's sort of like the restaurant business.Most restaurants usually make the bulk of their profitability off of the wine menu or the liquor menu, even though you're going there primarily for the food and the ambiance and the service. If you don't have really good food and ambiance and service, you can't make money off of the wine menu. Similarly, we think the airlines need to continue to focus on their core product, whether it's their network or their reliability, their safety, where they fly, the quality of the product in the sky, the lounges, as you mentioned. And once you get all of that in order, then you can tap into the co-brand revenue opportunity over time. Jeff Adelson: So maybe just running with that analogy on, you know, co-branded revenues becoming a more meaningful part of the airline business. Why are they so strategically important in your view? Why should the consumer pay for that bottle of wine that they can get? Ravi Shanker: Look, we, we don't have a full disclosure from the airlines just yet, but we have some nuggets that tell you that this is a very attractive revenue opportunity, right? So, look at some of the numbers we do have. We think that this business has been growing at a low double-digit CAGR for the industry, which is much faster than core revenue growth. We think it has already grown to be about low double-digit percentage of overall revenues. And from the little info we have, we can surmise that this is a very, very profitable business. Something in the order of 35-50 percent operating margins, if not much higher than that in an industry that is overall working really hard to get to double-digit margins on a core basis. So, this business can be about half of overall mid-cycle profitability, maybe even higher for some of the airlines, even though, it is considered to be an ancillary revenue stream. This is also a very, very stable business that doesn't exhibit the kind of cyclicality or volatility as the core passenger airline business. And so, we think the airlines will be looking to grow this for the margins, for the stability, and for the, honestly, growth opportunity over time. Jeff Adelson: And if we think about that opportunity growing over time, if consumers really do care more about tangible benefits than brand prestige, as I think our survey indicated, what does that mean for the airlines trying to build that loyalty through these card partnerships?Ravi Shanker: It's exactly as you mentioned, kind of, earlier – that we think both the banks and the airlines need to keep investing in the product. They need to keep giving the consumers enough rewards that make it seem worth the fees and worth the while to subscribe to a travel co-brand card – versus going with a more generic card that gives you just plain cash back. And I think, again, it comes down to whether the core airline product is strong enough for the consumer to warrant going down the path of building loyalty with the airline franchise. And if the consumer is committed to travel, as a share of the consumer's wallet significantly enough to commit to travel cards' benefits over generic benefits. We have a lot of confidence in the latter. In that all of our data, all of our surveys since the pandemic have shown that travel is now almost a consumer staple spending item rather than being a consumer discretionary spending item that it was before. And travel is now a significant spending priority – after only groceries and household staples for the average consumer. For the high-end consumer, it is the number one spending intent category. So, we know that travel is very important. Whether the airline is worth, kind of, committing to or not is very airline specific in our view.Jeff Adelson: So, if we put this all together and, you know, you think about your forecast for the industry and, you know, our joint forecast for the co-branded card revenues… Ravi Shanker: Mm-hmm. Jeff Adelson: Maybe just talk a little bit about how you think those revenues keep growing so strongly, or whether they continue to grow strongly. Or is there a risk that this all plateaus at some point in the near future? Ravi Shanker: Look, that's a great question, and that's why we highlight three possible scenarios in the report. In our base case, we have the industry growing at roughly the same double-digit CAGR that it has been for the last few years. That sees the market go from about $25 billion today to about [$]60 billion in the next 10 years. In our bull case, we have travel as a share of overall spending, and travel cards as a percentage of overall credit card issuance, which you highlighted earlier was a pretty low number, actually expand to something more reasonable. And that's where we see the potential for the market almost quadrupling from $25 billion today to [$]100 billion in the next 10 years. And our bear case, kind of that's when you talk about a macro risk. Second, maybe some kind of slowing down in travel as a spending priority, which we actually don't think happens. But what's more likely is the point you referenced earlier, in response to my question about the relationship between the airlines and the hotel companies versus the credit card issuers may be changing a little bit. And this becoming a little more of a free-for-all in the industry and a little more competitive. That could potentially, kind of, hurt the economics for the overall industry, even though the size of the pie will continue to grow. So that brings us back to the consumer's wallet. So, every time I'm on a trip, I have several options – maybe a cashback card, maybe a premium travel card, maybe an airliner hotel co-brand card. So, which one am I reaching for every time I look to swipe? Jeff Adelson: Well, I mean, I think at its core, it really depends. It's a battle at the end of the day for the loyalty of a high quality, sticky and heavy spending consumer. And consumers are largely rational, right? So, they're going to go with a card where they think they get the best value. And if that's their airline card where they think they can accrue the best loyalty status and maybe get their first class upgrade every now and then and get unlimited access to the lounges, maybe they'll choose that. But really in a survey what we learned was most consumers tell us they care about value, flexibility and rewards. So, the highest value consumers I just mentioned are also looking for experiences, convenience and status. So that's why the banks, airlines and hotels are all investing so aggressively in these premium ecosystems to try to lock them in and keep them loyal. Every swipe is really a vote for which ecosystem delivers the most value if you think about it, right? The winner isn't necessarily the company with the best card too. It's the company that creates so much of the strongest overall relationship with the consumer. And that's why this competition matters so much across banking, travel and hospitality. So, we are watching this competition. So far, it's working. It's a rising tide that's lifting all boats. But as I mentioned before, it really will only continue to work if our forecasts are right and the high-income consumer views this as less of a discretionary spend item and more of a stable spend item. And, if that pie, and the high-income consumer, continues to grow in the U.S., then this relationship can continue to work for the foreseeable future, we think. Ravi Shanker: That makes a ton of sense. Jeff, thanks so much for joining me on the show today. Jeff Adelson: Thanks, Ravi. It was my pleasure. Ravi Shanker: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts and share with a friend or colleague today.

The Head of our Europe and Asia Technology Team, Shawn Kim, explains how AI’s appetite for memory chips is boosting the cost of everything from data centers to smartphones, with consequences that may reach far beyond the tech industry.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Shawn Kim: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Europe and Asia Technology Team. Today, we’re talking about chipflation – when memory chips stop getting cheaper over time, and become more expensive and even harder to find. It’s Monday, June 8th, at 3pm in London.Memory chips are easy to ignore, until your laptop slows down, your phone costs more, or your cloud bill jumps. Memory is the computer’s workspace. It holds whatever the machine needs at that moment, whether that is a web search, a video, a spreadsheet, or an AI model answering a question. DRAM is the fast memory inside servers, PCs and phones. NAND is what stores files in solid-state drives. And HBM, or high bandwidth memory, is the high-performance version sitting right next to the AI chip, helping them move huge amounts of data quickly. That last one – HBM – is key because AI has become intensely memory hungry. Memory prices have risen more than six-fold over the last year, a sharp break from decades when the cost of DRAM generally kept falling. The pressure is coming from AI infrastructure buildouts. We see servers accounting for 59 percent of DRAM demand by 2028, up from 37 percent in 2023. We also see enterprise solid-state drives reaching 65 percent of NAND demand, up from 18 percent. And simply put, data centers are taking a much bigger share of the memory pie. AI memory use is climbing fast, and at every scale. A newer AI chip uses 7.2 times more HBM than earlier generations. A full system uses about 65 times more. Across an entire AI data center buildout, the jump gets even bigger. HBM has gone from roughly 10 terabytes in 2020 to about 18 petabytes in 2026, orders of magnitude more. This demand is running into a supply chain that cannot respond quickly. New memory capacity takes years to build, qualify and ramp up. Supply relief is a process, not a switch. And that creates a two-tier market. Large AI and cloud buyers can sign long-term agreements, prepay and secure priority access. Traditional buyers, including PC makers, smartphone makers and industrial hardware companies, must compete for what remains. This impacts everyday products. In 2027, we see PC memory demand potentially facing a 15 percent shortfall, equivalent to about 58 million PCs. Smartphones could face a 12 percent shortfall, equivalent to about 134 million units. Companies may have to raise prices, cut specifications, delay launches, and accept lower profits. The dollar numbers are striking. We see the memory market growing from about $220 USD billion in 2025 to about $890 billion in 2026. Expectations for 2026 memory revenue rose 71 percent in just three months. That implies roughly $600 USD billion of incremental memory revenue in 2026, more than the annual market for smartphones, PCs, or servers, each taken on its own. The broader economy may not see a significant direct inflation shock. We estimate the direct impact on headline CPI at about 0.1 percent in 2026. But pressure is showing up in producer prices, in corporate margins, cloud costs, capital spending plans and delayed technology upgrades. AI has turned memory from the cheapest part of the digital economy into one of its most contested resources. These tiny chips most people never think of may now decide what gets built or delayed, and how much we all end up paying. 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 Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses why the restart of oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz may be slower and tighter than the market expects.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Today – how fast can Middle East production return?It is Thursday, June the 4th, at 3pm in London.Every time you pull into a gas station, those prices are staring back at you. What you see at the pump is just the front end of a global system we’ve been watching for months: tankers, storage, insurance, and shipping lanes, all still constrained by the Strait of Hormuz. But while prices at the pump are still high, Brent has actually fallen back to around about $92 a barrel.In inflation-adjusted terms, today’s Brent price is actually right at the 50th percentile of the last 20 years – suggesting that the market is assuming a clean, near-term recovery in supply. Yet the disruption continues to be extraordinary. Roughly 11 million barrels per day of Gulf crude remains offline, close to half the region’s pre-conflict output.We think the market may be too optimistic. Our working assumption is now that meaningful export recovery through the strait begins only in the second half of July. Even then, normal does not return with the flip of a switch.First, ships need to be willing to sail. Owners and insurers need confidence that the waterway is safe. If mines remain in traditional shipping lanes, the strait can be technically open but still operate at reduced capacity. Clearing that risk can take weeks, and potentially several months.Second, the tanker fleet is in the wrong place. When ships cannot work in the Gulf, they move elsewhere. Bringing enough empty tankers back to lift crude takes time.Third, storage is a limiting factor. Oilfields cannot restart if export tanks are full. For producers that rely heavily on seaborne exports, empty tankers are therefore essential.Last, oilfields themselves need restarting. Before the closure, around 36,000 wells were active across six Gulf producers. Roughly 10,000 of those are currently offline. After a shut-in of nearly five months, about 4,000 to 5,000 wells could face restart constraints. Reservoir pressure can decline, equipment can fail after sitting idle, and flowlines need cleaning and safety checks.All told, around 75 percent of lost supply can probably come back within four months after flows through the Strait of Hormuz resume. But the final 25 percent may take well into 2027.So why have prices not moved more? The market began this shock with buffers. Inventories were elevated, oil-on-water was high, and emergency relief releases helped. The U.S. increased seaborne net exports of crude oil and refined products from roughly 5 million barrels a day to 9 million barrels a day. At the same time, China’s seaborne net oil imports fell from around 13 million barrels a day a year ago to just over 7.5 million a day over the last 30 days.But these cushions are thinning. Strategic reserve releases are scheduled to drop from about 2.5 million barrels per day in April through June to about 0.7 million in July and August. U.S. gasoline and diesel inventories are already well below five-year seasonal lows. China is already on track for five consecutive months of unusually low crude buying for April through August delivery. But that starts to raise the probability that Chinese buyers return for September barrels. Buying for September typically starts mid to late June.Now, oil is trading like the disruption is nearly over. But at the same time, the physical system is telling a slower story. Prices may look calm on the screen, but the bottleneck is in tankers, storage tanks, wells, and crews.Our Brent forecasts remain $110 per barrel for the second quarter and about $100 a barrel for the third quarter. We recently raised our estimates for the fourth quarter to $95 and the first quarter of 2027 to $85 a barrel, and expect a return to $80 eventually thereafter.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets takes a closer look at potential investment paths when markets appear increasingly synchronized around a few macro themes.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, how to square a market that is both highly correlated, and highly divergent, at the same time. It’s Tuesday, June 2nd, at 3pm London. A market of one. That may be a way that you hear investing described these days, and strictly speaking, it's accurate. Stocks and bonds, the two big asset classes that form the bulk of most investors' portfolios, are moving in unusual lockstep. Stocks are rising when yields fall, and vice versa, with the most consistency in over 20 years. And both, perhaps unsurprisingly, are moving in close relationship with the price of oil. At this point, it all seems pretty clear. The Iran conflict is a big deal for markets, representing the largest disruption to global energy supply in history. Of course, stocks and bonds, and oil are all moving together based on the perception of how this enormous issue resolves. In doing so, they suggest that the conflict still remains quite important, even as markets appear quite strong. Just as we can measure the extent to which stocks, bonds, and commodity prices move together, we can also track how individual stocks move relative to each other. And so, are stocks also rising and falling together like we see with these big asset classes? No. In fact, without exaggeration, it is the complete opposite. There are a few ways to measure how the individual stocks within, say, the S&P 500, are moving relative to one another. But all of them say the same thing. Day to day, stocks are moving with unusual dispersion and independence. At the same time that the relationship between stocks and bonds is the tightest in over 20 years, the relationship between stocks within the S&P 500 – to each other – is the lowest. If Iran is the factor driving the tight linkage that we discussed between stocks and bonds, Artificial Intelligence may be the culprit behind the opposite effect when we get down into individual companies. The perception that some companies will be incredible beneficiaries of AI, while others will be left behind, would explain at least part of the divergent performance. And so would an attention gap; with so much focus and positioning in AI sensitive names, other parts of the market can quickly feel forgotten, and thus move more independently. Indeed, while the S&P 500 is back near all-time highs, the market’s advance-decline line, a measure of how many stocks are going up versus going down, is lower than where it was in late February or mid-April. We see a few implications to all of this. First, while stocks and bonds are closely linked for the moment, we think that this correlation would flip under more significant energy market stress. Were the price of oil to spike to our Commodity team’s bear case, of $130-$150/bbl, we think yields would start to fall as the market would turn more concerned about the effect of all of this on growth. So, while the diversification of bonds has been disappointing so far, we do think that it will improve and materialize when it really matters. In equities, this dispersion means that stock selection can allow one to stand out from the overall market. Indeed if one considers themselves a stock picker, low correlation between stocks is exactly the market that you would hope to have. And it also means that many individual names may not be as heady as the broad market levels would imply. As discussed on this program recently, my colleague Mike Wilson and our U.S. Equity Strategy team expects U.S. stock performance to broaden out from here. 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. Also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Commercial real estate debt is now one of the market’s most avoided asset classes. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains why there may be an opportunity to invest in those securities.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, why commercial real estate debt could be overlooked and undervalued. It's Friday, May 29th at 2pm in London. Bond yields have risen this year, and it's attracting strong flows into fixed income markets. The problem is that all of that demand is narrowing the risk premium that one receives. Spreads on U.S. mortgage bonds are richer than 89 percent of observations over the last 20 years. Spreads on the U.S. high yield market, well, they're richer than 96 percent of the time. And spreads on U.S. investment grade, it's 99 percent. We live in a world where the risk premium on most bonds is very low versus history, but there are exceptions. One is debt backed by commercial mortgages or so-called CMBS. Spreads here, notably and unusually, are significantly higher than the long run average. It is a market that we like. Commercial property is largely comprised of lending against office buildings, apartments, retail complexes, and industrial sites like warehouses. The first three have faced major challenges over the last five years. Office values have slumped as investors feared more people working from home. Apartments have suffered from significant supply in building, conceived in a low-rate world as this has come online. And retail has faced long-run concern about the trend of more online shopping. And the rise of interest rates, well, that's loomed over everything. A building, in a lot of ways, is a lot like a bond, promising a dependable stream of rents over time. When an investor can get that stream of cash flows from the bond market, commercial property prices must adjust lower to remain competitive. These challenges are material, but they are also not new. Indeed, investors may recall that fears around commercial property peaked way back in early 2023 following significant rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. Back then, there were widespread fears that commercial property weakness would ricochet back and threaten the banking system. Three years later, those worst fears have not been realized. And while defaults and restructurings have happened, overall commercial property fundamentals are beginning to pick back up. Commercial property transaction volumes increased 27 percent in the U.S. in the first quarter relative to a year prior; and prices are rising, up about 5 percent over the same period. The amount of commercial real estate debt being originated is up about 40 percent over the last year – a sign that lenders are coming back. And the number of commercial deals that are becoming distressed and unable to pay their bills, they just saw their first quarterly decline since all of those problems in early 2023. Part of this recovery in the commercial real estate market may be explained by U.S. growth, which continues to be resilient, and some of it mirrors other cycles. When rates rose and commercial lending markets weakened, the construction of new properties really slowed down. It takes several years to build a building, and so it's only now that the impact of everything that was not built is starting to be felt. With less supply coming online, the value of existing property is better supported, especially relative to the more elevated risk premiums on offer for its debt. 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.

As AI changes the video game industry, Matt Cost, from Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Internet team, takes us through the game play and what could drive the next level of engagement.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Matt Cost, from Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Internet team. Today – how new AI tools are reshaping the video game industry. It’s Wednesday, May 27th, at 10am in New York. We’ve all done it at some point. You think you’ll open your phone for just a few minutes. But end up in a game, a match, or a virtual world for much longer than you planned. Now, that window of attention is at the heart of one of the biggest battles in entertainment. Americans over 15 years old spend about 22 minutes per day playing games – that’s more than they spend socializing, playing sports, or reading. And the next big shift in gaming may stem from who gets to create games and how they do it. We expect consumers to spend more than $275 billion on video games in 2026. And the industry is reinvesting over $50 billion of that into game development and operations. But AI could cut that by nearly half. Today, making a major game is expensive, slow, and labor-intensive. A typical AAA title – the gaming equivalent of a studio blockbuster – can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take four years to build. More than 90 percent of that cost is people: so that’s developers, designers, artists, writers and many more. But AI could change that math. New tools could increase productivity multiple times over, helping smaller teams do more in less time. Even after accounting for AI compute and asset-generation expense, we think that cost savings could exceed 40 percent. That’s over $100 million per game project. Across the industry, that could generate savings of roughly $22 billion. But that money won’t just go straight to profits. Increased competition may erode those savings. And studios might put more money into marketing in response. So, AI could still meaningfully shift value across the gaming ecosystem.The positives are clear. AI can speed up coding, asset creation, testing, and many other processes that are manual today. That’ll let studios spend less time on repetitive work and more time on higher-value creative tasks. But it’s tough for newcomers to level up. AI does open the door for new players, but we think the industry looks more insulated from near-term disruption than the market fears – especially for companies with strong IP and advantages in live operations, data, and distribution. AI can help generate worlds, characters, and digital assets, but great gameplay is harder. Gameplay is the feel, the challenge, the feedback, and the fun. Models still struggle to measure that, let alone deliver it consistently. Live operations are another moat for established gaming companies. Many successful games don’t end at launch. Teams run them for years through updates, events, and passionate communities. That skill is hard to copy. And often it determines whether a game becomes a lasting franchise or fades quickly. So gradual integration of AI looks more likely than overnight replacement. Finally, the largest opportunity may still be on the horizon. Beyond lowering the cost of making today’s games, AI could unlock entirely new types of interactive experiences that didn’t exist until now. And the game industry has been through this process before, when new technologies like smartphones changed games forever. But ultimately, the prize is still the same: building something that people can’t stop playing.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The conclusion of our two-part episode from Morgan Stanley and MUFG’s Japan Summit looks at structural shifts in Japan’s economy and Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s strategic growth agenda.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. This is Part 2 of our podcast from the Japan Summit.It’s Friday, May 22nd at 8 am in Tokyo.I might stick with equities for just a minute, and Sho, just to dig deeper into the equity market. Jonathan expressed some of the bullishness. Anything you want to elaborate on where the real strong conviction on this positive view about Japanese equities is coming from?And then just as a warning, I'm going to come back to you and ask, if you're wrong, where could you be wrong? Because again, I think where we add value most to clients is not just giving a clear view, but also pressure testing that view.Sho Nakazawa: Our constructive view on Japan equities comes down to one simple point. Three structural changes are still continuing. So, the first is shifting macro environment. The combination of stable inflation and wage growth is a kind of phenomenon we have not seen, at least in my lifetime. It changes corporates and households’ behavior, especially in terms of balance sheet management.And then secondly, the corporates profit improvements. We do not see it as a cyclical recovery. We see it as a structural change. As in the past, Japan corporates heavily relied on cost-cutting amid a deflationary environment. But today, price pass-through is improving, and the Japan corporates are becoming better positioned in growth profit in nominal growth environment.The third is corporate governance reform. Awareness of the capital efficiency has clearly increased. We continue to see share buybacks, dividends increase, and a portfolio restructuring as well. And on top of that, the Takaichi administration has made growth investment and crisis management investment as well.Of course, the Middle East situation is a source of noise. But structurally is a supporting factor for Japan equities secular bear market, which is a view Jonathan has held for very long time, has actually becoming stronger.But let me say that if I'm wrong, maybe I should be more bullish. In fact, the two key drivers here, if we assess the bear case scenario on Japan equities…So, one key driver should be the upside come from the investors constructive view on the Japan fiscal efficiency. And on a micro level, the corporate behavior changing faster than market expects. If we assess the recent rise in long-term yields, it reflect the concern to the Japan fiscal position and that BoJ behind the curve.It would weigh on the Japan equity valuation because it raises cost of capital and it weighs on the Japan equity valuation. But on the other hand, [the] Japanese government will disclose its basic policy in June. And if it could include a credible plan to improve Japan’s fiscal positions, perhaps under Japan version of DOGE, which is led by Financial Minister Katayama-san, I think it could alleviate the excessive concern toward the Japan's fiscal position, and it [could] lower the cost of capital on Japan equities.You know, micro level, the corporates behavior is already changing, as I mentioned. But there's still plenty, you know, space for Japan corporates to utilize non-cash generating assets such as cash and deposit, which is equivalent to 60 percent of GDP. The ratio is far higher than our global peers.So, if Japan corporates move further to capital efficiency or portfolio restructuring or use some excess capital, I think there should be additional room for Japan equity market to re-rate higher.Seth Carpenter: All right. So, if you're wrong, it's insufficient bullishness. That’s a great place to be.So, so Koichi, Jonathan and Sho are bullish on equities. And so, do you expect big shift in capital flows, and would that drive further appreciation of the currency? How do you think about the global investors' view of Japan? And what it means for capital flows on the one hand, and the value of the currency on the other?Koichi Sugisaki: As for the capital flows, I think under this fresh regime, what's the notable change among the Japanese financials? That they are shifting away from the fixed income product, I mean, like JGBs.Given the current attractive yields, you maybe wonder[ing] why the banking sectors buy the JGBs. But according to the recent disclosures, they have not purchased the JGBs much because their lending activity performed very well. So, as far as their lending activity have performed well, they have no incentive to make money in the securities investment.You know, their lending activity have accelerated thanks to the corporate CapEx investment to improve the productivity amidst the labor shortages in Japan. Once the banking sector starts to see some slowdown or some symptom of the lending activity to slow down, in such a case, they are quickly shifted to the securities investment and the JGB market will change the world.But so far, you know, lending growth [has] accelerated much. You know, the April lending growth is around 6 percent on the year-on-year basis, very strong. So, I think the banking sector still not have a[n] incentive to buy the JGBs.As for the lifers, [the] case is much more serious, I think. Because of the younger ages shifting towards the equities to defend the asset, particularly under the new NISA scheme [which] was launched in 2024. The younger peoples basically allocate their asset to the equities rather than the saving type of the products.Which means that the lifers are struggling to make, to gather the new monies. And this means that the demand for the long-term JGB to shrink. And the Japan lifers already filled the duration this much by 2023 to prepare for the new regulations starting from this fiscal year. Now, fortunately, they already finished the duration this much, this type of operation by 2023. But the yield [has] gone up from 2024, thanks to the BoJ's normalization.So, under such conditions, they are now struggling to the high market loss on the long-term JGBs. And some of lifers are now facing the impairment loss accounting. That actually [makes] lifers a net seller of the long-term JGBs rather than the buyers.Seth Carpenter: Okay, super helpful. Okay, we focused a lot on near-term developments, the energy shock, first quarter GDP. But we can think about a longer-term growth scenario. And there, I think AI comes in at times. Chetan, you've talked about the near-term super cycle, and I think there's a near-term aggregate demand side to AI, but over the longer term, maybe it's more supply.When I think about where growth is going, though, I also think about shifts in the strategy for policy. So maybe Yamaguchi-san, you can talk to me a bit on your take of Prime Minister Takaichi's policies. What do we think is likely to get announced? When? How do you see it affecting the long-term growth outlook for Japan?Takeshi Yamaguchi: [The] Japanese government publishes growth strategy report and the basic policy on fiscal management or honebuto policy in June every year. But I think this year's, you know, documents will be pretty important because these are the first documents under the Takaichi administration.And these documents will set the direction of economic policy by Takaichi-san, Sanae Takaichi. Or Sanae-nomics. Compared with Abenomics, I think Takaichi-san focuses more on the supply side issues, you know, supply domestic investment. While Abenomics focused more on the exit from deflation, focusing on demand side policy, particularly, you know, monetary easing.In the growth strategy report, the focus will be strategic investment in 17 strategic areas, including AI, especially, you know, AI robotics, semiconductors, defense and space, cybersecurity, and content industry and so on.Another important point of Sanaeconomic system, there's overlap between these strategic investment areas and national securities. The government will also update its defense strategy by the end of this year, and there'll be a increase in the defense budget target. The focus will be a lot on, you know, I think, dual use technologies, and also resilience of supply chains going ahead.Another important point is, I think there will be a change in the budget formation process. I think, under deflation there’s effectively cap on non-social security spending. But I think this government will likely allocate budget, you know, for multi-investment. So, I think the budget process will be more flexible. And they put more emphasis on the initial budget rather than the supplementary budget.So, I think, these documents will be pretty important to monitor going ahead. But overall, I think, the government – yes, they do care about the market conditions. They will likely avoid massive, you know, expansion. But I think a slight expansion, especially in the area of strategic investment is likely to happen.Seth Carpenter: Very helpful. Alright, that's the end of the panel. Thank you very much to my colleagues. And this is where I have to shift back into podcast mode to say thank you for listening. And if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please share it with a colleague or friend today. Thank you very much, everybody.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and Chief UK Economist Bruna Skarica discuss why they see a more constructive UK outlook than markets do, despite energy, fiscal and political risks.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. Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's Chief UK Economist. Andrew Sheets: Today, the debate around growth and debt in the United Kingdom. It's Wednesday, May 20th at 2pm in London. Bruna, I'm so glad you could join us today because I actually really did want to talk about what's going on here in the United Kingdom. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the country where you hear some of the strongest divergence of opinions. Pessimists point to political uncertainty, vulnerability to oil prices from the Strait of Hormuz, and rising bond yields. And yet, UK growth this year has been pretty good. Inflation is set to come down, and the currency's been pretty stable, hardly the stuff of big instability. So, Bruna, I was hoping you could help us set the scene. Let's start with how you see the economy. Bruna Skarica: I actually think your framing is perfect. For the past five years, there has been a striking divergence of opinion on the UK, which I do think mimics to a degree some of the divisions on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. The question really is – has the country underwent structural changes in the past decade of supply-side shocks such that its potential growth is very low, perhaps as low as 1 percent on the year. And has the inflationary process shifted in such a way that, for example, we need much higher jobless rate in order to generate enough economic slack to get inflation down to 2 percent? Or the other question is, has the UK just had a unique string of external shocks amplified perhaps by domestic policy choices, which mean that we have seen a prolonged period of low growth and high inflation – but again, without major structural changes. We are in the more constructive structural camp. I actually think that's probably Morgan Stanley's biggest out of consensus call in the UK. In recent years in particular, we have seen quite robust CapEx. And last year, actually very healthy private sector productivity gains. When you adjust for accurate labor market data, UK's private sector productivity growth is just under 2 percent as of the end of 2025, actually not too far off from the U.S. But for these good structural trends to persist and continue to improve, we do need a more supportive cyclical environment. And there, unfortunately, given the rise in oil prices, it's hard to be overly constructive about growth and inflation in the UK this year. We've downgraded our growth forecasts to around 1 percent over [20]26 and [20]27, and we have lifted our inflation projections by around 150 basis points at their peak to a peak of around 3.5 percent later in the year. Andrew Sheets: So, Bruna, how much does the price of oil or the price of natural gas matter for this outlook, especially as the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively shut? Bruna Skarica: It does matter a fair bit. We use Morgan Stanley's commodity team's forecasts in our own scenario analyses for the UK economy. Now, their base case still sees a gentle decline in oil prices this year, which leads to outcomes I've already mentioned. The activity flatlines from the second quarter, we have a rise in inflation from April onwards, but we don't have a recession. However, if we fail to see any movement lower in oil, and as you rightly pointed out, natural gas prices as well; or if we even saw a move higher over the summer, we do think that risks of a recession would be quite pronounced in the second half of the year. UK consumers are already in for a year of flat real disposable income growth. Higher prices of food and energy than in our base case could result in even lower discretionary spending growth than what we're already modeling. And if the Bank of England had to hike rates in this inflationary scenario, we think they would act twice in this kind of a scenario. We also have these tight financial conditions which would weigh on household spending. Andrew Sheets: So, Bruna, I think that's a great segue into that out-of-consensus call that we have on the Bank of England. You know, the market is expecting the Bank of England to raise interest rates. We think that they'll be on hold. And if you take a step back, it's a view that, kind of, puts the UK and the Bank of England a little bit between the Federal Reserve, which we think is going to be lowering rates over the next twelve months modestly, and the European Central Bank, which we think will raise rates in the near term. Could you talk a bit more about why you think it will remain on hold? And why you differ from what the market's seeing? Bruna Skarica: Yeah, absolutely. So, in our base case, the one where we do see a bit of a decline in oil and gas prices over the course of this year, we think the Bank of England remains on hold. It's important to remember that they were about to cut rates, prior to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. So, there is a bit of restrictiveness there in the starting stance, which we think can just be maintained for a longer period of time than would've otherwise been the case. And so, for the Bank of England to avoid having to tighten rates. Now, with respect to the market, I think it's fair to say that the market price is a probability-weighted outcome, where there is some chance, a non-negligible one, that the Bank of England will have to hike rates aggressively if oil prices were to rise from here. To give you a bit of clarity here, bank's own analyses suggests that in a scenario where oil prices were to rise towards $130 per barrel and stay there for a few months, the bank could hike rates by four times. Now, it's interesting that in this scenario, the bank actually doesn't forecast a recession. Now, we think that in the case of such elevated commodity prices, as I've already mentioned, we would certainly see high inflation, potentially as high as 6 percent, but also recessionary impulses. So, even in the scenario of elevated oil prices, we think the bank could only deliver around two hikes. And so, this kind of probability-weighted outcome that we have, which differs a little bit from our model case, even that is actually fairly lower than what the market is pricing. So, I think that's maybe one of the main differences that we have versus the market. The market is expecting a repeat of 2022, so elevated inflation with growth just about holding on. We disagree that's possible because there's far less scope for a fiscal response to shield growth from an inflationary external shock. Andrew Sheets: But Bruna, maybe I'll take even a bigger step back here because to borrow a British phrase, it almost seems like some of these debates over oil prices are kind of small beer compared to these two big questions around the UK. Which are, you know, concerns over a lack of productivity growth and concerns that the UK economy is just, kind of, poorly positioned over the long term – especially in the wake of Brexit and concern over the fiscal situation. And this idea that, well, government debt is historically high for the UK, concern that that will continue. And I think it’s no exaggeration to say that when you talk to investors about the UK, those are often, kind of, two of the big questions that hang over the debate. So, your brief thoughts on both of those issues. And again, where you think the market might be potentially surprised? Bruna Skarica: So, one of the most interesting things when I talk to clients is when I mention some of these statistics around measured cyclical productivity growth last year, they're often very, very surprised. And we do think it's more important to talk about this because there is evidence, I would say nascent evidence, that UK is benefiting from the AI tailwind. We are seeing more CapEx adoption. We are seeing slower hiring, but more resilient growth, which, as I say, results in cyclical productivity growth that looks very robust, especially in UK's historical context. In the last ten years, of course, UK's productivity growth has been very lackluster. So, over the course of this year, I think that's actually my primary focus to see how much of this uplift in productivity last year is cyclical and perhaps will dissipate over 2026 with the slowdown in growth. And how much of it was actually structural. Now, in terms of the fiscal question, you know, one thing that's interesting to mention is the UK is, per IMF calculations, in the middle of the most severe fiscal consolidation amongst its G7 peers. Medium-term fiscal plans deliver a decline in deficit to below 2 percent of GDP by 2030. Again, this is hard to square with gilt yields where they currently stand. So, it's fair to say that the market is just more focused on the risks of delivery. For example, departmental spending settlements look challenging to deliver. Ministry of Defense is looking for a [£]30 billion top-up to its budgets. Labor backbenchers have recently come out seeking for a bit more capital expenditure. Political volatility is high. We are actually quite confident around our 2026 fiscal forecasts. We're looking for a deficit at 4 percent. But when it comes to 2027, I think it's fair to say that risks here really depend on the political trajectory with risks skewed, I think, towards a slightly higher deficit than around 3.5 percent, which we have in our base case. Andrew Sheets: But Bruna, just to be very direct, is it fair to say that for investors who are very concerned about productivity growth in the UK, you'd argue that that actually could be a bit better than people are expecting as capital deepens? And that for investors afraid of the fiscal trajectory, that actually could be one of the best fiscal trajectories In the G7? Bruna Skarica: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, one of our recent outlook titles was “Everything is Relative,” and that's exactly the point that we always try to make with the UK. It seems like it has a lot of idiosyncratic fiscal problems, but I would say a lot of its fiscal challenges are very similar to other DM countries – demographic aging, slowing in potential GDP growth. And when it comes to productivity growth, I’m not trying to argue that we're likely to see UK's potential GDP growth in excess of 2 percent anytime soon. However, we do think that the picture is actually much better in terms of productivity growth than perhaps what the average market participants think is the case. Andrew Sheets: Finally, Bruna, just a word on politics. I'm mindful that we have a global audience. And for those less steeped in the latest UK news, what's been happening? And what are the developments that investors are watching out for? Bruna Skarica: Yeah, absolutely. So, we had local elections in the UK in early May, and they delivered quite sizable losses for the governing Labour Party. Since then, a number of Labour MPs, Members of Parliament, just under 100 of them, called on Prime Minister Starmer to resign. Now, challenging a Labour leader and a prime minister in this case is not an easy process to trigger.However, Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is now looking to enter the House of Commons. He will be contesting a by-election, most likely on June 18th. I would say that's the key date to watch out for from here. Andy Burnham has previously said UK politicians should be less focused on the bond market, but perhaps it's worth reiterating. More recently, he said he supports the current fiscal rules, which of course require debt-to-GDP ratio to be on the declining trajectory over the next five years. Now, Andrew, for you, what stands out in the pricing of the UK story? Andrew Sheets: Well, Bruna, I really think this is the country where across everything that we look at, there's the biggest gap, I think, between kind of conventional wisdom and what we at Morgan Stanley are forecasting.The market's conventional wisdom is that productivity growth is going to be very weak and very bad. That's not what you see in the numbers and is in our forecast. The market thinks the government finances are very weak. As you mentioned, relative to the G7, they're on a pretty good trajectory and at a pretty good level. And I think this is also a market where you have some interesting risk premium. I mean, again, we talk a lot in this podcast about how little risk premium there is in a lot of different asset classes. That's not the case in the UK. The government bond market, in our view, is offering a lot of risk premium to take on the risk of owning the government debt. And, you know, one example of that is, you know, you look at what interest rate is implied on a UK 10-year government bond 10 years from now. It's implying that yield is 6.6 percent. That's a very high yield, especially if you think that growth is going to be weak in this country. So, I think it's a really interesting macro story. It's one certainly where we at Morgan Stanley differ, and where there's some risk premium on offer. So, I'm so glad you could join us today to dig into it in more detail. Bruna Skarica: Absolutely. Thank you so much for the invite. Andrew Sheets: And 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 Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research Betsy Graseck explains how digital assets could reshape market infrastructure and how money moves, without overthrowing wholesale banking.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research.Today, we are looking out to 2030 to estimate what we expect the impact of digital assets could be on global wholesale banking.It's Monday, May 18th at 3:30 PM in New York.We live in a world where money can move instantly. A payment or transfer can happen in a matter of minutes, if not seconds, in real time. But much of the financial system runs on older networks for moving cash and securities. These networks are what the industry calls rails. We expect clients will be looking for faster settlement across global banking services, driving the industry to adopt digital asset rails over the next decade.We see three key drivers pushing this today. Number one, market support is out there for fintechs, which is increasing their competitiveness. Number two, global legislation and regulation is clarifying requirements for enabling digital asset services led by the U.S. with the Genius Act in 2025, and with the forward motion being made on the Clarity Act in 2026. The third driver of digital asset transformation is that exchanges are extending hours and moving towards offering 24/7 capabilities over the next several years.Now, we expect digital assets will have two major impacts on global wholesale banks. First, as banks lean into servicing crypto assets, we see the potential for an additional $1.5 [billion] to $8 billion in revenues in 2030, which adds up to 1 percent to our global wholesale banks revenue forecast of $770 billion in 2030.Second, impact on global wholesale banks is a risk. There is risk when money is in motion, and money could be set in motion as clients migrate revenues from traditional asset rails to digital asset rails. We anticipate this could impact $21 billion to $82 billion of revenues in 2030, primarily in cross-border payments, liquidity management, collateral management, businesses.Now, while this transformation is likely to impact the industry over the next decade as more services go digital, we expect several catalysts in the second half will focus investor attention on these changes now. What are those catalysts? Number one, Clarity Act. The Clarity Act passing Congress would open up the door for wholesale banks to service crypto asset class more holistically.Second catalyst, the DTCC, which is a major infrastructure player for securities markets in the U.S. The DTCC will be adding tokenized products in the fall of 2026. And then lastly, Nasdaq and NYSE are planning to extend trading hours on December 6th, 2026, to 23 hours by five days a week.Now, what should investors make of all of this? Number one critical to understand how the investments that you have today are positioned for this transformation. Are managements protecting their strengths by developing capabilities for an ecosystem increasingly run on digital rails?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 Chief Economist and Head of Macro Strategy Seth Carpenter gives his midyear outlook, highlighting why AI investment and U.S. consumers remain key growth engines amid energy shocks.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. Today, I want to talk about our mid-year outlook that was just published. It's Thursday, May 14th at 10am in New York. Oil, AI, and the consumer now sit at the center of our global economic outlook. With AI and the consumer driving economic momentum in the U.S., the key question is whether the energy shock stays manageable or changes the path for inflation, central banks, and recession risks. We have had and maintain a fundamentally constructive view on global growth, but the energy shock brings unusually high uncertainty. It boosts inflation, it weighs on growth, and it widens the range of outcomes. We forecast global real GDP growth at 3.2 percent in 2026 and 3.4 percent in 2027. That is relative to about 3.5 percent in 2025. So, in our baseline, growth slows modestly this year and then stabilizes and recovers. Writing a forecast is always hard but knowing what to assume about oil prices is even harder than ever now. Our base case assumes that crude returns to about $90 a barrel by the end of this year and declines further in 2027. If, and I do mean if, that happens, the global economy can likely absorb the shock. But if the current situation persists and we do not see a normalization of shipments of oil, it could spell recession. That scenario probably sees oil prices surge through $150 a barrel, but more importantly, we could shift from a price shock to a volume shock. The big risk is physical shortages and supply chain disruptions because it's not just energy, it's also petrochemical inputs to manufacturing and other items. Higher prices slow activity; shortages can stop it. Exposure to the energy shock differs sharply across regions. Among the major economies, China looks the least exposed. Europe is the most exposed, and the U.S. sits in between. China built up substantial stockpiles of oil, and part of why the global oil market has not seen higher oil prices so far is that China has cut back on those imports dramatically. Europe, on the other hand, typically faces faster energy passthrough, meaning energy prices show up much more quickly in household bills, business costs, and ultimately inflation. And Europe is a net importer of energy, so the consideration goes beyond oil to include natural gas. The U.S. is a net exporter of petroleum products, but U.S. consumers will feel the pinch at the gas pump. But even with that in mind, U.S. growth continues to support global growth, thanks largely to strong AI-related capital spending and consumer spending that's being buoyed by the top end of the wealth distribution. We expect that momentum to continue and then ultimately to broaden out. And so we forecast U.S. real GDP growth at about 2.25 in 2026 but rising to about 2.5 percent in 2027. Both of those are up from the 2.1 percent we saw last year. And AI CapEx sits at the center of this U.S. outlook. It includes data centers, power infrastructure, information processing equipment, software. Over time, we think this investment momentum is part of what allows a broadening out of business investment beyond AI. That said, the energy shock has triggered global inflation. We're looking for global headline inflation to rise notably almost to 3 percent in 2026 before coming back off in 2027. But while oil and gas prices are pushing headline inflation higher, the pass-through to core, depending on the economy, seems to remain mostly limited. By 2027, we look for those effects to fade. And combined with somewhat slower growth this year, underlying inflation should soften again. As inflation risks have moved higher, though, central banks have generally become less accommodative. We expect the Fed to now stay on hold all the way through 2026, and then if inflation really does come down, to be able to cut twice in the first half of 2027. We're looking for the ECB to hike twice this year as it grapples with this energy-led inflation, but then reverse course next year in 2027. The Bank of Japan, which had already been hiking policy, probably is set to continue that gradual hiking path. Looking forward to the second half of this year though, global growth still does have a foundation, and the U.S. is a big part of that. AI investment and consumer spending are all what's driving the economy for now. But the energy outlook will determine how bumpy that path gets. Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our U.S. Healthcare Analyst Erin Wright discusses how health tracking and preventive diagnostics could influence healthcare costs and different industries, from fitness to retail.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Erin Wright, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Healthcare Services Analyst. Today – the emergence of the self-directed patient and its implications. It’s Tuesday, May 12th at 10am in New York. A blood test ordered from your phone. A wearable that tracks your sleep or nudges you to move, recover, hydrate, or rethink last night’s dinner. Preventive health is moving out of the clinic and into everyday life. And that shift is becoming an investable theme. In essence, healthcare is moving from reactive to proactive. Instead of waiting for symptoms, more consumers are using lab tests, wearables, imaging, and digital tools to spot some these risks earlier. And this shift reaches well beyond healthcare. On our estimates, the U.S. spends about [$]3.4 trillion annually on chronic diseases, including lost economic productivity. About [$]1.4 trillion of 2024 spend was tied to preventable disease. So the big investment question is: can earlier detection and behavior change bend the cost curve? We think expanded preventive testing, screening, and monitoring can help avoid roughly [$]200 billion to [$]800 billion of U.S. healthcare spend by 2050. That assumes preventive testing reduces preventable disease costs by about 10% to 30% based on our analysis. Direct-to-consumer lab testing lets people order lab tests directly, often online, without starting with a traditional doctor visit. We see this as a roughly $4 billion U.S. market, which has more than doubled since 2021. And it’s no longer niche. Our AlphaWise survey found that about 34% of respondents completed a voluntary wellness lab test in the past three years. Among users, the average was 3.2 tests, suggesting this is not just a one-time behavior. The most common test was a general health profile, used by about 45 percent of recent testers. Wearables are the other part of the story. Our survey found that 41 percent of respondents currently use a wearable or fitness device, while another 22 percent are interested in getting one. More importantly, people are acting on the data. 34 percent of wearable users today regularly change behaviors or decisions based on their device, and 52 percent even sometimes do so, based on our survey. That creates a feedback loop. A wearable might flag poor sleep. A lab test might show elevated glucose. A digital health tool might suggest changes to diet or exercise, or follow-up care. Over time, prevention starts to feel less like an annual event and more like a daily habit. The sector implications are broad. In healthcare, more testing may initially actually increase utilization as people follow up on results. But over time, earlier detection could obviously support lower-cost of care and better chronic disease management. That also aligns with value-based care, where providers and payers are rewarded for better outcomes and lower total costs, not just simply more services. In consumer sectors, better health tracking could shape food choices, reduce demand for some indulgent categories, and support products tied to hydration, lower sugar, protein, and functional benefits. Fitness may also benefit as gyms evolve from just workout destinations into broader wellness platforms, with recovery and coaching, and preventive health services layered in. Imaging is another emerging area, as screening shifts from reactive diagnostics toward earlier disease detection. Of course, there is some risk that these health tracking and consumer-driven diagnostics trends could still prove to be a wellness craze rather than the new normal. Out-of-pocket costs, privacy concerns, inconsistent interpretations, and limited repeat testing are all real issues. But consumers are clearly taking more control of their health and increasingly asking, “What can I learn before I get sick?” 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.

As real estate values reset and cap rates widen, net lease is back in focus—but the approach has changed. Ron Kamdem and Hank D’Alessandro explain.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ron Kamdem: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, Head of U.S. REITs and Commercial Real Estate Research. Hank D'Alessandro: And I'm Hank D’Alessandro, Managing Director on Morgan Stanley's Real Estate Investing Team and Vice Chairman of Private Credit. Ron Kamdem: Today: a part of real estate that's changing fast and drawing fresh attention from investors. Net lease investing. It's Friday, May 8th at 10am in New York. You might not think you invest in net leases. But there's a good chance you do, especially if you have money in a pension fund or another income generating vehicle. Net leases are the kinds of long-term lease assets that can help generate steady, predictable income. They are no longer a sleepy corner of the real estate market. In fact, they're changing in some really interesting ways. Ron Kamdem: So, Hank, for listeners who know the term but may not know the structure, what exactly is net lease investing? And why does it tend to come up more often when markets get more uncertain? Hank D'Alessandro:   At a high level, net lease investing is typically associated with long-term leases that can offer durable income streams; typically growing streams, which is why it's often seen as a more defensive part of real estate investing. We see that when investors are thinking more carefully about geopolitical risks, market volatility or say portfolio resilience, this durable cash flow derived from mission critical assets and long lease durations with fixed annual rent bumps can become especially attractive to investors. Also, with higher inflation likely, net leases are generally insulated from increases in expenses given these are the responsibility of tenants. But what's important today is the net lease is broader than many people realize, both in terms of the property types involved and the range of investors participating in the space. Ron Kamdem:   Let's stay on that idea of a broader market for a moment, because one of the biggest shifts has been the growing role of private capital in the space. What are you seeing there and why does it matter? Hank D'Alessandro: Well, listen, Ron, there's no question. The role of private capital has grown substantially, including through joint ventures and public real estate vehicles. That matters because it tells you that the sector is attracting a wider range of investors than it has in the past, such as pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds. And retail investors are increasingly investing either through traditional locked up funds or through semi-liquid funds. But it can also change the competitive landscape and can influence how capital gets allocated across the opportunity set. Thus, one's approach going forward from an analysis perspective will need to evolve. More broadly, it's a sign that net lease is being viewed as highly relevant in today's market, not just as a legacy category within real estate. Ron Kamdem: And that's an important distinction that you make right there, because not all investors are approaching these assets the same way. So, when private capital comes into the space, what separates their underwriting approach from another? And we hear all the time about private credit. How does that play into this? Hank D'Alessandro: Well, Ron, you know, as we discussed previously, the competitive landscape is changing and therefore underwriting is absolutely critical in this part of the cycle. And so, we believe underwriting both tenant credit, of course, is very important. But we equally analyze the real estate underwriting because we believe that real estate can be a real differentiator over time – both in terms of returns and risk profile. We think that strong real estate underwriting with strong tenant credit underwriting, both enhances returns over time and reduces risks. So, therefore, that matters a lot. We also believe that by focusing equally on the real estate underwriting, you get a fuller picture of the risk and value, especially as net lease expands into newer property types. It is an easy nuance to miss, but we believe this distinction is becoming much more important differentiator in how investors assess opportunities in the sector today. And I believe that the most successful managers will do a good job underwriting both tenant credit and real estate.So, Ron, for a long time, many investors thought of net lease primarily as a retail story. How much has that changed? Ron Kamdem: Well, that's changed quite a bit. If I take you back 20 to 30 years ago when you thought of net lease, you thought of a convenience store that's, you know, 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. But today, that opportunity has expanded well beyond retail and there's much more attention now on industrial assets. And even increasing discussions around areas like data centers. I'll give you an example. Realty income made its entry into the data center vertical in November 2023 with a $200 million build to suit JV. That shift matters because it shows net lease evolving alongside where demand and capital are moving. It also means the sector is becoming more connected to larger structural trends in the economy, rather than being viewed through one traditional lens. At the same time as the mix broadened, investors have to be selective because not every new category will have the same long-term profile that we're used to.So, as investors look at some of these newer areas, where do you see the best opportunities, Hank? And where would you be more cautious? Hank D'Alessandro:  So first, opportunities. The industrial segment has clearly become a major area of focus. This sector benefits from growing e-commerce penetration fueled by AI, reshoring of manufacturing, and increased defense spending. The ability to acquire mission critical distribution centers in top tier logistics markets or advanced manufacturing assets in innovation clusters is particularly appealing in today's macro backdrop. Another area that we find very compelling is medical outpatient buildings where the aging demographics can support long-term demand. So, we have great conviction on both of those. Now, turning to area where we're more cautious. There's been a lot of attention on data centers, you know, as you previously mentioned. But that's an area where investors really need to think carefully about long-term durability. Questions around obsolescence, technological change and whether certain assets fit a true buy and hold strategy are very relevant and need to be considered carefully by investors. So, maybe to sum up, the opportunity set is definitely broadening, but selectivity in terms of location, asset type and asset specifications remain essential. So, Ron, the idea of linking property types back to long-term trends feels especially important right now. How do you connect this conversation to the key secular themes Morgan Stanley research is tracking this year. AI and tech diffusion. The future of energy, the multipolar world, and societal impacts. And can you offer a few examples? Ron Kamdem:   There's a couple ways that net lease connects to these broader themes. The first, which is probably the most obvious, is technology diffusion and the future of energy comes through in areas such as datacenters, and that's been a key focus for public investors. When you think about societal change – that's relevant for sectors tied to demographics like medical outpatient buildings, where you know people go get different services. And multipolar world theme matters because deglobalization and geopolitical fragmentation. Or influencing how investors think about resilience, location, and portfolio construction, which is driving incremental demand for industrial real estate linked to supply chain shifts and defense spending. So, this is no longer just a sector evolving on its own, it's becoming more closely tied to these macro issues, shaping investment decisions more broadly. And once you widen the lens to that macro backdrop, the conversation naturally becomes more global. In fact, we saw realty income now generates 19 percent of rents across nine European countries with more than $15 billion invested since 2019. Given this, Hank, how should investors think about net lease and adjacent opportunities outside of the U.S.? Hank D'Alessandro:   The global angle is clearly becoming more relevant. There's growing interest in Europe and the U.K. And one area that comes to mind in this context is retail parks, where rents have reset, yields are wider, and tenant resilience has improved. Thinking more broadly, international markets can give investors a wider set of ways to think about real estate opportunities tied to the same themes that we've discussed. And add to diversification, as macro drivers continue to diverge and geopolitical risks remain elevated. Even when structures or sector exposures differ from the U.S., which undoubtedly they will, the bigger point is that investors are increasingly valuing opportunities through a global lens. Ron Kamdem: So, if we pull all this together, what looks like a simple-income oriented category is actually becoming much more nuanced. As we wrap up, Hank, what's the main message you want investors to take away about net lease today? Hank D'Alessandro: You know, I believe the main takeaway is that net lease remains relevant because of its defensive qualities, and predictable contractual cash flows derived from long-term leases. But the story is becoming more nuanced, requiring a granular focus on the credit, and importantly, the underlying real estate. With real estate values down 20 to 25 percent from peak levels, replacement cost has elevated, which is keeping supply muted and net lease cap rates wide relative to the last 10 years. This is a very attractive entry point for investors. Private capital is playing a bigger role, no question. The asset mix is shifting beyond retail, towards areas like industrial. Investors are actively debating the long-term role of newer categories such as advanced manufacturing and data centers. There are selective opportunities to think more globally, which is exciting. Ron Kamdem: Great. That's very helpful. Hank, thanks for taking the time to talk. Hank D'Alessandro: Great speaking with you, Ron. Ron Kamdem: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.