Thoughts on the Market

U.S. mortgage rates are hovering around their highest levels in three years. Morgan Stanley Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan examine the forces keeping homeowners locked in and buyers priced out of the housing market.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Jim, [we’re] getting a lot of questions about mortgage rates. We've been flying across the country talking to people. Are your arms tired?James Egan: I'm hoping that all the extra flapping will give them just a little bit more definition so we can show them off as we talk about adjustable-rate mortgages.Jay Bacow: And that is the definition of an ARM. Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan StanleyJay Bacow: Today, we're here to talk about mortgage rates: how quickly they've moved, why they're here, where they might go, and what it means for the mortgage and housing market.It's Thursday, October 8th, at 9am in New York.Jim, as of this recording, the 10-year is over 5.3 percent. Rates haven't closed this high since 2002. The 30-year mortgage rate is around 7.5 percent. It’s about 150 basis points up since the beginning of February.James Egan: Right. There have been quick moves in rates that has led to quick moves in mortgage rates. There are a lot of implications to that – from affordability, the housing market, mortgage market.But when we think about the relationship between mortgage rates and interest rates, Jay, there's also a feedback mechanism there. Convexity hedging is what it's typically called.Can you discuss the role that that might have played in this current episode? And what we should expect going forward?Jay Bacow: Sure. So, the biggest driver of mortgage rates is Treasury rates. And Treasury rates are driven by a number of factors, and right now most people would point to inflation expectations and geopolitical concerns.However, as Treasury rates go higher, homeowners that currently have a mortgage are less likely to move. And because they're less likely to move, that means that the average life of those mortgages that investors own gets longer.And because mortgage investors typically want to keep their duration profile constant – as the average life of those mortgages gets longer, they are then going to need to either sell those mortgages or sell Treasuries, which will cause yields to go even higher.And there's a bit of a feedback loop on that, which can pressure yields and mortgage rates even higher.But what we would say is, at this point, we don't think there's a huge mechanism of that going through at this rate level. The average mortgage rate that homeowners have in America is almost exactly 4.5 percent. Obviously, they're less likely to move as rates go up. But they're 300 basis points out of the money.So, from that point, it matters. But it didn't matter as much as when rates were a little lower. However, Jim, 7.5 percent mortgage rate – what does this do for housing affordability? Can you put that in context?James Egan: Yeah. So, if we just think about this in terms of what a 7.5 percent mortgage rate implies for the monthly payment on the median-priced home, we are now up over $325 dollars if we use that 7.5 percent – assuming home prices are where they are today, incomes are where they are today.That monthly payment's up over $325 from where we are at local lows in February; or where we were at local lows in February. That's a 17 percent increase, in terms of that monthly payment over just a seven-month period.Jay Bacow: Alright, so, 17 percent increase over a seven-month period, that's kind of scary.But as you and I have talked about in the past, given the fixed rate nature of the U.S. mortgage market, it's a tad misleading for the average homeowner in America.So, what does this do to sales? Obviously, it's scary for new homeowners, though.James Egan: Right. Look, you brought up the implications from a duration perspective, a convexity hedging perspective. All of this is just how the lock-in effect continues to have material implications for the housing market, for mortgage markets.But yes, these affordability issues – not that bad for homeowners who have an average rate below 4.5 percent. That's not changing. Over 90 percent of the balance or count of mortgages, depending on how you want to look at it, in the United States remains fixed rate. Their payments aren't changing, right?But the marginal home buyer, things are getting less affordable. I don't like to use the term demand destruction. I think that sounds a little bit too over the top here. But like we are seeing some of our higher frequency or more leading indicator demand metrics show a little bit of softening here.Pending home sales, past two months, 3 to 5 percent down year-over-year. Purchase applications, which had been very strong, in September, they were down about 10 percent year-over-year. So, look, we were seeing a little bit of demand increases this year. We were up about 2 percent year-to-date through July.It's a small increase off of a very, very low base. But we think you're going to see with rates at these levels, if we maintain these levels, is effectively the probability or any real ability of the market to escape to the upside from an activity perspective? That probability keeps coming down. And we're going to be stuck in this turnover, very range-bound, lowest level of sales as a percentage of the housing market in 40 years.Jay Bacow: So really low activity, what does that do to prices? Is there some flow through? Is there relief coming?James Egan: Look, as demand softens, the kind of first-order expectation or the heuristic should be that prices should soften as well. But again, lock-in effect; what we've actually seen is the rate of growth for existing listings at these levels has slowed. And it's slowed pretty materially.That's actually led to home price appreciation accelerating over the past few months. We've gone from just 0.7 or 0.8 percent four months ago to 1.9 percent for the data that we just received. We think that that level is kind of sustainable here, and we're going to be between like roughly 2 percent, give or take, for the remainder of this year.Now, you and I have both been mentioning the lock-in effect throughout the course of this. Yes, an overwhelming majority of the market is fixed rate right now. But the media, our conversations with clients, there's been a lot of discussion of potentially a growing share of adjustable-rate mortgages to kind of help the marginal homeowner with affordability.What are we seeing in ARMs right now?Jay Bacow: Okay. Yeah, so great question, and we are seeing a pickup in ARM issuance. If we look at the percentage of mortgages that were ARMs through the first half of this year and compare them to the percentage of ARMs in the first half of last year, it's increased by about 1 percent on aggregate issuance. It's went from about a little over 15 percent to a little over 16 percent.And so, 1 percent increase is not a huge number by itself, but when we're talking about a little over $2 trillion of expected issuance in the course of the year across the entire mortgage market, this does help on the margin. And we do think, as we said in the past, that more uptake of ARMs would likely be a little bit of a positive solution to some of the affordability challenges.But Jim, if people take out more ARMs, recognizing that most people only have two arms, should we be worrying about a repeat of the financial crisis and lending standards?James Egan: So, this is a question that we get a lot when we start talking about moving away from fixed-rate mortgages. And the point that I want to stress; that we want to stress here, is not all ARMs are created equal…Jay Bacow: Mine are stronger than yours?James Egan: Sure, we'll go with that. But also, if we control for borrower characteristics, right? Credit scores, loan-to-value ratios, debt-to-income ratios, right? And then we compare performance of adjustable-rate mortgages to fixed-rate mortgages, 7-1 ARMs, 10-1 ARMs, they perform very much like fixed-rate mortgages.It's really the short-reset ARMs, what we'll call affordability products. So, they only have 24-month or 36-month fixed periods. Those are what have historically showed a much higher rate of default and something that would get us a little bit more concerned about lending standards if those were the products we're talking about.Thankfully, they're not right now. The ARM growth that we're seeing is in the 5-1, 7-1, 10-1 space. Those have historically, again, controlling for borrower performance, performed like fixed-rate mortgages. And so, we think that you can expand mortgage product into ARMs and do it responsibly.Jay Bacow: All right. Jim, always a pleasure speaking with you.James Egan: And always great speaking to you too, Jay. And to all of our regular listeners out there, thank you for adding us to your playlist. Let us know what you think wherever you get this podcast, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.

Our Japan Financials Analyst Mia Nagasaka explains why a once-in-30-year investment cycle could transform corporate financing and open a new chapter for Japanese banks.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mia Nagasaka, Head of Japan Financials Research at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities. Today – a once-in-30-year investment cycle is changing how investors think about Japanese banks.It’s Tuesday, October 6th, at 10am in Tokyo. For decades, Japanese companies had more cash than investment opportunities. But now it's changing. This marks a new chapter for Japanese banks. The first stage of recovery was largely about interest rates. As Japan moved away from negative rates, higher lending yields helped bank margins and earnings.This next stage is about growth in the banking business itself, driven by companies investing more and needing more external capital. In fact, we think Japan is entering its first meaningful capex cycle in nearly three decades. Investment needs are broadening, from labor-saving technology to the replacement of aging equipment. Companies are also becoming more active in reallocating capital toward businesses where they see stronger returns.For banks, the most direct opportunity is lending. We expect Japan’s domestic loan market to grow from about 588 trillion yen, or roughly 3.7 trillion U.S. dollars, in the fiscal year ending March 2026 to roughly 712 trillion yen, or about 4.5 trillion dollars, by March 2031. Loan growth could run at around 5 percent annually early in the investment cycle, then settle at about 3 to 4 percent. And the financing opportunity extends beyond loans. Take Japan’s debt capital markets, where companies raise money by issuing bonds. We expect them to grow from about 52 trillion yen, or roughly 331billion dollars, to 63 trillion yen, or about 401 billion dollars, by March 2031. We also forecast the M&A market to rise from 23 trillion yen, or roughly 146 billion dollars, to 32 trillion yen, or about 204 billion dollars, over the same period. Large projects often need several forms of financing, so lending can open the door to underwriting and advisory fees as well. This gives banks more ways to generate earnings. In the early phase, banks can benefit mainly from lending and project finance. As projects mature, fee-based businesses such as capital markets and M&A can contribute more. This makes the opportunity look less like a short-lived lending boom and more like a multi-stage financing cycle.The key measure to watch is return on equity, which shows how effectively a bank turns shareholder capital into profit. Japan’s megabanks are currently generating ROEs of roughly 10 to 11 percent. We see a path toward around 15 percent over the medium term. Structural growth in corporate financing demand alone could add about 1 to 1.5 percentage points.So, the bigger story is not simply that rates have risen. Japan may be moving from an economy defined by excess savings and underinvestment toward one where companies need capital to grow. If that transition continues, banks could have substantially more productive opportunities to deploy their balance sheets.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 examines what rising rates could mean for equity valuations, earnings and investor appetite.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, thinking about equity resilience in the face of rising bond yields. It's Friday, October 2nd at 2pm in London. The benchmark U.S. 10-year Treasury yield has risen about 100 basis points this year. Global equities, at the same time, are up about 13 percent. And those two facts sit in an uncomfortable tension. After all, higher bond yields give investors better return options elsewhere, and they also make future corporate profits worth less today, which in theory should push stock prices lower.But there's a wrinkle here. That valuation theory actually has two moving parts. What we're referring to here is what we would call a dividend discount model or a Gordon Growth Model, where the value of a company today is worth the value of its dividends divided by the difference of its required rate of return and its growth rate. The higher the required rate of return, which interest rates push up, hurts a stock valuation. It increases the denominator. But a higher growth rate, well, that works in the opposite direction. That decreases the denominator. It makes the company worth more. Hopefully, this is intuitive. if a company has to meet a higher return hurdle, it will be worth less today. If a company's growing faster, all else equal, it's worth more. And that, we think, goes a long way to actually explain what's going on in markets today. Because corporate profits are growing quickly. Over the last year, profits for the S&P 500 are up about 30 percent, and the earnings growth for the median company, well, that's still up in the mid-teens. Growth in Europe, Asia, and emerging markets have also been historically strong. Indeed, if you'd told me on January 1st that the S&P 500 would be up about 13 percent, and at the same time, U.S. Treasury yields would be up about 100 basis points, I probably would have told you with reasonable confidence that stocks would look more expensive relative to bonds. But they don't. The valuation of the equity market, the P/E ratio, has fallen significantly as yields have risen. But because earnings have risen so much more, stocks are still higher. And the so-called equity risk premium, the difference between the earnings yield and the bond yield, it's pretty stable year to date. Now there's another way that higher yields could hurt the stock market. They could simply cause people to sell their stocks and buy those higher yielding bonds. But so far, we're not seeing evidence of that. The flows that we track continue to show money flowing into both stocks and bonds. And the two markets are moving in the same direction day to day. They're showing positive correlation, which is not the outcome you'd expect if people were shifting money from one to the other. There's also an interesting way that companies have a say in this debate. Investors every day look at the market and decide if these yields are high enough that they want to buy them. But companies look at the same yield and say, "Is this low enough that we would want to sell?" And so especially for the companies that are funding the AI build-out – these large technology companies with so much AI spending to do. Many of them, even at these higher yields, are still saying these are attractive levels to issue at. And are more attractive than, say, issuing more stock. The other factor that's always important to keep in mind whenever we're debating long-term valuation questions between stocks and bonds, or really any asset class, is that valuation is a slow-moving force. It is often not terribly predictive of the next six or even 12 months. Indeed, if we think about the difference between the earnings yield on the equity market, the inverse of the P/E ratio, and what the bond market yields, that difference. Well, that difference only explains about 10 percent of returns between stocks and bonds over the next month. Now, valuation is more powerful the longer you give it. And so, extend that horizon out over the next three years and that valuation gap between bonds and equities, well, explains about half the three-year outcome. Markets are not equations that are solved once a quarter. They are ongoing arguments about the future. And when growth is strong, investors are simply more willing to give growth and that future potential the benefit of the doubt. We think this goes a long way to helping to explain the equity market's resilience despite Treasury yields moving well above five percent. But it's also raising the bar. Higher yields simply leave less room for earnings disappointment. Those profits need to keep growing quickly. 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 investors look toward the U.S. midterm elections, the biggest question is what could change. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore outlines the signals worth watching. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. It's Wednesday, September 30th, at 10am in New York. As the elections inch closer, investors are increasingly asking about potential ramifications. We just put out a deep dive covering our expectations, and we arrive at four key takeaways. The first, midterms are unlikely to change the core executive-led policy agenda. As we've been noting for some time, a lot of the policy uncertainty that markets have dealt with since the beginning of 2025 has actually come from the executive branch rather than Congress. Tariffs, trade policy, deregulation, immigration, and export controls are all variables that are going to remain within the White House's authority. So even if control of Congress changes, we don't think investors should assume that those parts of the policy agenda simply go away. Where Congress actually matters more is on fiscal policy. But even there, the range of outcomes is relatively narrow. The main differences revolve around the timing of scheduled SNAP and Medicaid cuts, defense spending, and how future government funding and debt limit negotiations evolve. So, that's our first takeaway. Midterms can change the mechanics of governing, but probably not the broader direction of the executive agenda. That means policy uncertainty, at least across those vectors I mentioned, is likely to stay high. Takeaway number two, we'd be careful about treating the midterms as a direct signal for the 2028 presidential election. Historically, what we see is the issues that dominate a midterm don't necessarily translate to the next presidential race. Looking at the six midterm-to-presidential cycles since 1994, the top-ranked issue changed in five of them. And the issue that ultimately proved decisive in the presidential election was actually already visible at the midterm in only two of the six cases. What elections can tell us, however, is where some of the policy fault lines are beginning to form. We're watching four debates in particular in that context: the fiscal and Social Security debate, individual tax landscape, restrictions on data center development, and healthcare. In our view, across those variables, the useful signal isn't simply which party wins more seats. It's which versions of these policies are beginning to gain traction with voters and within the parties themselves. That actually brings us to takeaway number three. AI is one area where the midterms could matter, but mainly through data center policy rather than broad AI regulation. We think it's important to separate those two issues. So first, on data centers, we do see midterms as a catalyst. And that's because many of the most important policy levers sit at the state and local level: permitting, siting, grid interconnection, large load electricity rates, and tax incentives. So that means that the governorships, utility commissions, and state legislatures can actually have a much more immediate effect on the pace and the location of the build-out than Congress itself. In that vein, our base case remains a conditional build-out, meaning the expected level of AI CapEx can continue. But likely it's going to increasingly concentrate in locations where developers can address concerns around things like electricity costs, infrastructure, water, and community impacts. Broader AI safety regulation is different. Here, we think government configuration actually matters less, and that's because we see comprehensive federal legislation as pretty unlikely in the near term, absent a high salience event or incident. So congressional control is not necessarily the key driver. And finally, takeaway number four: for markets, we see more micro implications than macro ones. For equities, the composition and cohesion of the congressional majority can matter for individual sectors. Congress that's able to negotiate changes to scheduled SNAP or Medicaid cuts, for example, could have implications for consumer and healthcare companies. AI related sectors could also respond to changes in expectations and sentiment pertaining to data center restrictions. For rates, the key question is whether the election produces fiscal outcomes that materially change expected deficits. United Republican control would be the only outcome preserving reconciliation as a potential vehicle. Divided government, conversely, would narrow the scope for new legislation and put more emphasis on funding and debt limit negotiations. And for the dollar, our strategists see the transmission mechanism running primarily through U.S. yields and the growth outlook rather than the election itself. So, bottom line, we don't think the 2026 midterms are likely to produce a wholesale change in the policy or macro backdrop. But there will be important lessons to pick up along the way. 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.

Fewer companies have been driving equity market gains in 2026. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at what investors should make of the narrowing rally as the year enters its final stretch. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the Market’s Bad Breadth.It's Monday, September 28th at 11:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.The market is up this year. That's the good news. But over the last six weeks, I've been watching something that’s giving me pause. This rally has been carried by a shrinking group of stocks.More than half of the Russell 3000 is at least 20 percent below its June highs and the S&P 500 forward multiple has fallen to 19 times, close to a new low for the year. Meanwhile, earnings growth is still running in the mid-teens for the median stock and revisions breadth is approaching cycle highs for the S&P 500. That is not complacency. It is a market that has already done a lot of work to price higher energy costs, a tighter Fed, AI disruption, questions around returns on capital, and geopolitical risk. Last week on the podcast, I noted that this is classic mid-cycle behavior. Earnings are absorbing lower valuations, and quality is taking the baton from the early-cycle winners. Groups that have led powerfully from the rolling-recession trough have been among the weakest areas recently: Autos, Semis, and short-cycle Industrials. That is what tends to happen when the cycle matures and the Fed turns less friendly. The market stops paying for high beta. And starts rewarding free cash flow, stable margins, operating efficiency, and earnings that are still being revised higher. That is why I continue to favor large-cap quality, particularly asset-light, services-oriented, and fee-based businesses.Having said that, there is still one problem to resolve. Breadth improved through most of the summer even as crude and yields moved higher. The deterioration came after Jackson Hole. That’s when markets began discounting a more hawkish Fed reaction function. The percentage of S&P 500 stocks above their 200-day moving average fell from roughly 75 percent to below 50 percent, while the index held up much better. That divergence cannot persist forever. Either breadth catches up to price, or the index comes down to meet breadth. If bond volatility does not settle down soon, it could spill over into equity vol and we would see the S&P 500 price come down about 5 or 10 percent.  Frankly, I would welcome it. A final index-level correction is often how a multi-month correction beneath the surface ends.There has been a lot of focus on the Fed’s recent pivot to rate hikes. However, the two-year yield is already above the level implied by the Fed’s projections. To me this suggests the bond market has been leaning too hawkish in the near term. The bigger uncertainty is how the new Fed Chairman approaches liquidity and the balance sheet. He is more of a monetarist than his predecessors, and markets are still trying to understand what that means in practice. My expectation is that the Fed ultimately provides liquidity if financial conditions tighten too far. But markets may test that resolve first. Bond volatility, funding stress, and whether equity volatility follows are the key signals. If those pressures ease, breadth can catch up and drive the market higher. If they do not, the index probably has more correcting to do.There is also a new, constructive story developing for investors: AI adoption is moving from promise to practice. Companies with higher AI adoption are seeing stronger margins and earnings trends, but consensus still assumes many of those benefits fade in the out-years. We think that’s too conservative. Productivity gains tend to compound, not immediately disappear. Earnings momentum is broadening from enablers to adopters, while adopter valuations have reset to more attractive levels. That supports a barbell approach – own select enablers where earnings durability justifies the premium, but increasingly own adopters where improving fundamentals are not yet fully reflected in expectations.Bottom line, the market is not ignoring risk. It has priced the risks through lower valuations, weaker breadth, and major leadership rotations. What remains unresolved is the gap between a resilient index and a much weaker average stock. The answer is that we probably see breadth improve and the index level come in before a surge to new all time highs. That’s why, I still want to overweight large-cap quality, but use October weakness to add to riskier stocks. The market may need one more uncomfortable adjustment. But that may be exactly what sets up a stronger finish to the year. I will be here to guide you.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Diesel is at the center of an international supply squeeze, with prices rising to historic highs. Andrew Sheets and Martijn Rats unpack why this industrial fuel matters far beyond the pump.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. Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: Today, the secret life of diesel and why there's so much attention on it. It's Thursday, September 24th at 2pm in London. Diesel is a fuel that I think a lot of investors may be aware of but not familiar with, so to speak. It's often the other price that you see when you're driving down the road. But Martijn, it's incredibly important for the industrial side of the economy and unusually disrupted by current geopolitical events. And so, I'd like to really start at the top, or technically the middle of the barrel, so to speak. What is diesel and what makes it so special? Martijn Rats: Yeah. When people talk about diesel at the moment, they really talk about sort of three things combined. They talk about outright diesel, as well as jet fuel and also heating oil. These are effectively part of the same pool of molecules coming out of the refinery. And so, when you look at that sort of pool of molecules, you talk about the things that fuel trucks, trains, ships, tractors in agriculture, excavators, generators, home heating. It is a molecule that has a tremendously broad range of applications. It's really the fuel of the industrial economy. One of the characteristics of diesel is that it has very high energy density. In contrast to, say, gasoline, electrifying the uses of diesel is harder because it carries so much punch. Andrew Sheets: And why has there been so much on diesel recently, given the current energy disruption in these geopolitical events? Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, the global refining system normally processes about 85 million barrels a day of crude oil and from that, it makes a range of products. Diesel is at the heart of it. But it's only one of many. At the moment, we are short in terms of refinery runs, i.e., the amount of crude that refineries process to the extent of about somewhere between 4 to 5 million barrels a day. So, 4 to 5 million barrels a day on a base of 85, you're talking about 5 to 6 percent. That may not sound like a lot, but in the world of commodities, where prices really depend on relatively small changes, that is actually a very large amount. That sort of 4 or 5 million barrels a day of refineries that are currently not running, they are fifty-fifty, either in the Middle East or in Russia. In the Middle East, it is a story of the Strait of Hormuz and refineries locked behind the strait, and they can't export their products. Some of them are also damaged, although information on that is hard to find. And then the other half that is out is in Russia, where they are effectively taken out by Ukrainian drone attacks. In total, that's sort of 4 to 5 million barrels a day of refining capacity that is not running. 40 percent of their output would typically be diesel, so we are missing something like 1.5 million barrels a day of global diesel supply, all into the seaborne market. Now, I mentioned the seaborne market because the seaborne market is the traded market where traders buy and sell cargoes to each other. And that is where, from a physical market perspective, price formation takes place. The global seaborne diesel market is an 8 million barrel a day market. And so given that all of the supply we're missing is also into the seaborne market, the comparison to make is to say that we're missing about, sort of, close to 1.5 million barrels out of an 8 million barrel a day traded… Andrew Sheets: A pretty large percentage, yeah. Martijn Rats: Absolutely. That is very, very large, and that is hard to offset. Every other refinery around the world that can run is running flat out. The margins are all-time highs. So, there's a lot of incentive to run very hard.But nevertheless, it's left the market very, very tight. Andrew Sheets: So, that tightness in the market shows up via price. And just talk us through a little bit about what has happened to the price of diesel and its related fuels. You know, I think a lot of listeners are probably more familiar with the price of gasoline. They're more familiar with the barrel of oil that's often the quoted benchmark in the market. But what has been happening to these diesel prices? Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, the way to really tell that story is to look at what we call the crack spread. So, making a barrel of refined product, including diesel, of course, you start with crude oil. So, the price of crude oil impacts the price of the refined product. So, quite often we focus more on the uplift from the price of crude to get to the price of the refined product, and we call that the crack spread. Under normal conditions, say a year ago, crude was $70, and then the price of diesel was another $20 on top of that. And so, you got to diesel being 70 plus 20 is $90 per barrel. At the moment, crude is higher. Crude is about $100 per barrel. Crude has rallied. But the increment on top of it has spiked. So, a couple of days ago we got to all-time high nominal term diesel prices over $200 per barrel. So, we're now having a situation that is [$]100 for crude plus another [$]100 to get to the diesel price. So, the crack spread is something that normally lives in a range of, like when the diesel market is weak, maybe sort of $8, $9, $10. When the market is normal, close to $20. If it's very strong, $25 to $30. Now, that incremental crack spread is $100 per barrel, and that is something that we've not seen before. It is stronger than it was in 2022, when we also had a moment of a severe diesel crisis. Didn't last very long in 2022, but the crack spread got to sort of $60, $70 per barrel. So, that highlights the extent to which the price of diesel has rallied. Andrew Sheets: So, Martijn, you mentioned this crack spread. You know, I think if we all go back to our organic chemistry, this is the refineries literally cracking a barrel of oil down into constituent distillates and other pieces. But given those very high prices for diesel, why don't the refiners just refine more? Why aren't the incentives increasing production? What's getting in the way of that? Martijn Rats: Yeah. That's just a matter of like the physical reality of the system. So, when you build a refinery, you often quite think about two things. What crudes are available to me. So, if you're in the United States, you have U.S. shale crudes, or you have crude from Mexico, Canada. And based on those, you then also think about, you know, what is my consumption, where I am likely to be.And based on that, you build a certain configuration – that converts the crudes that you can buy into the products that your specific customer set might need. You fix the configuration of the refinery at the time you build it. And once it's built, there is a little bit of flexibility to say, "Oh, well, maybe at the moment I make a little bit more diesel and a little bit less gasoline," and change the – what we call the yield of these products. Like a little bit within, you know, a few percentage points range. But that flexibility is small, so the only thing you can do to make more diesel is to run the refinery at 100 percent utilization. That is currently where we are. That has already happened. And then you put in the crude that you buy, you get the products for which your refinery is then designed, and that's it.There are no other… Andrew Sheets: You can’t just turn a big dial that says more diesel. Martijn Rats: No. You can't say, "Oh, well, I don't like my naphtha output this week, so let's not make any naphtha for the chemical industry. Let's only make diesel." It's not contained in the barrel of crude and the kits that you have – takes many years to rebuild and probably very expensive.So you're kind of then stuck. I mean, it is what it is. Andrew Sheets: So Martijn, where is this leaving the global story? You know, if we think about just the relative price of this. Again, you mentioned it's an incredibly important fuel for agriculture, for industry… What's it looking like kind of across the major regions? Martijn Rats: Yeah. Look, it leaves a very tight market at the moment. I mean, it's relatively straightforward. The price of diesel depends very heavily on how the geopolitics of the Middle East and Russia sort of play out. So, in terms of the traded price that you see on the screen every day, it swings around very heavily with how the market foresees the future with regards to these two conflicts. So, one week things flare up, the price of diesel rallies. The following week the market feels a bit more optimistic maybe around a deal, so then things sort of sell off. So, we have to live with that sort of geopolitical sort of reality. But other than that, those who can afford it pay a high price to effectively erode demand amongst sets of consumers who cannot afford these higher prices. You see a substitution, for example, what I thought was very interesting last week. Some of the train companies in the United States were talking about a truck-to-train substitution of very high levels of cargo loads on trains because simply the diesel on trucks is too expensive.So, you see those behavioral changes come through. Andrew Sheets: But that point about demand destruction is really important because, you know, a point that you've made over many years is this idea that the solution to higher prices is higher prices. That that reduces the demand for the fuel, that helps these markets recorrect. And yet, you know, we're hitting prices in diesel that are near all-time highs, and we've yet to see that demand really pull back a lot. A lot of economic indicators are still pretty good. What does that tell you maybe about where the demand destruction price really is? Martijn Rats: Making estimates of the demand destruction price sort of bottom up in a sort of modeling sense, going sort of end use by end use, has turned out on many occasions to be very, very challenging analysis. But we can sort of look at the market and say under certain conditions, prices have spiked and what were these conditions? And we can sort of try to learn something from that. We had a very severe diesel crisis in 2022 when the Russia-Ukraine conflict started, and effectively Russian diesel had to be significantly rerouted around the world. We got to $200 per barrel. Andrew Sheets: Right about where we are now… Martijn Rats: Right about where we are. That didn't last very long. Big spike to [$]200, and it sold off. In March-April, we got to [$]200, and it sold off. And now, a couple of days ago, we reached that again. And so, in the trading behavior of the market, it does look like what happens at [$]200 – there either is demand destruction. Or there may not be demand destruction in the fullness of time, but buyers just take a pause. And this makes it quite difficult to kind of really unearth this issue in the sense that in the end, a lot of customers also have inventories of their own. Like airlines have tanks with jet fuel. In Europe, you have a lot of households that use heating oil for home heating if they're not connected to the gas grid. And they have tanks in their gardens. And so, there are a lot of tertiary inventories, as we call them, where people can effectively afford to stop buying for a little bit and see how things pan out, and then they buy later. And so, the actual data points that we have on demand destruction, even at this price, they're actually not that convincing.There seems to be some... There clearly is in China. In China, we have seen signs of demand destruction at these very high prices. But in the rest of the world, either there are subsidies in place, or people draw on their own inventories for a bit. Or they just absorb it because it's an indisplaceable fuel in the short run. Actually, it's not all that convincing that there is a lot of demand destruction even at these prices. Andrew Sheets: So, Martijn, the last thing I want to ask you about is – this is a fuel that is central to a lot of key industrial processes, as we've discussed, agriculture, trucking. What is the risk that the countries that have more of this refining capacity stop exporting it to the rest of the world. Try to keep more of it to themselves in order to cushion the domestic price impact? Martijn Rats: That risk is very real. We've already seen some of this earlier on in the Hormuz crisis in March and April. For example, China at some point announced an export ban on all refined products. In retrospect, that wasn't quite as forcefully implemented as it was announced. But nevertheless, the Chinese government did announce that, and we saw a initially large decline. The government of South Korea at some point banned refined product exports. In the United States, there are voices that say that this might be something that the government should consider. I would say, though, about the U.S. diesel export ban, there is a good reason why this has not happened yet.Because the United States is broadly balanced in gasoline, domestic production of gasoline by the refiners. It broadly equals to domestic consumption. And there is a tiny little bit of exports. But in the overall scheme of things, it's not much. In diesel, it has a very large surplus, which is exported. But if there were to be an export ban and that diesel cannot leave the country – for a little bit, you can store it. But you'd fill up those tanks very, very quickly. When those tanks are full, you then need to slow down the refineries because otherwise you simply have diesel that you cannot get rid of. If you slow down the refineries, and this is how we come back to the start of the discussion, the mix of products that you produce is broadly fixed. So, if you slow down the refineries, you make less gasoline. And so, in the United States, you can get the counterintuitive outcome that a diesel export ban could lead to higher gasoline prices. So, a lot of these things have unintended consequences, and there are good reasons why they haven't happened yet. Andrew Sheets: I think that's a fascinating and counterintuitive way to think about it. Thank you, Martijn, as always, for taking the time. Martijn Rats: My pleasure. Andrew Sheets: And thank you for listening. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you hear us. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Central banks are turning more hawkish as inflation risks increase. Our Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research Seth Carpenter explains what that means for the Fed, ECB and Bank of Japan.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’m going to talk about all the movement we’ve seen in central banks and how it’s changing our forecasts. It’s Tuesday, September 22, at 10 a.m. in New York. Over the past two weeks, our economists here at Morgan Stanley have revised their outlooks for the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of Japan to include more rate hikes. Each economy faces different challenges, but all three central banks have arrived at roughly the same conclusion: growth has remained remarkably resilient despite all of the shocks hitting the global economy. And renewed energy-price pressures have increased the risk that inflation proves more persistent than they had previously expected. The clearest example—and our biggest revision here—is the Fed. Now for much of this year, we had actually thought the Fed might avoid hiking interest rates altogether. But in addition to this increase that we just saw at the September FOMC meeting, we now expect two additional rate hikes—in December and in March that will bring the terminal rate up to 4.25 to 4.5 percent. While Chair Warsh has highlighted the inflationary implications of higher energy and commodity prices, for me, the more important signal was the assessment that policy is not sufficiently restrictive. So in our view, the Fed appears to be reassessing not just the inflation outlook, but the amount of restraint that is required to bring inflation sustainably back to target. But even with all of that said, we’re still looking at this shift as more of a recalibration of policy for the Fed rather than a fundamental shift in policy. And so the market may have—just may have—overestimated how much hiking is left. But the shift does have clear and important market implications. Our rate strategists expect investors to pull forward additional tightening expectations in the near term, while increasingly questioning how long policy can remain at restrictive levels before growth starts to slow.But more broadly, the Fed now appears a bit more sensitive to energy-driven inflation pressures, and that strengthens the case for a firmer dollar. Over recent months, rising energy prices have supported the euro because investors have seen the ECB respond more aggressively than the Fed. That maybe former asymmetry could be changing. Our foreign-exchange strategists therefore continue to favor dollar strength, particularly against the yen. Now Europe does face a similar inflation challenge to the Fed, though through a different mechanism. The renewed rise in natural-gas and other energy prices has led our economists to revise up their inflation forecast materially and, therefore, to add in another ECB rate hike in December. But we have got to keep in mind that it is not energy prices all by themselves that have changed the outlook. Economic activity in the euro area has also proven to be much more resilient than we had anticipated. And that reduces concerns that an additional modest tightening of policy would derail growth. And so if you take it all together, the ECB is increasingly focused on preventing higher energy costs from feeding into broader inflationary dynamics. Now Japan might seem different, but the underlying story is really surprisingly similar. For decades, the BoJ’s challenge was generating inflation. But now policymakers are now increasingly concerned about the possibility that inflation will overshoot its target. After the BoJ’s hike last week, we expect it to raise rates to 1.5 percent in December and then raise rates further, to about 1.75 percent, in March. Like the Fed and the ECB, the BoJ faces an economy that has absorbed tighter financial conditions much better than had been expected.And yet, unlike the Fed and the ECB, our strategists believe that markets have become too aggressive in pricing the eventual destination of rates. And that creates scope for expectations to be revised lower over time. As a result, while Japanese rates may continue to rise gradually, our foreign-exchange strategists still expect a broader trend of yen weakness to emerge once temporary positioning effects fade. So the common thread across all three of these central banks that I’ve discussed is that, while the energy shock has changed the inflation conversation, the resilience in growth has further changed the policy conversation.And so for investors, next year is probably going to be characterized by higher policy rates and a stronger dollar than markets expected at the beginning of the year. Well, thanks for listening. And If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As President Xi heads to Washington, trade, rare earths and AI are set to dominate the agenda. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore unpacks what the meeting could mean for supply chains, tech stocks and the broader market.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, I'll be talking about next week's U.S.-China summit, specifically the bilateral trade relationship, what we can expect on critical minerals and rare earths, AI dialogues, and what it all means for markets.It's Friday, September 18th at 10am in New York.President Xi is scheduled to visit the White House on September 24th for his second meeting with President Trump this year, and his first White House visit in roughly a decade.The meeting follows President Trump's visit to Beijing in May, where the two sides established a framework for what they call a more constructive relationship of strategic stability. That meeting also produced new trade and investment dialogues, commitments around agricultural purchases and aircraft, and an agreement to begin a dialogue on artificial intelligence.But next week's summit comes at an important moment because several of the temporary arrangements that helped stabilize the economic relationship are due to expire later this fall.We think there are three areas to focus on.The first is trade. The current U.S.-China tariff truce is scheduled to expire in November. Now, public reporting suggests that the two governments are discussing an extension alongside potential announcements on agriculture, non-tariff barriers, and a relatively narrow set of goods that could see lower tariffs.The question for markets, therefore, is less whether next week produces a comprehensive new trade agreement and more so on whether the two sides can extend the current period of stability and prevent another significant increase in tariffs.The second area is critical minerals. This is probably one of the clearest examples of the leverage that each side has over the other.Washington, we think, wants more predictable Chinese exports of rare earths and other critical materials used across semiconductors, autos, aerospace, and defense. Beijing, meanwhile, has been pushing back against U.S. restrictions on Chinese companies' access to advanced technology.Public reporting suggests that both of these issues are part of the negotiations heading into the summit, and the timing here is really important. November 10th is an upcoming cliff affecting China's rare earth restrictions and U.S. technology controls, followed later that month by another deadline covering certain minerals. So what happens next week could determine whether those restrictions remain suspended or begin to snap back.The third area is technology, and increasingly artificial intelligence. The two leaders agreed in May to establish an AI dialogue, and President Trump has specifically said AI will be discussed next week.Reporting also shows that shared AI risks could be one area for discussion, although the broader competitive relationship makes a comprehensive agreement difficult, we think. From a policy perspective, the most important point is that technology restrictions are moving beyond advanced chips. The debate includes cloud and compute access, model distribution, procurement, and potentially the use of certain foreign AI models themselves.In other words, we think that while the summit could produce something like an agreement to keep talking on AI, the underlying shift matters more. AI sovereignty pushes both the U.S. and China toward more restrictions or heavier government involvement even over a longer period of time.We expect that a middle path is the more plausible U.S. approach. So think targeted restrictions on specific Chinese developers rather than a blanket prohibition on Chinese open weight models. But even that would reinforce what we've called the two worlds thesis, increasingly distinct U.S. and Chinese tech ecosystems with separate infrastructure, supply chains, standards, and distribution channels.There could also be a host of other issues on the agenda, specifically the U.S.-Iran conflict, which we see as a tail risk into the talks.So what does all this mean for investors?Even a constructive summit is unlikely to reverse the structural push toward technology and supply chain diversification. In fact, we argue that greater U.S.-China bifurcation will actually reinforce investment in parallel ecosystems, semiconductor capacity, data centers, cloud infrastructure, power, and critical mineral supply chains.In that sense, actually less geopolitical friction next week could reduce near-term market volatility, but without necessarily changing the underlying investment cycle.So, the key question coming out of the summit is not simply whether the relations are improving or deteriorating. It's whether the two sides can preserve enough stability to manage their competition while the longer-term process of de-risking continues underneath.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 Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach joins our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen to discuss the Fed’s potential next moves and how energy prices are influencing market expectations.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today, what the Federal Reserve decided at its September meeting and what it could mean for rates through the end of the year.It's Wednesday, September 16th at 4pm in New York.So, Mike, the Fed raised rates by 25 basis points at this week's meeting. What stood out to you the most in the decision? And when it comes to inflation, how do you think this 25-basis point rate hike is actually going to affect the inflation outlook?Michael Gapen: Yeah, so certainly the decision was in line with expectations. You know, obviously what we've learned in the very broad sense is that inflation isn't moving fast enough in the direction that the Fed wants. So, it's responding by tighter monetary policy. And that does set up a very interesting question which you just asked, which is: Well, is it going to work? Is this the right response to the inflation that we're seeing?So, if you do go back and reread that Jackson Hole speech, there's not a lot in there about the drivers of inflation, what's causing higher inflation. But it's clear the only response to above target inflation from the point of view of the chair was tighter monetary policy. So, the Fed is in a bit of a pickle.Most of us believe the majority of the inflation we're seeing is supply side driven from tariffs, from energy. At least in the past, let's call it supply chain disruptions, a de-globalization narrative. Some of it is demand side driven through AI. But I think we're all looking at that thinking modestly tighter rates isn't necessarily going to bring down that AI-related inflation.So, we're left to conclude that the Fed's in this uncomfortable position of saying, "Well, a lot of the inflation that we're seeing is supply side driven and from the structural AI story that we're not convinced higher rates can maybe address."So I think the answer would be, if inflation's going to come down, then higher rates will be weighing on the parts of the economy that are more interest rate sensitive and generally soft already.Matthew Hornbach: Is this a one and done? Or do you think that when the Fed actually goes ahead and hikes rates after a long pause, they are thinking about delivering more than just one rate hike?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I strongly believe the committee as a whole is thinking in terms of more than one move. Monetary policy doesn't, say, hyper-react. It reacts with a bit of a delay. So, to your point, they've been on hold for a while. When they think about changing policy, then they're thinking about a series of moves.So, I think in their mind, if they're raising rates, there's a strong probability that they will do at least one more or two more. They're never going to think that a 25-basis-point move in the funds rate will fundamentally change the macro-outlook. So, I don't think they'd ever walk into this thinking one and done.Now, it is possible we get an ex-post one and done. So, how could that come about? If it is true indeed that we're right that a lot of this inflation is supply-side driven. It is coming down. It's clear that the three- and six-month annualized rates are pointing to disinflation into year-end. We can debate whether it's fast enough or not.But if disinflation continues to happen, then the Fed will have hiked, expect to maybe do another one. But by the time we get there, inflation has improved enough, and they end up not doing it.So, they would sound like, "Oh, we're still ready. We still think we've got more work to do." But in the moment, the data just arrives in a way that they stay where they are. So you would look back and say it was a one and done, but I don't think they go into this thinking one rate hike is going to fundamentally change the story.Matthew Hornbach: Now, of course, the data that we'll get between today and the December meeting will likely have an impact on their decision-making – as well as any revisions that we end up getting.And I think one of the stories that investors have been talking about are some of the methodological changes that the Bureau of Economic Analysis is implementing into the PCE inflation data. Do you see any scope for those types of revisions to lend itself to a one and done type of a policy for this year?Michael Gapen: It is possible. There's uncertainty about what actually those revisions are going to bring. But quality adjustments to software, for example, will over time likely bring inflation lower. Some of the revisions to the other categories. So, we do think it will on average lower year-on-year rate of inflation by about 1/10 or so, maybe a little more.So, it could show up on the high side. And then you've got what looks to be a different path.So yes, I think one of the reasons to maybe go slower, think about perhaps a quarterly pace of hikes, as opposed to, "Oh, we're just going to ramp up three, four meetings in a row," is to let some of this play out. See what those revisions look like.So yes, it could contribute to a world where revisions plus softness in the incoming data mean they hike, say, in September, don't do another one after that. Or those revisions are part of the reason why they think a slower-moving cycle rather than a more aggressive one is appropriate.Matthew Hornbach: Does the labor market play any role today in monetary policy?Michael Gapen: I think it's certainly secondary, if not tertiary. I don't want to say that the committee as a whole sees the labor market just fine and we don't have any concerns there.What's super helpful from the rate hike perspective is labor income, wage income out of the labor market is still decelerating and pretty modest. It doesn't suggest that the economy's overheating and the labor market is a source of upward pressure on inflation. So, I think that's beneficial in terms of thinking of the rate hike cycle.In the other direction, I'd say we've had a number of months now of, kind of, you know, let's call it 50,000 to 70,000 jobs a month on average if you kind of smooth through some of the volatility. That's not amazing, but it's not awful either.So Matt, I'd like to turn it back to you. This is of course the economist's perspective. When we translate this into the rates market; rates market clients may have a very different view. But I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how you think the rates market is dealing with the inflation. I don't want to say impulse, but let's call it the sticky disinflation we're getting, the sources of that inflation, and how it sees monetary policy reacting.How is the rates market digesting all of this?Matthew Hornbach: So, I think actually investors are reasonably nonplussed about what's happening in the underlying rate of inflation in the country. But what has inserted itself into the conversation is the price of energy and how impulsively energy prices have risen over recent months.When we look at how market prices evolve with respect to the path for monetary policy, what we observe empirically is that if energy prices are going up in a given week or in a given month, the market reprices to a more hawkish path for Fed policy. And if energy prices come down in a given week or a given month, and we see the market pricing towards a less hawkish path for monetary policy.So, the primary driver of how the markets are pricing the future of Fed policy is, in fact, the changes in the price of energy commodities. So, Brent crude oil, WTI crude oil, gasoline prices. And so, this is something that we just can't get away from.There are, of course, other things that do influence the level of Treasury yields, but I would suggest that they are more secondary or tertiary themselves in terms of… Similar to the labor market. I would say they have less of an impact on the overall level of yields.So, with a market-implied hiking cycle from the Fed at about three hikes or so from here, given that the Fed just delivered one rate hike, you know, the 10-year treasury yield is around 5 percent. It was much lower earlier this year, and we were pricing in two rate cuts at that point in time.So, you get the sense that if the market's moving from pricing in two rate cuts to pricing in four rate hikes, and the 10-year yield goes from 4.25 percent to 5 percent, obviously there's a relationship there.One factor that investors are certainly interested in is – how does the debt stock play a role in the level of yields? And one of the things that I've been telling people to consider is that it's not the level of the debt, the amount of debt in the economy that matters most for the level of interest rates – as odd as that may be to hear for listeners. It's how quickly that debt stock grows.So, if the debt stock is going up at a certain pace, and that pace is within the bounds of investor expectations, then it typically doesn't have that big of an impact on the bond market. So, one of the factoids that may surprise people is: about four years ago, the news media was very interested in the fact that the amount of debt in the United States had breached $31 trillion. And, the 10-year treasury yield at that time had peaked at about 4.25 percent, somewhere around there.Well, earlier this year, before the conflict in Iran began, the 10-year treasury yield was also around 4.25 percent. But this is four years later, and over these four years, the U.S. has added $9 trillion to the debt.So, here again, this is a good example, I think, of this idea that you can have a dramatic expansion in the debt from [$]31 trillion to [$]40 trillion, and yet the 10-year treasury yield itself is broadly unchanged.And so that just, I think, should tell investors that it's not the size of the debt that matters per se. Lots of other factors can influence the level of treasury yields. And how the market thinks about the Fed is certainly among the more important of those.So, Mike, just want to say thanks again for taking the time to talk after another FOMC meeting.Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Healthcare companies are rethinking their business models as patients gain more control over how they access care and purchase medicine. Our analysts Erin Wright and Terence Flynn unpack this shift and the emerging opportunities.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Erin Wright: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erin Wright, US Healthcare Services Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Terence Flynn: And I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's US BioPharma Analyst.Erin Wright: Today, how the consumer is moving into the driver's seat across healthcare.It's Monday, September 14th at 7:00 AMWe're recording in New York City, where Morgan Stanley's twenty-fourth Annual Healthcare Conference is happening this week. One of the biggest shifts we're seeing across the industry is patients gaining more choice, transparency, and control over how they access care and medicine. You can already see it in everyday behavior. In our AlphaWise survey earlier this year, thirty-four percent of US consumers said that they'd chosen to take a voluntary wellness lab test in the past three years, and roughly two-thirds already own a wearable or plan to buy one.And now we're seeing the same trend reshaping how people buy medicine and choose care. So Terence, let's start with biopharma. For years, direct-to-consumer pharma meant advertising and nudging people to ask your doctor about what particular treatment is best for them. What's different this time around? And what's different in this next wave of direct access?Terence Flynn: Yeah, absolutely. Thanks, Erin. So for most of the industry's history, the patient sat at the end of the value chain and had really limited control over the product, the price, or the route through which the drug was obtained.Manufacturers marketed to doctors and consumers, but the transaction was itself intermediated. So we think that's starting to change here. It's no longer simply about more consumer advertising or another cash pay discount. There's a parallel access infrastructure that's building here where the patient can increasingly start the initiation of the treatment journey themselves, obtain a prescription, often digitally through a telehealth provider, and then fill this prescription through other non-traditional channels.And so there really is a shift in the model that we're starting to see here. But again, we're not talking about replacing insurance here; we're talking about areas where friction is high and where a cash pay price is viable.Erin Wright: So Obesity has been the clearest proof point, as we are seeing patients asking providers about GLP-1s. Where else are we seeing this?Terence Flynn: Yeah. So manufacturers are actually already selling over twenty-five branded drugs directly to patients at cash prices. Now, the common features of these drug classes are that they're self-administered, so essentially the patient can start and stay on treatment, and where there's limited in-person infrastructure that's needed, and where, as I mentioned, you have a lower price point or a coverage gap, meaning traditional insurance coverage doesn't exist.Now, we're seeing this in large chronic categories. You mentioned obesity. Another one is, migraine headaches. There are also other areas that are amenable to telehealth, so think oral PCSK9 therapies, topical dermatology, non-opioid pain. So again, we think as more self-administered products launch, you're gonna see the addressable DTC pool expand.Erin Wright: And ultimately what does this reveal about patient demand and gaps in reimbursement?Terence Flynn: Yeah, I think GLP-1s, as you mentioned, Erin, provided the first proof point here that this new DTC model could actually be viable. And really the reason for that is that, the US employer coverage base right now, only about fifty percent cover these obesity medications.And so for the other fifty percent, you have a gap in coverage. And that's really why people are seeking other channels for coverage. And so again, that really created this opening here for this new model. And so again, that's another consideration when you think about other medicines that could go through these channels is you have to think about the insurance coverage situation. And so for some areas like oncology, for example, insurance coverage is gonna be very high, and so those wouldn't be amenable to a DTC approach.Erin Wright: So Terence, your analysis points to roughly twenty-six billion peak US opportunity. What makes a certain therapeutic well-suited for direct-to-consumer, and where is the opportunity most concentrated?Terence Flynn: Yeah. So there are really four variables that we considered. The first is self-administration. So as I mentioned, you have to be able to administer the medicine yourself, meaning you don't have to go into the physician or hospital for an injection, for example. The second is that the diagnosis doesn't need an in-person confirmation. So think of something like a biopsy or something. So you'd have to be able to diagnose, as I said, over a remote telehealth channel. The third would be something that is a lower price point. Obviously, there are, like we mentioned, the GLP-1 medicines are at a different price point versus oncology medicines.And then the last one would be any kind of legal restrictions. So sometimes FDA has a lot of restrictions around who can prescribe a medicine. These are called REMS. And so any medicine that had restrictions like that obviously would not be amenable to DTC. So again, we think through those different variables, and then we ultimately built up this twenty-six billion dollar TAM that represents about three percent of total branded pharmaceutical spend. Of that, about half is driven by the obesity or GLP-1 medications.So Erin, that's a good bridge to healthcare services because consumerism isn't just about paying cash. What does greater consumer control actually look like?Erin Wright: You're right. It's not just about paying out of pocket for healthcare. With now consumers becoming more proactive with their healthcare and preventative care, we are seeing a whole healthcare ecosystem shift, from health insurers now offering lifestyle savings accounts empowering patients with more choice on that front, health systems and hospitals are creating a digital front door and delivery of care twenty-four/seven on that front. And also, we're seeing more direct-to-consumer pharmacies and transparent pharmacies that are gaining traction.Terence Flynn: And what does the Alpha Wise survey data tell us about consumers' willingness to pay out of pocket for care?Erin Wright: So based on our AlphaWise consumer survey, twenty-five percent of consumers report paying entirely out of pocket for at least one healthcare service over the past year. That was actually higher than what we were expecting. Most commonly, this was attributable to behavioral and mental health services, about eight percent of the cohort.Annual spend was about nine hundred and eight dollars, but maximum willingness to spend was about double that. So this suggests consumers are using out-of-pocket services and medications and are willing to spend to do so.Terence Flynn: That's very interesting. How important are digital tools, wearables, and testing in actually accelerating this shift?Erin Wright: So wearables are certainly a piece of the puzzle. What is new though here is that we're seeing wearable data align with actual biological data, where, for example, clinical laboratories are now partnering with these wearable companies and other direct-to-consumer healthcare platforms to offer subscription-based biomarker panels and other testing services. This is where this type of technology becomes more actionable from a healthcare perspective and really, frankly, empowers patients to take matters into their own hands.Terence Flynn: So as consumers take more control, as you discussed, what types of healthcare service models are best positioned to benefit?Erin Wright: There are certainly a host of companies across healthcare that are attacking this from several different angles.But if we think about who in the industry has the most touch points into the consumer, into the patient, it would be your diversified managed care companies and vertically integrated managed care companies where we view that many of these larger insurers are best able to adapt to consumerism in healthcare. We're already starting to see that happen with stepped-up technology investments helping to facilitate greater transparency and access, whether it's across insurance, provider arms, technology, or, um, or pharmacy assets as well.To sum it up, in biopharma, we're seeing a parallel access channel emerge alongside traditional reimbursement. And in healthcare services, consumers are gaining more control over how they choose access and pay for their care. Consumers aren't stepping outside of the healthcare system. They're taking a more proactive and more active role in how they navigate it.Terrence, thank you for taking the time to talk.Terence Flynn: Great speaking with you Erin.Erin Wright: 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 a colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets discusses when markets may not adequately compensate investors for uncertainty around themes like Fed policy, AI financing and energy supply.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, what American football can teach us about the value of ambiguity.It's Thursday, September 10th at 2p.m. in London.I really like this time of year. It's a little cooler outside. There's the excitement in the air of a start of a million new school years. And of course, it's finally American football season. Of the top one hundred US television telecasts in 2025, ninety were football games. In an increasingly divided world with an increasingly fragmented ecosystem for content, this unanimity is stunning. And while many factors explain football's popularity, one that I've come to appreciate more with time is its strategic complexity, especially the value of ambiguity.Not tipping whether the play is a run or a pass, disguising whether and where you're going to blitz. Coaches work hard to keep their options open until the last possible moment. And as we enter September, this strategy is not just confined to football.Take the Fed. Markets are pricing a roughly two-thirds chance of a rate hike next week, about the same chance that an NFL team passes on second and seven. Part of that uncertainty comes from exactly how you parse Fed Chair Warsh's comments at Jackson Hole. Chair Warsh said the Fed needs to be confident that underlying inflation is moving towards its objective, “clearly and at sufficient speed.” Otherwise, it has, "work to do." This was generally interpreted as a move closer to raising rates. But was it? What is sufficient speed? What counts as underlying inflation? And what does “work to do” actually mean? After all, if inflation is better in the second half of the year, as our economists expect, this framing could just as easily justify no action. We forecast the Fed to stay on hold next week. It is admittedly a close call.Then there's ambiguity in AI financing. The numbers here are enormous. Morgan Stanley analysts forecast more than 1.3 trillion dollars of spending among the six largest hyperscalers in 2027, a sixty percent increase from the record-setting levels of this year. But how all this gets financed, that's less certain. There's an increasingly rich menu of options for financing across public and private markets, from investment-grade bonds to asset-backed securities, from direct financing to guarantees. The spending seems likely, but what form it takes and how much it impacts other markets is more ambiguous. My colleagues Matthew Hornbach and Vichy Tirupattur discussed some of these ambiguities and their potential effect on Treasury yields earlier this week.Finally, ambiguity clouds the energy market. Some analysts are optimistic that oil flows are finally normalizing in the Strait of Hormuz. We are not. Coupled with major disruptions to Russian refining capacity, we've now raised our fourth quarter forecast to one hundred dollars per barrel for Brent oil and eighty-eight euros per megawatt hour for European natural gas.Across these three themes, some of this ambiguity is intentional. Some simply reflects a wide range of possible outcomes. In football and in markets, keeping your options open can be valuable when you're calling the plays, but it's less attractive when you're being asked to price them. And that, for us, is the issue. There is plenty of uncertainty. We're not sure investors are being paid enough for it. A close call September Fed meeting, adverse seasonality, and very low levels of expected volatility leave us positioned for higher volatility across macro markets and cautious on mortgage-backed securities.In credit, we think all of this issuance is a question of price, not capacity. We continue to expect record investment-grade supply this year with wider spreads as a release valve and prefer collateral-backed assets over unsecured corporates. And with oil a risk to both stocks and bonds, our US equity strategists think that energy equities offer an attractive hedge.Ambiguity has value, but when the range of outcomes is wide and the price of uncertainty is low, we think investors should demand more compensation for it.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.

U.S. Treasurys are the foundation of the bond market. But our strategists Matthew Hornbach and Vishy Tirupattur explain the growing impact of corporate credit as AI financing accelerates.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Vishy Tirupattur: I am Vishy Tirupattur, Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Matthew Hornbach: Today, the interplay between the U.S. Treasury market and the corporate bond market.It's Tuesday, September 8th at 10am in New York.So, Vishy, what I'd like to do is start by asking you what's going on in the corporate bond market? What's coming to market? How much duration does it have? Talk to us about the theme of AI in corporate bonds.Vishy Tirupattur: So, this is what is happening. Hyperscalers have enormous CapEx needs, and they'll see opportunity for realizing return on invested capital; and in anticipation of that, the CapEx requirements for the AI infrastructure are enormous.And the key motivation that underlies is that the demand for compute vastly exceeds the supply of compute. And that as long as that demand-supply imbalance is there, there is a continuing need for CapEx, and that CapEx needs to be financed.And credit markets across the board, not just the unsecured market. You know, credit markets in public space, private, investment grade, unsecured, secured, high yield, below investment grade, leveraged loans, private credit – all of these channels of the credit markets are going to be deployed to enable that financing.Matthew Hornbach: Now, Vishy, you've written about this extensively over the course of the past year and have really been on the forefront of expecting a lot of supply. But have you even been surprised at the scale of the supply that we've gotten from these hyperscalers?Vishy Tirupattur: We are surprised, not so much by the scale of the issuance, but certainly by the breadth and the depth of these markets. And also, the ability of the markets to deal with complexity associated with this issuance. So, you know, about a year ago, we were expecting that much of this would be investment grade only; much of this would be only U.S. dollar denominated. We were wrong.We have seen issuance in seven currencies, and we have seen issuance substantially happen in investment grade, but also in high yield and in leverage loans. And a lot more in structured private investment grade credit and in securitized credit. We have been surprised by the ability of the markets to be both in their depth and the breadth and complexity; clearly been surprised.Matthew Hornbach: And one of the features of some of the issuance that may have been the most impactful on other markets has been the duration of unsecured AI-related financing. Talk to us a little bit about what's going on there.Vishy Tirupattur: So, if you look at the AI infrastructure, you can think of it in many different forms. One way of thinking about is the data centers building – the fab, the LAN, the chips and the servers. If you took the whole data centers, their expected life is something north of 20 years. And there is a lot of CapEx requirements.So initially, when you're financing the entire data center as one package, there has been issuance that went well beyond the 20-year point in the term. And keep in mind that the CapEx requirements are kind of across the board.So, it's not just been 20-plus year bonds. There have been bonds issued of various tenors, including a substantial supply of 20-plus year of duration.Now what is happening is that the focus of some of that is changing towards more shorter-term component of it. So, we've gone from financing the entire data structure, moving towards financing components, and in particular chips.The chips have a technological obsolescence factor associated with them. So, the chips need to be refinanced in about five years. So, the structures that are now increasingly emerging are towards amortizing structures that are more five-year duration, five-year maturity loans.Matthew Hornbach: So, this sounds like an interesting shift from much longer duration, longer maturity issuance to something in what the U.S. Treasury would call the belly of the curve. Kind of in the two to five-year maturity sector. Is that right?Vishy Tirupattur: So yes and no, and I'm hedging only for the following reason: Because a lot of this issuance, these issuers are relatively new in their size of these issuance, so they have not established a certain cadence of issuance.It is not that they have given up on the longer maturity, but the focus is shifting. We expect more to the five-year point of the curve.Another important thing is there has been a significant political pushback on the data centers. We have seen moratoria in the state of New York. It's a very live issue in much of the midterm elections. And opposition to data center is bipartisan, and it's very much alive.So, because of this, we may have some slowdown in the buildup of data centers, therefore slowdown in the long-term CapEx. But then near term, you know, the chips that were bought a few years ago need to be replenished and new chips need to be deployed.So, that financing focus might shift from a longer term to a shorter term. But that said, they're not going to let go entirely of the longer-term financing. Just the focus will shift towards the mid five-year term.Matthew Hornbach: That's very interesting because in the U.S. Treasury market, the focus has not been on the five-year sector. It has been further out the yield curve, where 30-year Treasury yields have been making highs for; that we haven't seen for a couple of decades now. And it hasn't been just in the nominal yield component of Treasuries; it's been in the real yield as well.And, in fact, the difference between the nominal and the real yield, the so-called break-even inflation rate, has actually been very stable throughout this move higher in overall bond yields.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Matt, let me ask you this question. For the last several weeks, we have seen long-end rates, particularly 20-plus year rates being persistently high. What is in your mind driving this persistently high yield in the 20-plus year category?Matthew Hornbach: So, this is something that Treasury Secretary Bessent alluded to in his recent interview on CNBC – that the month of August tends to be a month of lower transaction volumes in the U.S. Treasury market. And in particular, the middle of the month tends to be the lowest transaction volume period within any given month.And so, what we think might be going on is that investors who have been investing in these corporate bonds that you've talked about – may be preparing their own balance sheets for the issuance that most people tend to expect to come in September.Now, if that was the case, then it would be reasonable to assume that those investors tried to sell some of the bonds that they had. Or perhaps just stop buying any bonds in preparation for the supply that they would expect to come in September. If that was the case and the dealer community had to absorb that duration risk onto their balance sheets, they probably would want to recycle that back into the market.And the most liquid way of doing that is to sell treasuries. And so, we do think that there was very likely some selling of treasuries by the dealer community, as they were absorbing corporate bonds from the investor base.Vishy Tirupattur: So that makes sense, Matt. You know, if you think about the dealer community as well as investors, their anticipation of future; corporate bond issuance could drive their actions today.But the only point I would make is that because these are new issuers, and because they have not established a cadence, there could be substantial variability in their frequency. And periodicity that will come to the market. And in what tenor.You know, there's this change I talked about – longer term for financing needs versus component financing needs. There are all these degrees of freedom these issuers have that they can use that degrees of freedom. And the investors and the dealers don't have a lot of sense of what that might be.Matthew Hornbach: It sounds like there's going to be a lot of uncertainty, which might mean that there's going to be a lot of volatility.So, with that Vishy, thanks for sitting down and talking about the bond market with me.Vishy Tirupattur: Great to hang out with you, Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats explains how tightening supply and shrinking buffers are pushing Brent prices up again, and what that would mean for fuel costs and energy markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Martijn Rats: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist.Today: why the oil market is tightening, and why we now see Brent reaching $100 per barrel later this year.It’s Thursday, September 3rd, at 3pm in London.It has been an extraordinary summer for oil. Brent — the global benchmark price for crude oil and the reference point for most of the world's oil trade — traded above $110 per barrel in mid-May, fell to $71 by early June, climbed back above $100 three weeks later, and then dropped again to around $79 per barrel. More recently, prices have moved higher again. But the question now is whether that is just another temporary swing. Or whether there is a sign that the underlying market has changed.We think it has changed. Supply is tightening, inventories are falling, and some of the buffers that helped absorb earlier disruptions are fading.The clearest evidence is in inventories. Crude oil sitting on the water fell from nearly 1.3 billion barrels in mid-July to 1.1 billion barrels recently. That was a decline of about 190 million barrels. During one four-week stretch, oil-on-water fell at the unusually high rate of 5.3 million barrels a day, the fastest four-week decline since this data series began about eight years ago. Usually, when there is such a large amount of crude oil that is brought on land, it drives up onshore oil inventories. However, not on this occasion. On a global basis, onshore crude oil inventories have fallen by another 38 million barrels over the same period. That means that those offshore barrels arriving were being used straight away rather than put into land-based storage.The biggest supply issue is still the Middle East. Crude flows from the Strait of Hormuz briefly recovered to about 15 million barrels a day after the June Memorandum of Understanding. That was close to the pre-conflict level. More recently, however, they have been running again around about 7 million. Now, Red Sea exports have also fallen sharply, from about 4 - 4.5 million barrels a day in March and April to around about 1.5 million barrels a day at the moment. Therefore, total regional exports are still up from the lows in March and April, but they are sharply down from that late June peak. Another source of support is fading: strategic petroleum reserves. Globally, those releases added around 2.5 million barrels a day to supply in March and April. But that has fallen sharply, and we do not anticipate material further releases from global SPRs after September.Then China is important, too. Its seaborne crude imports are normally around 10 to 11 million barrels a day but briefly fell as low as 5 million barrels a day leaving more oil available elsewhere. Now, China's buying activity still appears low, but at a minimum it has stabilized, and there are tentative signs of an increase. If Chinese imports have stopped falling and possibly go into reverse, they can no longer free up additional barrels for buyers elsewhere, making the global oil market tighter. So why hasn’t crude become even more constrained? It's because of refineries. Global refinery outages are running 5 - 6 million barrels a day above normal. Although supply of crude oil is constrained, this means that demand for crude is also reduced. Now, the result of that is that the tightness in the system has instead shown up in refined products rather than in crude. And diesel is the clearest example of this; and the one most likely to be felt throughout the economy, since diesel prices feed straight through into trucking, freight, farming costs, and many other areas. The front-month diesel benchmark in the U.S. was recently around $195 per barrel, versus Brent at $95 per barrel. The difference between the value of a refined product and the crude used to make it is called a crack spread. For diesel, that crack spread reached around $100 per barrel, an all-time high. Over time, that gives refiners a very strong incentive to bring back capacity where they can. If they do, crude demand should rise, whilst inventories are already falling and Middle East supply so far remains constrained. We now expect a full recovery in Middle East supply to take well into 2027. On that path, oil inventories should keep falling throughout the fourth quarter of this year as well as the first quarter of next year. We now forecast Brent to average $100 per barrel in the fourth quarter.Now, for much of this year, the oil market had several shock absorbers: strategic reserves, abundant barrels at sea, and unusually weak Chinese imports all helped. Those cushions are thinner now. That leaves less room for another disruption, just as the road back to normal supply is getting longer. 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.