Thoughts on the Market

Original Release Date: April 28, 2026 Tom Wigg and Stephen Byrd discuss the accelerating pace of AI breakthroughs, the forces driving them and why the next phase of development may look very different from anything we’ve seen so far. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Tom Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Tom Wigg, Head of Specialty Sales in the Americas at Morgan Stanley, and a sector specialist in Technology, Media and Telecom. We wake up every day to new AI product releases, so it’s easy to lose sight of the unprecedented non-linear improvement in AI capabilities. But things are about to get weird. It’s Tuesday, April 28th at 8am in New York. The market has been thinking about AI in linear terms. But we need to reframe that assumption of only incremental improvement and think about exponential improvement. That was my takeaway from a conversation with Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. In our conversation, we zeroed in on Stephen’s bull case for broader AI model improvements. Tom Wigg: First, I want to talk about one obsession that you’ve been writing about for the last several months – is this idea that we’re going to see nonlinear improvements in the frontier models coming out this spring. Stephen Byrd: Yes. Tom Wigg: There’s been, you know, some big headlines around new models, benchmarks coming out publicly. Is this, you know, your bull case playing out on these models? And what are the implications? Stephen Byrd: Yes! Absolutely, Tom. So we have, to your point, we are obsessed. And I know I’m not shy about that – with the nonlinear rate of AI improvement. It is the most important impact to so many stocks that I can think of in the sense that it can impact all industries, all business models. So, what we’ve been saying for some time is, if you look back over the last couple of years at the relationship between the amount of compute used to train these LLMs and the capabilities, we have a very clear scaling law. And approximately the law is, if you increase the training compute by 10x, the capabilities of the models go up by 2x. Now, as you and I’ve talked about this a lot; just meditate on that for a moment. I think things are about to get weird in the sense that on the positive side, we’re going to see all kinds of underappreciated capabilities across many industries. So this disruption discussion, I think, is going to spread, but it’s also going to require investors to, kind of, be more thoughtful about what they do with that concept. Meaning you can’t sell everything. In the sense that AI will disrupt some businesses. I actually think this is healthy in some ways because now it forces investors to really look at each business model and assess which is going to get disrupted, which can get supported and enabled by AI, which are immune. Because there are some business models that actually are immune. But essentially from here, Tom, I’d say we are expecting through the spring and summer to see multiple models that are able to perform a much greater percentage of the economy at better levels of accuracy at incredibly low cost. Which I know you and I have talked a lot about the cost of actually doing this work from the LLMs. This is massive. This is going to impact so many industries. I think this is all to the good for the AI infrastructure plays because it shows the importance of getting more intelligence out into the world. Tom Wigg: So, you mentioned the constraints we’re seeing across compute, memory and power. It seems like most of the CEOs of the labs and hyperscalers are talking about this. Investors are bullish in terms of the ownership in, you know, memory, optical, semi-cap, et cetera. But the question I’m getting more recently is around what’s the ROI on all this spending. And does the market action in these hyperscalers, which have been pretty bearish year-to-date, force a cut on CapEx? So, maybe if you...

Despite the historical energy disruption from the Iran conflict, stocks are back to record highs. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and our Head of Commodity Research Martijn Rats discuss different views and fundamentals driving markets. 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: I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: Today: oil, oil inventories, and the price at the pump. It's Wednesday, May 6th, at 2pm in London. Martijn, it's great to talk to you. We remain in this very unique market where on the one hand, the energy market is severely disrupted. On the other hand, we're making new all-time highs in the stock market. And part of this debate is a creeping sense that maybe the energy market is just a lot more resilient than many people initially thought. So, let's just jump right into it. As you look at the current state of the world, the state of things, how are you seeing the energy market at the moment? Martijn Rats: There are definitely two views in the market. I would say commodity specialists, oil traders, people that trade oil and gas equities for a living, tend to focus on the size of the supply shock. And it is neither hyperbole nor disputed that the size of the supply shock is the largest in the history of the oil market. We have the statistical data to back that up. That is not a controversial statement. But at the same time, the other view in the market, generally held by your generalist investors who invest across many markets. They tend to focus on the likelihood or possibility that this supply shock might also be uniquely short. It was there all of a sudden, from one day to the next, the strait was closed. It felt a bit man-made, so to say. It was an outcome of a political decision, and that can also be undecided. And so, this is – the to-ing and fro-ing in the market is; on the one hand, this shock is very, very large. But the other hand it may also be very, very short. Now we went into this supply shock, arguably well-prepared. In the sense that during the course of like late 2024, all of 2025, and the very early part of 2026, we were telling a story of oversupply surplus. And on top of that, given the military buildup was going on in January and February, a lot of countries in the Arabian Gulf – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait – visibly put out a lot of oil at sea. So, in the oversupply of 2025, we put oil in storage in lots of places that we can't always see. But that seems very likely. Oil in the water was very, very high. So, we have been living off these buffers, and that has helped. And then, yeah, at any point in time, there were good enough reasons to assume that on a timeframe of a couple of weeks, this would largely be resolved. We would eat into these buffers, draw some inventory. And it has been hard for the market then to really capitalize the size of the supply shock and say, "Yeah, really oil prices need to spike very, very high." And in that sense, we’re left with this significant supply shock, but we haven't taken out the highs that we saw in 2022, for example. Andrew Sheets: So maybe a way to think about this, right, is that if we imagined all of that oil as sitting in a big tank. We've kind of stopped a lot of the flow into the top of the tank as the Strait of Hormuz has remained closed. But oil's still able to drain out of the bottom, kind of, like normal because that tank is being drained. Those inventories have been drawn down. Maybe that's a quite a crude analogy, to forgive the pun. But how long can that last? I mean, if we think about these inventories, if we think about the speed of which they're being drawn down; and I think that's an important point that you mentioned, that these inventories were unusually high going in. But they're obviously not...

Our Head of Europe and Asia Technology Research Shawn Kim discusses AI’s move from passive chatbots to active agents—and how this influences tech supply chains. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Europe and Asia Technology Team. Today: A foundational shift in the development of AI and its broad market implications. It’s Tuesday, May 5th, at 3pm in London. Think about the last time you asked a chatbot to write a summary or a draft. Or maybe answer a query. It was probably useful. But you were also still driving the interaction: asking, refining, copying, checking, and moving the work forward. Now imagine a system that does not just respond, but acts. It remembers what you asked last week, understands your preferences, works across digital tools, plans a workflow, and adapts as circumstances change. That is the shift from GenAI to agentic AI: from AI that helps with thinking to AI that helps with doing. GenAI is mostly passive. It takes a prompt and produces an answer. Agentic AI is active – less a copilot for one task but an autopilot for multi-step workflows. The distinction is key because computing requirements are changing. In GenAI, large language models and GPUs handle much of the thinking. GPUs, or graphics processing units, process many calculations in parallel, making them central to modern AI models. In agentic AI, CPU becomes more important. CPUs, or central processing units, coordinate tasks and connect systems to the broader digital infrastructure. Agentic AI also depends on three stacks: the brain, or the large language model; orchestration, where the CPU manages the doing; and knowledge, which is memory. Memory may be the most important layer. An agent that knows your preferences, documents, tone, and task history becomes more useful over time. That creates a context flywheel. The more context it collects, the more personalized it becomes, and the harder it is to leave. Typically, in computing, we think of memory as storage, mainly. We need to rethink this. Memory is also continuity. When an AI system can use past experiences, memory becomes a long-term state, shared knowledge, and behavioral grounding. And that matters because LLMs have fixed context windows. Once a conversation exceeds that window, older content falls off. For simple questions, that may be fine. But for a coding agent working across a large codebase over days or weeks, it is a major limitation. Serious work requires persistent memory, short-term orientation, and active retrieval – remembering prior decisions, understanding changed files, and finding relevant codes without the user pointing to every dependency. For investors, the implication is clear – agentic AI changes the bottlenecks. We see CPUs as the new bottleneck, with memory seeing the highest content increase. We estimate as much as 60 percent, or $60 billion of incremental CPU total addressable market by 2030, within a total CPU market of more than $100 billion. We also estimate up to 70 percent of incremental DRAM bit shipment tied to this theme. That makes us more positive on supply chains including memory, foundry, substrates, CPU and memory interface, and capacitors and CPU sockets. These areas benefit from content growth, pricing power, and capacity constraints into 2027. As AI moves from answering questions to taking actions, investors should watch the infrastructure behind the shift. Because in the agentic era, the next big AI leap may be less about the prompt, but more about the processor. 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.

Introducing a recent episode of Hard Lessons, featuring Rick Rieder, BlackRock’s CIO for Global Fixed Income and Head of the Global Allocation Investment Team, in conversation with Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research at Morgan Stanley. Watch and listen on your favorite podcast platform.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains the factors behind stock gains across sectors. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why earnings remain the most important variable for equity markets. It's Monday, May 4th at 2pm in New York. So, let’s get after it. The more I think about what’s been driving this market, and the more time I spend with the data, the more I keep coming back to the same conclusion: it’s earnings. Not the headlines, not even the Fed. Earnings are doing the heavy lifting right now. When I look at this reporting season, what stands out isn’t just resilience, it’s strength that’s broader than most people appreciate. The typical company in the S&P 500 is growing earnings at about 16 percent, and the median earnings surprise is running around 6 percent. That’s the strongest we’ve seen in four years. What’s really interesting to me is that this strength is no longer confined to just the biggest tech names. Yes, hyper scalers and semiconductors are still playing a leading role, but the story is expanding. We’re seeing earnings revisions move higher across Financials, Industrials, and Consumer Cyclicals, in particular. That kind of breadth tells me this isn’t just a narrow leadership story; it’s something more sustainable. At the same time, many investors are focused on the geopolitical backdrop, particularly the Iran conflict and what it means for oil, inflation, and supply chains. To be fair, companies are feeling some of that pressure. When you listen to earnings calls, you hear about rising freight costs, tighter supply chains, and higher input prices across industries like chemicals and machinery. But here’s the nuance: those impacts are uneven. They’re not hitting the entire market in the same way. In fact, at the index level, they’re being offset. Energy has become a positive contributor to earnings growth, and the higher-end consumer remains relatively strong. Even with higher fuel costs, we’re not seeing a meaningful pullback in overall consumption – at least not yet. That tells me that we’re not dealing with a classic demand shock. We’re dealing with a redistribution of pressure, and companies are adapting. In many cases, they’re passing through higher costs. Revenue surprises are running above historical norms, which suggests pricing power is improving. Now, of course, earnings aren’t the only piece of the puzzle. Policy still matters, and the shift in rate expectations this year has been meaningful. The Fed has clearly become more concerned about inflation, and the market has repriced expectations to fewer cuts, and maybe even a higher probability of hikes. That repricing is a big reason why valuations corrected so sharply over the past six months. It’s notable that even with that headwind, equities have managed to stabilize, thanks to earnings. When earnings are growing at an above-trend pace, equities can deliver solid returns regardless of whether the Fed is cutting or not. That said, I do think that there’s one area of risk that deserves further attention, and that’s liquidity. We’ve seen periods of funding stress over the past six months, and those moments have coincided with pressure on valuations. The Fed and the Treasury have stepped in at times to stabilize these conditions, helping to reduce bond volatility and support equity multiples. Bottom line, we have already had a meaningful correction in valuations this year with price earnings multiples falling 18 percent from their peak last fall. That adjustment occurred as the market digested the many risks that we have been highlighting. Meanwhile, earnings are not only holding up, they’re accelerating and broadening across sectors. The risks that we’ve all all focused on – geopolitics, oil, supply chains – are real. But they’re being...

Our Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research Seth Carpenter discusses whether the economy can adapt fast enough to turn AI into a productivity boom rather than a labor market shock. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Today we're going to try to look past the hype and the anxiety around AI and ask what will be the effect on the labor market. It's Friday, May 1st at 10am in New York. Now, odds are that you've used AI to draft an email or summarize a document, maybe learn about a new topic, help plan a trip. The new technology is clearly lowering the cost of certain tasks. And I think the research shows that there are plenty and an increasing number of tasks that AI can do better than most humans. But that's not really the question. What I hear all the time is, ‘Well, if we can get the same amount of output with less labor, then surely millions of people will lose their job.’ I think the same logic also implies that we can just get a lot more output from the economy using all the labor that we have. And the difference between those two views really is at the heart of the debate. So far, I would say the data allow for some cautious optimism. Despite rapid advances in AI capability and evidence that adoption is spreading, the broad labor market indicators still show remarkably little disruption. Economic growth is holding in there. The unemployment rate is not rising rapidly. If anything, it's ticked down recently. Job openings are not soaring, and separations do not suggest that there's systematic weakness in AI exposed industries. Now, productivity data are beginning to show perhaps a bit of AI's positive effects, but they don't show the mass displacement that many people fear. According to our research, industries with higher AI exposures have recorded stronger labor productivity gains, driven mainly by faster output growth rather than fewer hours worked. And that distinction for me is critical. So far, the evidence looks like workers are producing more than firms are cutting back on labor. There's also a physical constraint. AI adoption depends – and will continue to depend – on infrastructure that is still being built. Of the more than $3 trillion in expected data center and related infrastructure CapEx from 2025 through 2028, only about a quarter of that has been deployed so far. The future remains opaque. No two ways about it. The biggest productivity gains from my perspective are likely still ahead of us, and some job losses are likely unavoidable. Earlier, innovation waves unfolded over decades, and AI is moving much faster, compressing the adjustment period. And that does create the central risk to the labor market; that job destruction happens faster than new job creation happens. And so, what our research has been doing is to try to look beyond the immediate effects. Yes, some jobs and tasks will likely be disrupted. But higher productivity can also mean higher incomes. Higher wealth. With higher income and higher wealth can also mean higher spending, which, in turn, drives the economy faster. Inside corporations, new tasks and new roles will likely emerge giving some of the displaced workers somewhere else to go. And even if employment does slow down for a while – and that could put downward pressure on inflation and maybe upward pressure on the unemployment rate – I don't really think policy makers are simply going to sit back on the sidelines. Central banks can respond by trying to stimulate the economy and bring it back towards full employment. This is something that economists call General Equilibrium. We can't look simply at one side of the equation. We have to think about the system as a whole. And I have to say, if monetary policy runs out of room, fiscal policy makers can get into the game as well. Between automatic...

Capital spending usually signals how a company is positioning itself for the future. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains why this metric is getting more attention from investors. 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 capital expenditure is rapidly becoming one of the most important numbers in earning season across asset classes. It's Thursday, April 30th at 2pm in London. This is a high-risk episode in the sense that it may already be obsolete by the time that you hear it. But then again, maybe that's fitting for a discussion of record capital spending on cutting edge technology. We are in the middle of the busiest part of earning season, and yesterday four of the largest companies in the world reported numbers. These companies – Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta – have a combined market cap of nearly $12 trillion. Yet, while the focus of earning season is traditionally about earnings, another line item is rapidly rising in importance. Capital spending on AI infrastructure – the chips, power cooling, and connections that are required to build and run AI models is soaring. And the companies that reported yesterday are at the leading edge of this trend. The first thing about all this spending is simply the scale. For this year alone, Morgan Stanley estimates that it will amount to over $600 billion across the largest U.S. hyperscalers. To put that in perspective, that means just a handful of U.S. tech companies are now set to spend almost as much on capital and equipment this year as every non-technology company in the S&P 500 did in 2025. And as big as that spending is, it's been accelerating. That over 600 billion spending number that we forecast for 2026? Well, a year ago we thought it would be roughly half that, and that estimate was well above consensus at the time. U.S. companies have repeatedly guided their spending higher as they seek to capture the AI opportunity. And we think that continues. By 2028, my Morgan Stanley colleagues estimate that this U.S. hyperscaler capital spending could hit an annual rate of $1 trillion. In other words, as big as these numbers may seem, much of the spending story still lies ahead. All of that investment, both recently and in the future, has big implications. First, one company's spending is another company's revenue, and many of the stock markets recent winners have been directly tied to this historic buildout. As of this recording, U.S. semiconductor stocks have risen over 30 percent this month alone. Second, while these large U.S. tech companies have enormous financial resources, this spending is at a scale that still requires significant borrowing. Our credit strategy teams expect record bond issuance this year, with U.S. tech borrowing a big part of that. And so far, it's playing out. The first quarter was the busiest quarter for U.S. investment grade bond issuance on record. Which brings us back to these recent earnings – and a dilemma that seems negatively skewed for credit relative to equities. If these companies continue to sound confident about their capital spending plans or even raise expectations further, that could support AI suppliers and the broader equity market. But it would mean even more borrowing needs to be absorbed by the corporate bond market, a credit negative. The results we got yesterday certainly hint at a continuation of this trend. On the other hand, if capital spending is guided down, that could undermine a key pillar of recent market strength and broader risk appetite, which could drag credit wider by association. In the near term, the risk reward seems better in other parts of fixed income, such as mortgage-backed securities. The implications of yesterday's results may also extend to the Federal Reserve. As we discussed last week, Kevin Warsh,...

Still six months out, the U.S. midterm elections are likely to influence government initiatives to deal with higher energy costs. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss how the Congress and the Fed might react. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, the firm's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Ariana Salvatore: Today we're discussing the run up to the midterm elections and what it could mean for the macro outlook and policy response. It's Wednesday, April 29th at 10am in New York. Last week, Mike Zezas and I talked through the midterm elections and their potential consequences for the economy and markets. This week we figured it might be helpful to talk about the setup into November, especially as we're both increasingly being asked about the macro outlook and potential for targeted stimulus to offset the oil shock. So, Seth, let's start there. we know cost of living is a key issue in elections, and we've seen a pretty meaningful oil shock feed through markets. How are you thinking about that in the context of the broader economy? Seth Carpenter: Our U.S. economics team has estimated that the higher gas prices that we have now and likely to have for the rest of the year are going to be more than enough to offset any boost to consumer spending from the higher tax refunds this year. So, I think that's the first point. If you're expecting a boost to come through that channel, you probably want to unwind that. And In fact, overall, what we've done is lowered our forecast for U.S. growth by about three or four tenths of percentage point worth of growth this year because of the higher energy prices. So, it's a drag on spending, I think, no matter how you cut it. Ariana Salvatore: And that's not happening in isolation, right? Seth Carpenter: No, that's exactly right. That's exactly right. We've also got at least somewhat restrictive monetary policy layered on top. So, financial conditions are already a little bit tight and the oil price shock sort of amplifies that tightening by weighing on spending. That's going to be really important. I think an extra complication then is what does it do to inflation? For now, we don't think it's going to be that big of a deal. History says at least looking at the data that when energy prices go up, when oil prices go up, gasoline prices go up. It does boost headline inflation for sure, but the pass through to core inflation is pretty limited, and the effects tend to go away on their own without too much time. So, I think the real hit here is going to be from the higher costs acting like a drag on consumer spending. Ariana Salvatore: Right. And importantly, it's a very visible shock. Gasoline prices feed directly into how consumers and voters perceive the economy, which brings us into the political overlay as we approach the midterms… Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And whenever we economists are thinking about inflation and prices and consumers, we think about exactly that – what we call salience, just how visible are these prices. And gasoline prices tend to be some of those prices that stick out in people's minds. So, if people are seeing it. And people are reacting to it, give me some idea of what the Congress can realistically do between now and the midterm elections. Ariana Salvatore: Well, I would say in theory there's a range of options. Direct stimulus, targeted transfers. We tend to frame affordability policies across five vectors: energy, healthcare, housing, consumer credit and trade policy. But in practice, the constraints are pretty binding right now and as we've been saying, tariff policy is really the only lever the president can pull easily to have a real impact on voters. Seth...

Tom Wigg and Stephen Byrd discuss the accelerating pace of AI breakthroughs, the forces driving them and why the next phase of development may look very different from anything we’ve seen so far. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Tom Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Tom Wigg, Head of Specialty Sales in the Americas at Morgan Stanley, and a sector specialist in Technology, Media and Telecom. We wake up every day to new AI product releases, so it’s easy to lose sight of the unprecedented non-linear improvement in AI capabilities. But things are about to get weird. It’s Tuesday, April 28th at 8am in New York. The market has been thinking about AI in linear terms. But we need to reframe that assumption of only incremental improvement and think about exponential improvement. That was my takeaway from a conversation with Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. In our conversation, we zeroed in on Stephen’s bull case for broader AI model improvements. Tom Wigg: First, I want to talk about one obsession that you’ve been writing about for the last several months – is this idea that we’re going to see nonlinear improvements in the frontier models coming out this spring. Stephen Byrd: Yes. Tom Wigg: There’s been, you know, some big headlines around new models, benchmarks coming out publicly. Is this, you know, your bull case playing out on these models? And what are the implications? Stephen Byrd: Yes! Absolutely, Tom. So we have, to your point, we are obsessed. And I know I’m not shy about that – with the nonlinear rate of AI improvement. It is the most important impact to so many stocks that I can think of in the sense that it can impact all industries, all business models. So, what we’ve been saying for some time is, if you look back over the last couple of years at the relationship between the amount of compute used to train these LLMs and the capabilities, we have a very clear scaling law. And approximately the law is, if you increase the training compute by 10x, the capabilities of the models go up by 2x. Now, as you and I’ve talked about this a lot; just meditate on that for a moment. I think things are about to get weird in the sense that on the positive side, we’re going to see all kinds of underappreciated capabilities across many industries. So this disruption discussion, I think, is going to spread, but it’s also going to require investors to, kind of, be more thoughtful about what they do with that concept. Meaning you can’t sell everything. In the sense that AI will disrupt some businesses. I actually think this is healthy in some ways because now it forces investors to really look at each business model and assess which is going to get disrupted, which can get supported and enabled by AI, which are immune. Because there are some business models that actually are immune. But essentially from here, Tom, I’d say we are expecting through the spring and summer to see multiple models that are able to perform a much greater percentage of the economy at better levels of accuracy at incredibly low cost. Which I know you and I have talked a lot about the cost of actually doing this work from the LLMs. This is massive. This is going to impact so many industries. I think this is all to the good for the AI infrastructure plays because it shows the importance of getting more intelligence out into the world. Tom Wigg: So, you mentioned the constraints we’re seeing across compute, memory and power. It seems like most of the CEOs of the labs and hyperscalers are talking about this. Investors are bullish in terms of the ownership in, you know, memory, optical, semi-cap, et cetera. But the question I’m getting more recently is around what’s the ROI on all this spending. And does the market action in these hyperscalers, which have been pretty bearish year-to-date, force a cut on CapEx? So, maybe if you can marry that with what you’re...

Major U.S. stock indexes have rebounded sharply in recent weeks. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses the fundamentals that could support the continuation of the bull market. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I'll be discussing why I remain bullish even after such a strong run in stocks. It's Monday, April 27th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. The U.S. equity market just experienced one of the most dramatic bounces in history from a technical standpoint. It went from oversold to overbought territory in just 12 days. Based on our conversations, the speed of this move has led some to express caution about the near-term path of equities – but that's the way it usually works. The market waits for no one once it decides to move on. From our perspective, this feels like last year. Many investors are contemplating the lagging impacts of higher commodity prices on inflation just like they were thinking through the effects of higher tariff rates a year ago. Many companies will feel the downstream impacts on a lagging basis. But we believe equity indices and many subgroups already suffered enough damage to account for these concerns. In other words, the equity market isn't simply looking past the risks, it already priced them. Take into consideration that the earnings picture is much stronger today with forward 12-month earnings growth approaching 25 percent versus just 9 percent a year ago. As well, we still hear many commentators suggesting that growth is only coming from a handful of stocks. While mathematically that is a fair point for the top-heavy S&P 500, it doesn't acknowledge that forward earnings growth for the median company and for small caps is also well into the double digits. This cadence is very different from the prior three to four years when the economy was experiencing a rolling recession. It also supports our rolling recovery and broadening thesis we laid out a year ago. So far, the first quarter earnings season has delivered a 10 percent beat rate in aggregate. This is two times the long-term average. More importantly, second quarter and forward 12-month company guidance have increased by an additional 2 to 3 percent. Besides earnings beat rates and guidance, we are also watching capex guidance and signs of pricing power. We entered 2026 with a view that the capex cycle was gaining momentum, thanks to three tailwinds: First, strong earnings and cash flow, which tend to correlate with capex. Second, tax incentives from the BBB; and third, strong demand for the AI buildout and reshoring of manufacturing. Early indications on this front are supportive with median stock capex growth running almost 10 percent, and our factor work continuing to show that the market is rewarding high capex. It's important to see these trends continue as the quarter progresses, especially this week when the hyperscalers are scheduled to report. Another point; given potential downstream cost headwinds from the Iran war, we want to see pricing power and top line durability persist. Early indications here are also supportive with sales surprises for the S&P 500 running well above average and close to 2 percent. Finally, as noted in prior podcasts, one of the last hurdles for the market to overcome was the Fed's recent hawkish pivot on higher oil prices and the transition of its leadership from Jay Powell to Fed Chair nominee Kevin Warsh. This past week, Kevin Warsh appeared in front of the Senate. He signaled some caution on near-term rate cuts, noting that inflation risks are not resolved. He also reiterated his well-established criticism of the Fed’s historic willingness to intervene in markets and the economy too aggressively with its balance sheet. Every Fed Chair transition typically requires a learning period for the markets...

Kevin Warsh, President Trump’s nominee for the next Fed Chair, testified in front of the Senate earlier this week. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets presents key takeaways from the two-and-half-hour testimony. 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 on the program, a first look at potentially the next Fed chair. It's Friday, April 24th at 9am in New York. Financial markets can often struggle to keep track of more than one story at a time – and at present, we're really pushing the limit. At one end, the Iran conflict continues to create a historic disruption in global energy markets. At the other, signs of corporate animal spirits and activity hint at the potential for an even larger boom if this disruption ends. Merger activity, capital spending, loan growth and earnings growth are all strong and accelerating. And so, into this mix enters a third story, the Federal Reserve. Indeed, both Iran and the investment boom introduce real questions as to how a central bank should react to these factors. For example, if oil prices spike further, should the central bank raise interest rates to counter the inflation that would follow? Or should it lower them because that increase in oil prices could potentially hit growth? And what about corporate aggression? As that aggression increases, should the Fed look to raise interest rates and take away the punch bowl, so to speak, to avoid an even larger overheating in the economy? Or maybe all of this investment will create abundance – actually lower prices and warrant interest rate cuts. These questions will weigh on the Fed and, in particular, Kevin Warsh, who has been nominated by President Trump to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve. This week saw Warsh testify in front of the Senate as part of that process, giving us the most detailed insight into his current thinking that we've had so far. Two things really stood out. First, Warsh believes that this historic boom in AI and technology investment really is likely to boost productivity. A productivity boost, all else equal, should mean a greater supply of goods and services into the economy from the same number of workers; and thanks to that greater supply, relatively lower prices and less inflation. This belief in investment driven productivity underpins why he thinks interest rates can be lower even if current inflation is elevated. Second, Warsh was critical of the Fed, stating that it had “lost its way,” from expanding its balance sheet too much to being too slow to reign in inflation following COVID. He outlined a sweeping agenda for change, including how the Fed could forecast inflation, manage its assets, and communicate its policy. But another challenge that's going to be facing the next Fed chair will be personal as much as it's economic. Fed decisions are made by a majority vote. And while Warsh may feel strongly that the historic investment cycle that we're seeing in technology will bring down inflation, can he convince others of this as well – especially at a time when current inflation readings are somewhat elevated? And will his criticism of how the Fed has conducted action over the last several years make it harder to gain the support of colleagues, some of whom were there for those measures? Or will it be welcomed as a breath of fresh air and a chance for the Fed to have a new start? The uncertain timing of the handover and the fact that policy is still up to committee means that we think markets will likely stay focused on other factors in the near term and expect relatively modest shifts in Fed policy for now. But it's still worth watching. Since 1979, only five individuals have occupied this important seat leading the U.S. Central Bank. We may be about to get the sixth. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts of...

Our Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research Seth Carpenter asks Mayank Phadke, a member of his team, to give up an update on tariffs and their real cost to the U.S. economy. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And I'm joined by Mayank Phadke, a member of my global economics team. And today we're going to talk about tariffs. I bet that was a surprise. It is Thursday, April 23rd at 10am in New York. I have to say, for the past couple of months, the focus on energy markets, energy supply, energy prices – that has dominated everything that we've been talking to clients about around the world. And so, everyone would be forgiven if they had forgotten that we were talking about tariffs much the same way, nonstop last year. Now, tariffs kind of seem like an afterthought. But part of the stated motivation for tariffs when they were imposed was to boost reshoring. That is to have more production of goods in the United States that had been imported. So, tariffs still matter. They matter for CapEx, in that regard, they matter for domestic production. And because of all of that, presumably they matter for markets and for the Federal Reserve. But for the narrow question of reshoring, the data so far, I would argue, suggests that there's been very little net effect. There will be more tariff news arriving in coming months. So Mayank, I am going to pull you into this conversation because you have been one of the key people on the team, doing of analysis on the data work on tariffs, trade and reshoring. So, could you tell us a little bit about what’s been happening to the effective tariff rate for the United States recently? And where we think that’s likely to go? Mayank Phadke: Tariff levels have declined steadily in recent months, falling to 8.5 percent as of February, with the decline having accelerated after the Supreme Court ruling. The decision on IEEPA forced a shift in underlying tariff authorities with country level IEEPA tariffs temporarily reconstituted under Section 122. We have long argued, even before the 2025 tariffs that the legal basis for durable tariffs would need to be anchored in section 232 and section 301 based authorities rather than in IEEPA. The current Section 122 tariffs are due to expire on the 24th of July. And after that, we expect more durable authorities to kick in. The shifts that we will see as IEEPA tariffs are replaced by new section 301 and 232 tariffs means that there will be some differences. But from a macro perspective, we expect the level to be roughly similar to where it stood at the end of 2025. An aggregate effective rate of around 10 percent. Two sets of Section 301 investigations were announced by the administration in March, covering virtually all major trading partners. These investigations are likely to run on a faster timeline than prior efforts. Those took around nine months. The comments were requested by the 15th of April, with hearings scheduled for early May. We're inclined to expect completed section 301 investigations over the summer while section 232 tariffs will likely arrive in waves as sector-based investigations proceed. Seth Carpenter: Got it. Okay. So, I'm going to summarize that to say tariffs are not going away. Tariffs are here. In the aggregate for macro economists like us, probably about the same level it's been. But that escapes the question about the individual industries, and it brings us right back to this question of reshoring. Is that what's going to happen? And so, when I think about it, we do have all these negotiations. But the reshoring question forces you to wonder about manufacturing, manufacturing growth and with it CapEx. And like I said at the top, it's non-AI CapEx that's really on the soft side of things. So, you've spent a lot of time looking at the data. I would say...

Although the conflict in Iran keeps dominating the news cycle, investors have an eye on the upcoming U.S. midterm elections. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore consider policy implications – from healthcare and consumer to AI. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the midterm elections and their implications for U.S. markets. It's Wednesday, April 22nd at 10am in New York. All right, so Ariana, midterm elections are coming up. And I feel like every cycle we hear the same question. How much do elections actually matter for markets? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, I would say, you know, we're still six months out and obviously a lot of the market's focus has been on the U.S.-Iran conflict. But it does keep coming up in our conversations with investors. And to your question, our view is these elections probably matter a little bit less than people think, at least from a macro perspective. Michael Zezas: Okay, so that seems a bit counterintuitive, right? Because policy has felt like a huge driver of markets recently. Tariffs. Geopolitics. Really all the above. Ariana Salvatore: Exactly. But there's some nuance here. So, policy does matter, but the big takeaway is that the direction of policy doesn't really change based on the midterms. That's because some of the key policy variables that you mentioned – trade, geopolitics, also deregulation – those are all likely to keep going regardless of who wins. At the same time, it's worth noting upfront that the race itself is still pretty fluid. A lot of the indicators that investors are watching – polling prediction markets, the president's approval rating, even things like domestic gasoline prices and consumer sentiment – they're somewhat giving mixed signals right now. There's a growing narrative around a potential democratic sweep. But when you actually look in more detail at the Senate map, we think the path there is still pretty challenging. So, I think it's important to emphasize there's much more uncertainty in the outcome than the headlines right now might suggest. Michael Zezas: So, if those indicators end up being right and we do in fact see a divided government, what do you think investors should be paying attention to? Ariana Salvatore: There are some incremental shifts that will be worth watching. In particular as they pertain to fiscal policy. So, for example, things like SNAP and Medicaid, those are the real swing factors depending on the election outcome. If you recall last year, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act legislated some changes to those programs that are meant to start taking effect in 2027 and 2028. Things like shifting more of the cost burden onto states and tightening eligibility requirements to offset some of the deficit impact from tax cuts. And where elections come in is around whether or not those changes actually get implemented or delayed or softened. In our view, the most likely way you can get meaningful adjustments is in some form of divided government where there actually might be an incentive to negotiate around those fiscal cliffs. But crucially, we think that can only happen if you have what we call a robust rather than a fragile majority. Michael Zezas: Okay. Can you explain the difference between those two things? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, the question is not just who controls Congress, it's how unified they are. If you get a robust majority, that means the party can agree internally on what their core policy objectives are. And then use their leverage in a cohesive way to extract political concessions from the opposing party. So, to put it in simpler terms. If Democrats have a large enough majority or are able to...

Back from the IMF Spring Meetings in Washington, Simon Waever and Seth Carpenter unpack what policy makers and investors could be underpricing: the growth hit from higher energy costs, the risk of too much tightening by central banks and why emerging markets still look resilient. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Emerging Markets Sovereign Credit and LatAm Fixed Income Strategy. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Simon Waever: Today: The key takeaways for investors from the International Monetary Fund spring meetings in Washington, D.C. It’s Tuesday, April 21st at 10am in New York. Every six months, the IMF meetings in D.C. bring policy makers and investors together to take stock of the global economy. And we were both there as part of our IMF policy pulse conference. This time, continuing a pattern of recent years, the backdrop was a bit more complicated. Investors are weighing the economic fallout from the Iran conflict, potentially more persistent inflation pressures, and, as always, rising concerns around global debt and fiscal sustainability. So, the key question coming out of Washington is how do these risks reshape the outlook, and what should investors be paying attention to now. Let's start with the growth outlook, Seth. When you think about the Iran conflict, what's the single biggest channel through which it could hit global growth? And is that risk underpriced by markets today? Seth Carpenter: I think it really is underpriced, and not just by markets. I would say I had conversations with investors, but also with policy makers down in Washington. And I would say relative to my views on things, both markets and policy makers are under appreciating how much of a hit to growth this could be. Where is it going to happen? What's the channel? Well, that actually – that differs depending on which economy that you're looking at. I would say here in the U.S., it's primarily the middle- and lower-end of the income distribution. Higher energy prices, gasoline prices going up, taking away at discretionary income, especially in what we've been calling this K-shaped economy where the bottom half is already struggling. So, a bit of a hit primarily to consumption spending. I'd say in other parts of the world, it's broader. Asia – we are already starting to see rationing being imposed for production, for public transportation in lots of ways that really are going to crimp spending both by households and businesses. And then of course Europe. Well, they're still in some ways reeling and adapting from the energy price shock. When Russia invaded Ukraine, natural gas prices went up a lot more then. But I think there's still an adjustment process going on. So, I think the potential hit to growth is real. I think it has spread across economies around the world, but each different economy, each different country has its own sort of nuance and flavor to it. Simon Waever: And what about the central banks? I know you met with quite a few of them as well. Are they at risk of being behind the curve on inflation or is actually the bigger mistake now look like over-tightening? Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I really think the over-tightening is the bigger risk here. It's funny, being behind the curve. That's a phrase that I did hear a lot, especially among some of the European policy makers. And people are feeling scarred, I guess you could say, from the surge in inflation that we got coming out of COVID. But history suggests that these sorts of surges in energy prices tend to be: one, more focused in headline inflation rather than core; and second, they do tend to revert on time and go away, over time. And I would say the bigger the hit to growth, the more likely it is that the inflationary impulse will start to fade on its own. And so, I do think there's...

Our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd unpacks how major investment themes for 2026 are increasingly interconnected, generating gains for investors. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Today – how our 10 big thematic predictions are playing out and driving global markets. It’s Monday, April 20th at 11:30am in New York. Back in January, we laid out four key themes – AI & Tech Diffusion, the Future of Energy, a Multipolar World, and Societal Shifts. And we laid out 10 specific thematic predictions about forces shaping 2026. It is really striking to me how quickly the landscape has shifted and how significant these trends have become in just a short period of time. Even more striking is how these mega secular themes are converging. AI is driving unprecedented demand for compute and energy. Energy is becoming a strategic priority for nations. And geopolitics is shaping access to both. So, let’s start with the most important development: the acceleration of AI. Now we expected strong progress in terms of large language model development, but what we’re seeing is really a step-change upward in capability. And this is driving an extraordinary surge in demand for compute. Global AI usage has jumped sharply with weekly usage; and we measure weekly usage in terms of how many tokens are used. Tokens are really a measure of small units of text. It's a fairly standard measure of demand for compute. That token usage has risen by about 250 percent just since early January, from 6.4 trillion tokens a week to 22.7 trillion; pushing us into a world where compute demand exceeds supply. This is one of the defining investment stories of 2026, and I see a lot of alpha generation, around this opportunity. Now, at the same time, AI is reshaping the labor market. We estimate that automation or augmentation will impact 90 percent of occupations; so almost every job will be affected. But the effect is not binary. So we recently assessed the impacts to employment in five sectors where we believe the impact of AI adoption could be the biggest. And on net we see a 4 percent job loss, driven by 11 percent of outright elimination of jobs. 12 percent of jobs that were not backfilled, partially offset by 18 percent of new hires. So the real story is transformation. AI is changing how work gets done, reshaping roles rather than simply replacing them. But AI does not operate in a vacuum. It runs on energy. And that’s the second major shift since January. We now estimate global data center power demand could increase by nearly 130 gigawatts by 2028, with the U.S. potentially facing a 10–20 percent shortfall in power availability needed to support that growth. That’s why the Future of Energy is such a central theme. AI growth is directly tied to energy availability, cost, and infrastructure, and increasingly, to national policy. And that brings us to the third major development: geopolitics. We certainly did not anticipate the Iran conflict, but it has had a significant impact on energy markets, including supply disruptions that have rippled across global energy systems. And more broadly, we’re seeing a global push towards national self-sufficiency; this is a big driver for many years to come – in energy, critical minerals, and technology. And this clearly aligns with our Multipolar World theme, where countries are prioritizing control over key economic inputs. This shift is likely to be a major driver of markets not just this year, but well beyond. These big structural forces are already showing up in performance. The thematic categories that we developed that are aligned with our key themes were up 38 percent on average in 2025, outperforming the S&P 500 by 27 percentage points. And year-to-date in 2026, they're still ahead by 12 points. The strongest areas reflect...

Our Head of U.S. Pharma and Biotech Terence Flynn discusses how the rapid pace of adoption of weight management treatments could have far-reaching implications across healthcare, consumer behavior and global markets. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley’s Head of U.S. Pharma and Biotech Research. Today: the next phase of growth in obesity medicines – the GLP-1 unlock. It’s Friday, April 17th, at 2pm in New York. There are moments in healthcare where innovation, policy, and patient demand all converge. And when they do, the impact can extend far beyond medicine. Now we believe GLP-1 therapies are at one of those moments. We estimate that the obesity medications market could reach around $190 billion at peak across obesity and diabetes. Now, that’s a meaningful step up from prior expectations – and it reflects a shift from early adoption to a much broader, more scalable opportunity. Despite the surge in attention to GLP-1s in the last couple of years, penetration actually remains relatively low today. Only about 6 percent of eligible obesity patients in the U.S. are currently using GLP-1 therapies, and just 2 percent outside the U.S. So, while the growth has been significant, the reality is that we’re still early. And that’s what makes this moment so important. So, we see five drivers that are pushing the next phase of adoption. The first is a shift of oral medications. These therapies have historically been injectables, which limits adoption. But newer oral options are changing that. Notably, just under 80 percent of oral GLP-1 users are new to the category. And this signals real market expansion. Second, expanding access through Medicare. A new U.S. framework is opening these drugs to millions of older patients, with out-of-pocket costs potentially around $50 per month. Now, that’s a meaningful shift, and one that could significantly broaden utilization. Third is lower costs and broader insurance coverage. We’re already seeing progress here. Average monthly out-of-pocket costs have declined to about $120, down from $170 last year. Now, at the same time, employer coverage for obesity treatments is expected to rise from just under 50 percent last year to around 65 percent by 2027. Fourth is global expansion. Outside the U.S., adoption is more price-sensitive, but the opportunity is large. As costs come down and access improves, especially in markets like China and Brazil, we expect uptake to accelerate. And fifth is innovation beyond weight loss. These therapies are increasingly being studied across a range of conditions: from cardiovascular and kidney disease to inflammation and neurological disorders. And that has the potential to further expand the addressable market over time. So how big could the GLP-1 market get? Well globally, we estimate there are about 1.3 billion people eligible for these therapies. Now our base case assumes roughly 12 percent of that population is treated by 2035, including about 30 percent penetration in the U.S. Now, even at those levels, we’re looking at a $190 billion market – with a potential bull case of around $240 billion. But this story doesn’t stop at healthcare. We estimate GLP-1 adoption could reduce U.S. calorie consumption by about 1.6 percent by 2035. Now, that may sound modest, but at scale it has real implications, with ripple effects across consumer behavior and industries like food, retail, and healthcare services. So, stepping back, this is what defines the GLP-1 unlock. We’re approaching a key inflection point that’s driven by oral therapies, broader access, and ongoing innovation. With adoption still low relative to the eligible population, the growth runway remains significant. At its core, this is a long-term structural shift in how chronic disease is treated, and how that reshapes markets. Thanks so much for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review...

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets breaks down how Péter Magyar’s win in Hungary’s election could smooth relations with the EU and lower the risk premium in the country’s assets. 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 on the program, how we’re thinking about the market implications of a recent election. It’s Thursday, April 16th at 2pm in London. Hungary has about the same population as New Jersey. And yet its elections last weekend commanded global attention. The contest pitted the party of Viktor Orbán, who had served as Prime Minister since 2010, against a former protégé turned rival, Péter Magyar. As a sign of the global importance and as a referendum on the future of Hungary and its place in Europe, this vote was seen as significantly important that the U.S. Vice President flew in to campaign on Orbán’s behalf. Among the issues at stake were Hungary’s relationship with Europe’s broader political and economic architecture. Hungary has been a member of the European Union since 2004, but has frequently clashed with the bloc under Orbán’s tenure. This has European-wide implications, as a number of key EU procedures – including the levying of sanctions, defence policy, and enlargement – require unanimous approval among member states. A single dissenting vote, from Hungary or anywhere else, can prove highly disruptive. This month the European Commission President proposed moving forward with changing the voting system and linking it more closely to population. But there’s a wrinkle… This change would still need to pass by unanimous vote. So back to the election. The result was a landslide win for the opposition, with Péter Magyar’s party securing 138 out of 199 seats in the National Assembly. The shift in leadership, the first since 2010, and the scale of the majority, have meaningful geopolitical implications for Europe. But since this is a markets-focused podcast … we’ll focus on the markets. First, new leadership in Hungary may mean warmer relations with the European Union. And that could mean money. Unfreezing access to EU funds, one of the new government's policy goals, could result in 1 to 1.5 percent higher potential GDP growth for Hungary, per Morgan Stanley economists. And the new government has also proposed taking steps to adopt the Euro as its official currency. Both of these developments could help reduce the risk premium embedded in Hungarian assets. While Hungarian interest rates fell and its currency appreciated following the vote, our strategists think that both could move further – with interest rates falling a further 0.5 to 1 percent, and the currency appreciating a further 2 to 4 percent. And while Hungary is a pretty small equity market in global terms, it is one that our strategists like, and are overweight. Hungary’s recent election attracted global focus. While much remains to be seen, the prospect for smoother relations with the rest of Europe is a positive for both Hungary's assets and the Bloc as a whole. For different reasons related to Energy uncertainty, relative earnings, and relative monetary policy, we do continue to prefer U.S. equities and government bonds over their European counterparts. But as a longer-term story in Europe that’s important to watch, we think this definitely qualifies. 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.

Our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter concludes the two-part discussion with chief regional economists Michael Gapen, Jens Eisenschmidt and Chetan Ahya on the second order effects of the energy shock from tensions in the Middle East. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And once again, I am joined by Morgan Stanley's chief regional economists: Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, the Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. Yesterday we focused on the immediate impact of the Iran conflict, how the energy shock is feeding through into inflation, and, as a result, shaping central bank decisions across the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Today we're going to go a level deeper and talk about some structural issues in the global economy. It's Wednesday, April 15th at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3pm in London. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: So, even as we're waiting to see whether or not oil prices stabilize following a temporary ceasefire – or not – the broader effects are still working their way through the global economy. Labor markets, supply chains, and then, of course, back to the more longer-term structural themes like AI driven growth. So, the question, I think, has to be: what does this shock mean, if anything, for the next phase of global growth? And does it reshape it? Does it change it, or do we just wait for things to go through? Mike, let me come to you first. One risk that we've been focusing on is whether this kind of shock really changes some of the structural positives in the U.S. economy. The U.S. has been, I would say, outperforming in lots of ways. We've had this AI driven CapEx cycle. We've had rising productivity; we've had strong consumer spending. What are you seeing in the data about those more structural trends? Michael Gapen: I think what we're seeing in the data right now is evidence that oil is not disrupting the positive structural trends in the U.S. I think AI CapEx spending is largely orthogonal to what we've seen so far. It doesn't mean that we can't see negative effects, particularly if oil rises to say $150 a barrel or more where we think you might see significant demand destruction. But with oil where it is right now, I would say the evidence is it will probably weigh on consumption. Gasoline prices are higher. It's going to squeeze lower- and middle-income households that way. But so far, the labor market appears to be holding up. And business spending around CapEx seems to be holding up. And the productivity story remains in place. So right now, I'd say this is more of a break on consumer spending, maybe a modest headwind. But not an outright hard stop. And I think those positive structural elements and AI-related CapEx spending are going to stay with us in 2026. Seth Carpenter: I hear in your answer part of what for me is always the most uncomfortable part of these conversations. Where I have to come back to say, ‘But of course it depends on how things evolve…' Michael Gapen: Of course, It depends… Seth Carpenter: So, then let me push you on AI specifically. You and your team have published a few pieces recently about AI. How AI is affecting the labor market, and maybe some hints as to how AI is likely to affect the labor market. So how should we think about that? Michael Gapen: While it's still too early, I think, to draw firm conclusions, Seth, we do find that there's some evidence that AI is pushing unemployment rates higher in specific occupations that are exposed to task replacement. So, what we did do is we broke down the data by occupation, and it's clear that the unemployment rate has been rising. But that's just a general feature of the economy at this point in time. Over the last 18 to 24 months, the unemployment rate has gone...

In this first of a two-part discussion, our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter leads a discussion with chief regional economists Michael Gapen, Jens Eisenschmidt and Chetan Ahya on impacts of the conflict in Iran and how central banks are responding. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And today we're going to kick off our quarterly economic roundtable. And this is where we try to step back a little bit from the headlines and the day-to-day changes in markets and try to put the global picture together and frame it for you. In the first of this two-part discussion, we're going to cover the implications of the oil price shock for energy, inflation, and for central bank policy. As always, I'm joined by the Chief Regional Economists here at Morgan Stanley. I've got Michael Gapen, our Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. It's Tuesday, April 14th at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3pm in London. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: So, let's just jump right into this. Over the past several weeks, global markets have been dominated by one story. The escalation, de-escalation, the news flow back and forth about the conflict in Iran and the ripple across energy markets, inflation, and growth. Our view has been that even if we don't see another huge leg up in the price of energy and another surge in volatility across financial markets, the persistence of the shock in terms of disrupted supply will be at least as important, if not more so for markets. So, let me start here in the U.S., Mike. You and I have each had lots of conversations with clients about how the Fed's going to react. Market pricing moved a lot before, has retraced, and now is kind of looking at no change in policy for this year, give or take. Your baseline remains that the Fed will have an easing bias and that we'll end up with a couple of cuts later this year. Can you walk us through that thinking, and also where the debate is with clients? Michael Gapen: Sure. So, the evidence in the data… This goes back, let's call it several decades now – that oil price shocks in the U.S. do tend to push headline inflation higher by definition. But they have very limited second round effects on core inflation. And the higher oil prices go, the more likely it is that you get some demand destruction, some weakness in spending, maybe even some weakness in hiring. So, there is a bit of a non-linearity here. In our baseline where oil is elevated, but let's say not excessively high, I can completely buy the argument that the Fed is on hold assessing the evolution of the data and wondering are there second round effects on inflation? Or is this weakening demand? So, Seth, our view is that the Fed is right in its assessment that tariff passed through to goods prices will eventually moderate. And that the oil price effect on headline will diminish. And later this year, core inflation moderates. That should open the door for the Fed to cut two times this year. I do think that the wrong thing to do in this situation is to raise rates into this… Seth Carpenter: I agree with you. Michael Gapen: Yeah. So, I think it's… The Fed's on hold or their cutting. If we're right on where inflation goes, that can open the door to cuts. But to your point, where is the investor debate right now? I think the knee jerk reaction from markets is – the Fed's on the sideline, for, let's call it the foreseeable future. Which as you noted in this market is day-to-day headline to headline. And the Fed will assess where to go later this year. We think they can cut. But I think in general, the Fed is either on hold or cutting. I think the wrong thing to do right now is raise rates. Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, let me jump in maybe here from...

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson shares his perspective on why investors should position for a stock market recovery despite ongoing uncertainty. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why equity investors – sometimes – need to look away from the headlines. It's Monday, April 13th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. Today I want to talk about something I think a lot of investors are struggling with right now – and that’s timing. When I talk to people, markets still feel fragile to most. There’s uncertainty around geopolitics, central banks, oil… You name it. But when I look at what the market is actually doing; not what it feels like, but what it’s telling us – I come away with a very different conclusion. The market is further along than most people think in this correction. In fact, over the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen the S&P 500 bounce meaningfully. Almost 7 percent from the lows after holding that critical 6300 to 6500 range that we’ve been focused on. To me, that’s not random. That’s the market carving out a low ahead of an all-clear signal. And stepping back, my broader view hasn’t changed. I still think we’re in a new bull market that began last April, coming out of that rolling recession between 2022 and 2025. This correction is part of that cycle; not the end of it. And importantly, a lot of the heavy lifting has already been done. Valuations have compressed significantly. Forward price/earnings multiples have fallen about 18 percent from top to bottom. And beneath the surface, more than half of stocks are down 20 percent or more. That’s a market that has already discounted a lot of risk – whether it’s the war, private credit concerns, or AI disruption. At the same time, earnings are moving in the opposite direction. Trailing earnings growth is running around 15 percent, and forward earnings growth is up over 20 percent. That combination of falling multiples and rising earnings is a classic bull market correction behavior. Not a bear market. And that’s why I think many are misreading this environment. One area where I think that’s especially clear is energy. If you look at the price action, energy stocks appear to have already peaked in relative terms. That’s often a signal that the underlying commodity – in this case oil – may also be peaking. Or at least it’s stabilizing. Which brings me to what I think is really driving volatility now: rates. We’re back in a regime where stocks and yields are negatively correlated. That means higher rates are a headwind for equities again, and the recent hawkish tone from central banks that’s focused on inflation is creating tighter financial conditions. In my view, that’s the final hurdle. Not the war. Not oil. But monetary policy. And here’s the interesting part. Tightening financial conditions are also what ultimately force central banks to pivot. So the very thing creating anxiety today may be what sets up relief tomorrow. Now, if we’re in the later stages of this correction, the next question is positioning. For me, it’s still about a barbell. On one side, I like cyclicals like Financials, Industrials, and Consumer Discretionary – where the earnings remain strong and valuations have reset. On the other side is quality growth. In particularly the hyperscalers; where sentiment has been washed out, but fundamentals remain intact. That combination has worked well off the lows so far, and I think it continues to make sense here. When I zoom out even further, there’s a bigger theme developing as well. And that’s the rebalancing of the economy, a core theme we discussed in our 2026 outlook back in November. We’re starting to see hard evidence that growth is shifting, from the public to the private economy. Private payrolls are strengthening, capital investment...