Episodes

  • Warsh’s Plan to Change the Fed

    Warsh’s Plan to Change the Fed
    Apr 24 2026

    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 the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.
    Show More Show Less
    4 mins
  • The Hidden Toll of Tariffs

    The Hidden Toll of Tariffs
    Apr 23 2026
    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 one industry that tends to stand out in all these conversations is steel. So, if we look at what's happened with the steel industry, with tariffs, with changes in imports and that sort of things, what's happened? Do we see clear evidence that there's this big reshoring push? Mayank Phadke: The case of steel is certainly very interesting. It helps frame why tariff uncertainty matters. And the supply chain for steel is relatively compact, which makes it easier to observe how the sector responds to tariffs. Domestic production has risen as imports have fallen consistent with the idea of reshoring. But when we look at the total supply of steel to the domestic economy, it hasn't risen. More importantly, U.S. steel prices have materially diverged from global peers. And the risk of more aggressive sector tariffs across the economy, in our view is higher prices. An outcome which is consistent with our expectations from a year ago – and with economic theory. Seth Carpenter: As an...
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins
  • U.S. Midterms: What Investors Should Watch

    U.S. Midterms: What Investors Should Watch
    Apr 22 2026
    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 coalesce around some of the key policy asks – for example, delaying some of these cuts – we think they can tie those two, some must pass bills. Think appropriations bills or debt ceiling extensions, for example, that they will need to be consulted on in a split government scenario.Now conversely, if it's a fragile majority, you probably see more internal disagreement, less coordination, and a lot more political noise with less actual policy getting done.Michael Zezas: Okay, so a lot of good insights there. Can you boil it down to a few key takeaways for investors?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so one I would say is that fiscal policy is really where the midterm elections might matter the most. But even there, we think the impact is more micro than macro. Another is that divided government doesn't necessarily mean less policy activity. It just changes the form that it takes. And then of course there's AI, which is a topic that we've been getting a lot of questions about.Michael Zezas: Yeah, so let's dig in a bit ...
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins
  • Warnings and Winners From the IMF Meetings

    Warnings and Winners From the IMF Meetings
    Apr 21 2026
    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 too much reliance maybe on the inflation side of things, maybe not quite enough on the growth. And so, when I weigh the pros and cons, I would say the risk is probably too much tightening rather than not enough. But you know, Simon, I tend to spend more of my time in Washington talking to policymakers and investors who are focused on the developed market economy. So, I talked to people about the Fed, talked to people about the ECB. Morgan Stanley's real strong suit, when we do these conferences of the meeting though, is our EM focus. And I know you and the rest of the team have really over the years ramped up our engagement. So, when you think about the conversations that you had with investors and with officials, what do you think has, sort of, shifted most in recent months? And maybe what's shifted over the past week because the news flow has been going back and forth. What's going on in emerging markets that investors need to know about? Simon Waever: Right. I would...
    Show More Show Less
    10 mins
  • Where Investment Themes Intersect and Beat Markets

    Where Investment Themes Intersect and Beat Markets
    Apr 20 2026
    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 exactly these dynamics: AI infrastructure, energy security, defense, healthcare, and emerging areas like humanoid robotics. So what’s the takeaway from revisiting our predictions? The biggest changes in 2026 are not happening in isolation, but at the intersections of our key themes. AI, energy, and geopolitics are no longer separate stories. They are now deeply interconnected forces shaping the global economy. And understanding those intersections may be the key to understanding markets and generating alpha for years to come.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.
    Show More Show Less
    5 mins
  • The Real Drivers of GLP-1 Growth

    The Real Drivers of GLP-1 Growth
    Apr 17 2026

    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 wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
    Show More Show Less
    4 mins
  • Markets Eye Hungary’s Political Shift

    Markets Eye Hungary’s Political Shift
    Apr 16 2026

    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.
    Show More Show Less
    4 mins
  • Economic Roundtable: Structural Fallouts From the Iran Conflict

    Economic Roundtable: Structural Fallouts From the Iran Conflict
    Apr 15 2026
    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 higher. So, what we did is a second-round effort at kind of controlling for cyclicality. And when you control for those, we do find evidence that the unemployment rate for occupations that have high exposure to AI is higher than you would expect, given the cyclical performance of the economy. But the effect is really small. It's maybe about 1/10th on the unemployment rate. So, I don't want to be too Pollyannish and say, ‘Oh, there's no evidence here that AI is disrupting the labor market.’ We'd say that there is some evidence there. But, so far, it's mild and it's modest. It's a little more micro than it is macro. So, we'll see how this evolves. But that would be our initial conclusion so far. Seth Carpenter: So, Mike, that's super helpful. When I think about the AI investment cycle, though, I have to come back to Asia because a lot of the AI supply chain is there in Asia, especially with semiconductors and others. But there's lots of supply chain ...
    Show More Show Less
    12 mins