Thoughts on the Market

Latest Episodes:

Oil Shock Hits the U.S. Consumer Mar 18, 2026

Show notes

A prolonged oil disruption is pushing gas prices higher. Arunima Sinha from our U.S. and Global Economics team joins Head of U.S. Policy Strategy Ariana Salvatore to discuss what that means for consumer spending, inflation expectations and the U.S. midterm elections.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's U.S. and Global Economics Teams.

Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Policy Strategy.

Arunima Sinha: Today – what are the implications of the ongoing oil disruption for the U.S. consumer?

It's Wednesday, March 18th at 10am in New York.

Ariana, let's start with where we are in week three of this particular oil disruption and what you are thinking about in terms of what the paths to resolution could look like.

Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. Great place to start. So, I would say before we get into what the resolution could look like, we need to think about how long could this conflict possibly last? And that's the most relevant question for investors as well. And there I would say there's very little conviction just because of the uncertainty associated with this conflict. But I'm keeping my eye on three different things.

The first is a clearer prioritization of the objectives tied to the conflict. The Trump administration has laid out a number of different goals for this conflict, some of which are shorter in nature than others. The second thing I think we're looking at – that's really important – is traffic at the Strait of Hormuz. And there, the Trump administration has spoken about insurance, you know, naval escorts – all of these things that we think will take some time to really come to fruition. And at the time that we're recording this, it seems that we're still getting about low single digit number of tankers through the strait on a daily basis. So that's the second thing.

The third point I would make is any type of escalation is really critical here. So, whether it's vertical – meaning different types of weapons used, different types of targets being hit. Or horizontal escalation, broadening out into different proxies and, and more so throughout the region. Those are really important indicators, and right now all of these things are pointing to a slightly longer-term conflict than I think most people expected at the start.

Now, in terms of what that means for markets, for domestic gasoline prices, all these are really important questions that I'm sure we're going to get into. But what we should note is that the president has spoken about a number of policy offsets to mitigate those price increases, ranging from the Treasury actually loosening up some of the sanctions on Russia to sell some oil. You know, we've heard some talk of invoking the Jones Act waiver. That's a temporary fix.

On net, we think that these policy offsets are not going to really be enough to mitigate that supply loss that we're getting. That's a 20 million barrel per day loss. Some of these efforts mainly will, kind of, target about 7 or 8 million barrels per day. You're still in a deficit of about 10 to 13 [million]. And that's really meaningful for markets, for consumption as you well know, and everything else in between.

Arunima Sinha: That's really helpful perspective, Ariana. And it's also a useful segue to think about the note that we jointly put out a few days ago. And just thinking about what this means for the U.S. consumer. And there, I think there's the first point to start with is that the consumer is now going to be living through the third supply shock in about five years. So, after COVID, after tariffs, here comes the next. And I think this particular oil shock is going to be somewhat different from tariffs in the sense that this is going to hit consumers at the front end and directly. This is not something that is going to have to pass through business costs. And some of them could be absorbed by businesses and not fully passed on to the consumer. So, I think that's an important point.

The second point here is that in terms of the share of spending of gasoline out of total spend, we are at pretty low numbers. We're somewhere in the 2 to 3 percent range. So, it could give a little bit of a cushion. So, the longer-term average can be somewhere about 4 percent. So, there could be some cushion. But we know that consumers have already been stretched by, sort of, several years of high prices.

And so, the way that we thought about what some of the channels could be for how higher oil prices, which translate into higher gas prices, could matter for the consumer. I think there are, sort of, three to identify.

The first one is that it is really just a hit to your real purchasing power because this is a type of good that is actually really hard to substitute away from. And you could look through some of it, at the start. So maybe in the first month you don't react very much. You pull down on some savings; you take out a little bit of short-term credit.

But the longer it lasts, the bigger the consumption response is going to be. And the second channel then to identify is – you start to build up some precautionary savings motives because there's this uncertainty that's also lasting for some time. And what do you pull back on? You'll typically pull back on discretionary types of spending.

And so, we sized out this impact to say that if oil prices were to be about 50 percent higher and they last for two to three quarters, it could hit real personal spending growth by about 40 [basis points] after 12 months. And most of that is really just coming from the impact on good spending, specifically through durable goods.

So, there could be some meaningful impact to real consumer spending in the U.S., if this shock were to go on longer. And the last point I would just say is, you know, how do inflation expectations move? Because that's an important point for the Fed and it's an important point for just people who are thinking about their spending decisions over the next year or so.

And one interesting thing I think came out in the University of Michigan survey that came out this Friday; and this was a preliminary survey. About half of it was conducted before the conflict started, and half of it was after the conflict started. And what we saw was that inflation expectations in the year ahead, so the 12-month-ahead expectations that had been trending down, paused.

So, they are no longer trending down. And, in its release, the University of Michigan noted that for the responses that were collected after the conflict started, inflation expectations did tick up. And interestingly, the strains were the most for the bottom income cohort. So, they saw a bigger uptick in inflation expectations. They actually also saw a bigger uptick in their unemployment expectations over the next year.

Ariana Salvatore: So, Arunima, if I can ask, we've been talking a lot about the K-shape economy this year, right? So, consumption really being led by the upper; let's call it the upper income cohort. When we think about this translation to consumption, like you said, more of the stresses on the lower income side, how do you square that with the economic impact that you guys are expecting?

Arunima Sinha: The way that I would square it is the longer it lasts and the greater the, sort of, uncertainty in asset markets – that might actually begin to weigh on the upper income consumer as well. So that might make some of those wealth effects less supportive, than what we have seen, over most of 2025. Just given where consumption has been running in terms of its pace.

So not only might we see a bigger strain on the lower-income cohorts as we see this shock lasting longer, we might actually see some pressures not through the direct spending channel on gas, but really just, you know, how it's impacting their balance sheets.

Ariana Salvatore: And that's a really important point because it also, to me, resonates with the concept of affordability, which has been a really key political topic for the past few months, I would say.

And the way we're thinking about this is, like I mentioned, there are limited policy offsets that can be used to mitigate the potential increase in domestic gasoline prices. And that matters a lot for the midterm elections. Typically voters don't really rank foreign policy as a top issue when it comes to their choice for candidates – in midterm elections and elections in general.

But once you see that feed through to, you know, inflation, cost of living, job expectations, that's when it starts to really matter for people. And what we've been saying, it's not a perfect rule of thumb, but looking back at the past few elections. If gasoline prices here in the U.S. are something like $3 a gallon, that tends to be pretty good for the incumbent party. [$]4 [a gallon], let's say it's a little bit more politically challenging. And [$]5 [a gallon], you know, is when you kind of get into that even more challenging territory for the administration and for Republicans in Congress.

So again, not a perfect benchmark, but something that we'll be keeping an eye on too as this conflict evolves.

Arunima Sinha: Ok! So, we'll be keeping an eye on how that oil disruption plays out and matters for the U.S. consumer.

Ariana Salvatore: 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.

Important note regarding economic sanctions. This report references jurisdictions which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.

Japan’s Bull Market Takes Shape Mar 17, 2026

Show notes

Morgan Stanley MUFG ’s Japan Equity Strategist Sho Nakazawa talks about the sectors that are leading the current rebound of Japanese stocks and why these gains may be more than a cyclical shift.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sho Nakazawa, Japan Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.

Today: How Japan’s Takaichi administration could define Japan’s stock market for years to come.

It’s Tuesday, March 17th, at 3 PM in Tokyo.

Sanae Takaichi became Japan's first female prime minister on October 21, 2025. She leads a conservative administration that emphasizes defense spending and economic resilience. When Takaichi took office in February, this signaled the start of a structural pivot in Japan’s economy. And markets have responded quickly. Over the past several months, stocks with high exposure to the administration’s 17 strategic domains have outperformed TOPIX by 15 percentage points. That kind of divergence suggests something bigger than a cyclical rebound. Capital is positioned to a structural shift.

First, there’s the Japanese government’s increased emphasis on economic security and supply chain resilience. This reflects a philosophical shift. For years efficiency ruled: just-in-time supply chains and global optimization. The pandemic and the reorientation towards a multipolar world changed that workflow. Now the emphasis is on redundancy and autonomy – and this has implications for Defense & Space, Advanced Materials & Critical Minerals, Shipbuilding, and Cybersecurity.

The second pillar of Japan’s structural market shift is AI and the compute revolution. Yes, some investors worry about overinvestment in AI, but we believe in [the] possibility of nonlinear returns as AI breakthroughs occur. And, keep in mind, AI isn’t just software. It requires data-center cooling, communications networks, expanded power grids, and critical minerals. This is a full industrial stack upgrade. Looking further out, the global humanoid robotics market could reach US$7.5 trillion annually by 2050 according to our global robotics team estimates. That’s roughly three times the combined 2024 revenue of the world’s top 20 automakers at about US$2.5 trillion.

The third force reshaping Japan’s market is infrastructure. The 2026 budget slated towards national resilience initiatives exceeds ¥5 trillion. With aging infrastructure and intensifying natural disasters, resilience spending relates directly to economic security. Ports, logistics, and communications systems are increasingly becoming strategic assets. Our work suggests the long-term construction cycle is entering an expansion phase as bubble-era buildings from the late 1980s reach replacement timing. That points to durable demand rather than a temporary spike.

With all of this said, what’s also important is how stock market leadership spreads. It tends to move from upstream to downstream – from materials and power infrastructure, to AI, to defense and communications, and eventually to applications like drug discovery, quantum technologies, cybersecurity, and content. Right now, the strongest three-month returns are in Advanced Materials and Critical Minerals, and in Next-Gen Power and Grid Infrastructure. Meanwhile, areas like Cybersecurity and Content have lagged but remain tightly connected in the network. If leadership broadens, those linkages matter.

The real constraint isn’t political opposition. It’s [the] market itself. If investors decide this is a temporary stimulus rather than sustainable earnings growth, valuations might adjust. But we do believe that Japan’s equity market isn’t simply rallying. It is reorganizing around economic security, AI infrastructure, and national resilience.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend and colleague today.

Is the Market Correction Ending? Mar 16, 2026

Show notes

With volatility and oil prices up while Fed policy is easing, our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson breaks down why today’s selloff is giving flashbacks to March 2025—and why he believes his bull case still holds.

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 discuss how the equity market has been processing recent headlines for months.

It's Monday, March 16th at 1 pm in New York.

So, let’s get after it.

Last week on the podcast, I noted it was clear to me that the current equity market correction began last fall when liquidity first started to tighten. As soon as funding markets started to show stress from that tightening, the Fed responded by announcing it would end its balance sheet reduction program earlier than expected. It then followed that up by restarting asset purchases in December. This pivot subsequently led to better equity performance in January.

It also happened alongside a sharp decline in the U.S. dollar and concentrated returns in emerging markets and commodity-oriented sectors like gold and silver, industrial metals, oil and memory stocks. More recently, the dollar has rallied and these same areas have noticeably cooled off. The key point is that before the attacks in Iran two weeks ago, the correction in equities was already very well advanced in both time and price. In fact, 50 percent of all stocks in the Russell 3000 are now down 20 percent from their 52-week highs.

In many ways, we find ourselves in a similar position to last year. Recall that the major indices started to accelerate lower in February and early March. The concern at that time was centered around tariffs. But like today equity markets had been trading poorly for months under the surface on additional concerns that had nothing to do with tariffs. More specifically, equity markets had been worried about risks related to DeepSeek, immigration controls, and DOGE. Tariffs then provided the final blow. This time around, markets have been worried about AI disruption on labor markets, private credit defaults and liquidity tightness well before the Iran conflict escalated.

Now it’s interesting to note – but not surprising – that crude and volatility began to rise in January, signaling the market was ahead of this risk, too. Corrections typically don’t end though until the best stocks and highest quality indices get hit, and that usually takes a capitulatory shock. Last year, this was Liberation Day. This time around, that event is the Iran conflict and concern about a sustained rise in crude prices above $100 a barrel. This final corrective phase has begun, in our view, with the S&P 500 having its worst two-week stretch since last April.

To be clear, I don’t expect this capitulation or drawdown to be as bad as last year for several reasons.

First, last year’s events came at the end of what we were calling a rolling recession at the time and effectively marked the end of that downturn. That means equities were pricing in a recession at the lows in April 2025 and that’s why the S&P 500 was down 20 percent from its highs.

Second, the current backdrop for earnings and economic growth is much better than a year ago. Third, fiscal support is much greater today, too. Specifically, personal income tax cuts are flowing through right now with tax refunds running 17 percent higher year-over-year. Tax incentives in the [One] Big Beautiful Bill [act] should drive higher capital spending. Lastly, the Fed is much more accommodative with asset purchases versus balance sheet contraction in 2025.

Bottom line, equity markets have been digesting many of the concerns for months that are now hitting the headlines. We think this means that we are closer to the end of this correction rather than the beginning and investors should be getting ready to buy any final capitulation that may occur on the next bad headline.

One scenario that might create that final downdraft is a combination of a more hawkish Fed this week on backward looking inflation concerns combined with Triple Witching options expiration. Or maybe the upcoming trade meeting between the United States and China is delayed or cancelled. Whatever it might be, market lows happen faster than tops. So be ready to add risk in anticipation of the bull market resuming.

Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

The Looming Bottleneck for Global Tech Mar 13, 2026

Show notes

Our Head of Asia Technology Research Shawn Kim explains what disruptions to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz could mean for the global semiconductor supply chain and the immediate future of AI infrastructure.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Asia Technology Team.

Today: why the Strait of Hormuz closure may matter to the global technology industry.

It’s Friday, March 13th, at 8 pm in Taipei.

AI and advanced chips may represent the cutting edge of technology, but they depend on something far more basic: that’s energy. And a large share of that energy flows through one narrow shipping lane in the Middle East – the Strait of Hormuz. When energy supply chains are disrupted, the effects can quickly ripple into semiconductor manufacturing.

Advanced semiconductor fabrication is, in fact, one of the most energy‑intensive industrial processes in the world. Take Taiwan, for example – home of the world’s largest share of leading-edge chip production. Just one major manufacturer alone accounts for roughly 9–10 percent of the country's total electricity consumption. That scale of energy use means the stability of power supply is critical.

Taiwan relies heavily on imported LNG to generate electricity. But storage levels are limited. It maintains roughly one and half weeks worth of LNG inventory, with several additional weeks supplied by vessels currently at sea. If shipping through the Strait of Hormuz were significantly disrupted, that supply chain could come under pressure. The immediate impact might not necessarily be an outright shortage – but rising energy costs could still affect semiconductor production economics. And that's important because advanced chips are foundational to everything from cloud computing to artificial intelligence systems.

Energy isn't the only potential bottleneck. Another lesser-known input in the semiconductor ecosystem is sulfur. More than 90 percent of the world's sulfur supply is produced as a by‑product of oil refining. That sulfur is then used to produce sulfuric acid, a key chemical that supports semiconductor materials, metal processing, and battery components.

Disruptions in oil refining tied to shipping constraints or energy market shocks could also affect sulfur supply. In other words, a disruption in energy markets could trigger second‑order effects across multiple layers of the technological supply chain. And those effects extend beyond chips themselves. The downstream impact touches industries tied to electrification, data centers, and advanced electronics manufacturing.

History also offers some lessons learned about how technology markets react when energy prices spike. During periods of major oil price surges – such as in 2008 and again in 2021 through 2022 – semiconductor equities experienced significant drawdowns. In both cases, semiconductor stocks declined by roughly 30 percent before reaching an inflection point. The mechanism is fairly intuitive. Higher oil prices raise costs across the economy and can weaken consumer spending. At the same time, companies building energy‑intensive infrastructure – like large‑scale AI data centers – may face higher operating costs and low revenues.

So when energy markets move sharply, technology markets often move with them. A disruption in the Strait of Hormuz wouldn’t automatically halt chip production, but it could ripple through power costs, materials supply, and the economics of building AI infrastructure. And that highlights an important reality for investors: the future of technology isn’t just written in code. It’s powered by energy, by infrastructure, and the fragile global networks behind the digital economy.

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.

What Could Make U.S. Homes More Affordable Mar 12, 2026

Show notes

Our co-heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan discuss the impact of upcoming regulatory changes on U.S. mortgage rates and home sales.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Jay Bacow: It is March and there's some madness going on. I'm Jay Bacow, here with Jim Egan, noted Wahoo Wa fan.

James Egan: Hey, it looks like Virginia's going to be back in the tournament this year, hoping for a three seed, looking like a four seed. It's the first year that my son is really excited about it. So, hoping we can win a few games.

Jay Bacow: Let's hope they don't lose the first game and make him cry like you did a few years ago. But …

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.

James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.

Jay Bacow: Today, with everything going on in the world, we thought it'd be prudent to discuss the U.S. mortgage and housing market.

It's Thursday, March 12th at 10:30am in New York.

James Egan: Jay, as you mentioned, there is a lot going on in markets right now, but hey, people need to live somewhere. And those somewheres remain pretty unaffordable. But this administration has been very focused on affordability, and we also have some updates on what is clearly the most exciting part of the housing and mortgage markets – regulation. What's going on there?

Jay Bacow: Look, nothing gets me more excited than thinking about the regulatory outlook for the mortgage market. We've been focusing a lot on what's happening in D.C. with possible changes that could be helping out affordability, changes to the investor program, changes to the policy rate.

But Michelle Bowman, who is the Vice Chair of Supervision, has been recently on the tape saying that we could get an update and a proposal for the Basel Endgame by the end of this month; and that proposal for the Basel Endgame is likely to make it easier for banks to hold loans on their balance sheet.

It's going to give banks excess capital and the combination of these, along with some other changes that are going to be coming from the Fed, the FDIC and the OCC around: For instance, the GSIB surcharge that our banking analysts led by Manan Gosalia have spoken about – it's really going to help out the mortgage market in our view.

James Egan: Alright, so freeing up capital, helping the mortgage market. When we think about the implications to affordability specifically, what do you think it means for mortgage rates?

Jay Bacow: Right. So, it's important that [when] we think about the mortgage rate, we realize where it's coming from. The mortgage rate starts off with the level of Treasury rates, and then you add upon that a spread. And the spread is dependent among a number of different factors. But one of the biggest ones is just the demand. And one of the reasons why mortgage rates have been so high over the previous four years was (a) Treasury rates were high, but also the spread was wide.

And we think one of the biggest reasons why the spread was wide is that the domestic banks, who are the largest asset type investor in mortgages – they own $3 trillion of mortgages – basically weren't buying them over the past four years. And one of the reasons they weren't buying was they didn't have the regulatory clarity.

And so, if the banks come back, that will cause that spread to tighten, which will likely cause the mortgage rate to come down. That is presumably, Jim, good about affordability, right?

James Egan: Yes. And I want to clarify, or at least emphasize, that affordability itself has been improving. Over the course of the past four to five months at this point, we've been close to, if not at the lowest mortgage rate we've seen in three years. And when we think about what that has practically done to the monthly principal and interest payment on homes purchased today.

Like that monthly payment on the median priced home is down $150 over the past year. That's about a 7 percent decrease. When we lay in incomes – or when we layer in incomes to get into that actual affordability equation, we're at our most affordable place since the second quarter of 2022.

So yes, big picture, this is still a challenge to affordability environment. But it's not as challenged as it's been over the past three years.

Jay Bacow: All right, so affordability improving. It's still challenged though. What does that mean for home prices then?

James Egan: So, when we think about the home price implication of mortgage rates coming down; of mortgage rates coming down in an environment where incomes are going up – we're thinking about demand for shelter, purchase volumes and supply of that shelter. And demand really has not reacted to the improved affordability environment.

That's not unusual. Normally takes about 12 months for affordability improvement to pull through in terms of increased transaction volumes. But we do think that the lock-in effect that we've talked about in detail on this podcast in the past, that is going to play a role here.

Mortgage rates end of February finally hit a five handle, really, for the first time in three years. They're back above that now with the volatility in the interest rate markets. But from 4 percent to 6 percent, mortgage rates is effectively an air pocket. We don't think you're going to get a lot of unlocking at these levels.

So we think that transaction volumes will pick up. We're calling for 3 to 4 percent growth in purchase volumes this year. But they've been largely flat for two to three years at this point. And more importantly, any improvement in affordability that comes from a decrease in mortgage rates is going to lead to commensurately more supply alongside that growth in demand – which is going to keep home prices, specifically, very range bound here.

The pace of growth is slowed to about 1.3 to 1.5 percent right now. We've been here for four or five months. We think we're pretty much going to stay here. We we're calling for 2 percent growth, so a little bit acceleration. But we think you're in a very range bound home price market.

Jay Bacow: All right, so home prices range bound, affordability improved. But still has a little bit of room to go. Some possible tailwinds from the deregulatory path that will make homes being a little bit more affordable. Fair amount going on.

Jim, always a pleasure speaking to you

James Egan: And always great speaking to you too, Jay. And to all of our regular listeners, thank you for adding us to your playlist. Let us know what you think wherever you get this podcast. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button!

The 20 Million Barrels of Oil Conundrum Mar 11, 2026

Show notes

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Martijn Rats discuss why a prolonged disruption of oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz would be unprecedented—and nearly impossible for the market to absorb.

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 on the program we're going to talk about why investors everywhere are tracking ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

It's Wednesday, March 11th at 2pm in London.

Andrew Sheets: Martijn, the oil market, which is often volatile, has been historically volatile over the last couple of weeks following renewed military conflict between the United States and Iran.

Now, there are a lot of different angles to this, but the oil market is really at the center of the market's focus on this conflict. And so, I think before we get into the specifics, I think it's helpful to set some context. How big is the global oil market and where does the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz fit within that global picture?

Martijn Rats: Yeah, so the global oil consumption is a little bit more than a 100 million barrels a day. But that splits in two parts. There is a pipeline market and there is a seaborne market. And when it comes to prices, the seaborne market is really where it's at. If you're sitting in China, you're buying oil from the Middle East, all of a sudden, it's not available. Sure, if there is a pipeline that goes from Canada into the United States, that doesn't really help you all that much.

Andrew Sheets: So, it's the oil on the ships that really matters.

Martijn Rats: It's the oil on ships that is the flexible part of the market that we can redirect to where the oil is needed. And that is also the market where prices are formed. The seaborne market is in the order of 60 million barrels a day. So, only a subset of the 100 [million]. Now relative to that 60 million barrel a day, the Strait of Hormuz flows about 20 [million]. So, the Strait of Hormuz is responsible for about a third of seaborne supply, which is, of course, very large and therefore, you know, very critical to the system.

Andrew Sheets: And I think an important thing we should also discuss here, which we were just discussing earlier today on another call, is – this is a market that could be quite sensitive to actually quite small disruptions in oil. So, can you give just some sense of sensitivity? I mean, in normal times, what sort of disruptions, in terms of barrels of oil, kind of, move markets; get investors' attention?

Martijn Rats: Yeah, look, this is part of why this situation is so unusual, and oil analysts really sort of struggle with this. Look normally, at relative to the 100 million barrels a day of consumption, we care about supply demand imbalances of a couple of 100,000 barrels a day. That becomes interesting.

If that, increases to say 1 million barrel a day, over- or undersupplied, you can expect prices to move. You can expect them to move by meaningful amounts. We can write research; the clients can trade. You have a tradable idea in front of you. When that becomes 2 to 3 million barrels a day, either side, you have major historical market moving events.

So, in [20]08-09, oil famously fell from over 100 [million] down to something like 30 [million], on the basis that the oil market was 2-2.5 million barrel day oversupplied for two quarters. In 2022, we all thought – this actually never happened, but we all thought that Russia was going to lose about 3 million barrel day of supply. And on that basis, just on the basis of the expectation alone, Brent went to $130 per barrel. So, 2-3 [million] either side you have historically large moves. Now we're talking about 20 [million].

Andrew Sheets: And I think that's what's so striking. I mean, again, I think investors, people listening to this, they can do that arithmetic too. If this is a market where 2 to 3 million barrels a day have caused some of the largest moves that we've seen in history, something that's 20 [million] is exceptional. And I think it's also fair to say this type of closure of the Strait [of Hormuz] is something we haven't seen before.

Martijn Rats: No, which also made it very hard to forecast, by the way. Because the historical track records did not point in that direction, and yet here we are. The historical track record – look, you can look at other major disruptions historically.

The largest disruption in the history of the oil market is the Suez Crisis in the mid-1950s that took away about 10 percent of global oil consumption. This is easily double that. So really unusual. If you look at supply and demand shocks of this order of magnitude, you can think about COVID. In April 2020, for one month, at the peak of COVID, when we're all sitting at home. Nobody driving, nobody flying. Yeah, we lost very briefly 20 million barrels a day of demand. Now we're losing 20 million barrels a day of supply. So, look, the sign is flipped, but it's in the same order of magnitude. And yeah, these are unusual events that you wouldn't actually, sort of, forecast them that easily. But that is what is in front of us at the moment.

Andrew Sheets: So, I think the next kind of logical question is if shipping remains disrupted, and I'd love for you to talk a little bit about, you know, you're sitting there with satellite maps on your screen tracking shipping, which is – a development. But, you know, what are the options that are available in the region, maybe globally to temporarily balance this supply and create some offset?

Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, like of course when we have a big disruption like this one, of course the market is going to try to solve for this. There are a few blocks that we can work with. I'll run you through them one by one, including some of the numbers. But very quickly you arrive at the conclusion that this is; this puzzle – we can't really solve it.

Like in 2022, the market was very stressed. We thought Russia was going to lose 3 million barrels a day of supply, but we could move things around in our supply demand model. Russia oil goes to China and India. Oil that they buy, we can get in Europe, we can move stuff around to kind of sort of solve a puzzle.

This puzzle is very, very difficult to solve. So, through the Strait of Hormuz, 15 million barrels a day have crude, 5 million barrels a day of refined product, 20 million barrels a day in total. What can we do?

Well, the biggest offset, is arguably the Saudi EastWest pipeline. Saudi Arabia has a pipeline that effectively allows it to ship oil to the Red Sea at the Port of Yanbu, where it can be evacuated on tankers there. That pipeline has a capacity of 7 million barrels a day. We think it was probably already flowing at something like 3 million barrels a day. So, there's probably an incremental 4 [million] that can become available through that. That's the biggest block, that we can see of workaround capacity, so to say.

After that the numbers do get smaller. The UAE has a pipeline that goes through Fujairah that's also beyond the Strait of Hormuz. We think there is maybe 0.5 million barrel a day of capacity there. Then you're basically, sort of, done within the region, and you have to look globally for other sources of oil.

If there are sanctions relief, maybe on Russian oil, you can find a 0.5 million barrel day there. Here, there and everywhere. 100,000 barrels a day, 200,000 barrels a day. But the numbers get…

Andrew Sheets: It’s still not… So, if you kind of put all of those, you know, kind of, almost in a best-case scenario relative to the 20 million that's getting disrupted.

Martijn Rats: If you add another one or two from a massive SPR release, the fastest release from SPR…

Andrew Sheets: That's the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Martijn Rats: Yeah, exactly. Earlier today, we got an announcement, that the IEA is proposing to release 400 million barrels from Strategic Reserve across its member countries. That is a very large number. But – and that is important. But more important is how fast can it flow because the extraction rate from these tanks is not infinite. The fastest ever rate of SPR release is only 1.3 million barrels a day. Now, maybe the circumstances are so extraordinary, we can do better than that and we can get it to 2 [million]. But beyond that, you're really in very, very uncharted territory.

So maybe in the region, work around sanctions relief, SPR release, we can probably find like 7 million barrels a day out of a problem that is 20 [million]. You're left with another 13 [million]. The 13 [million] is four times what we thought Russia would lose. So, you're left with this conclusion: Look, this really needs to come to an end.

Andrew Sheets: And the other rebalancing mechanism, which again, you know, when we come back to markets and forecasting, this is obviously price. And, you know, you talk about this idea of demand destruction, which I think we could paraphrase as – the price is higher so people use less of it and then you can rebalance the market that way.

But give us just a little sense of, you know, as you and your team are sitting there modeling, how do you think about, kind of, the price of oil? Where it would need to go to – to potentially rebalance this the other way.

Martijn Rats: Yeah, that price is very high. So, what it's a[n] really interesting analysis to do is to look at the historical frequency distribution of inflation adjusted oil prices.

You take 20 years of oil prices. You convert it all in money of the day, adjusted for inflation, and then simply plot the frequency distribution. What you get is not one single bell curve centered around the middle with some variation around the midpoint. You get, sort of, two partially overlapping bell curves.

There is a slightly larger one, which is, sort of, the normal regime. Lower prices, 60, 70, 80 bucks. There's a lot of density there in the frequency distribution, that's where we are normally. What's interesting is that actually, if you go from there to higher prices, there are prices that are actually very rare in inflation adjusted terms.

Like a [$] 100-110. In nominal terms, we might feel that that has happened. In inflation adjusted terms, these prices are extremely rare. They are way rarer than prices that live even further to the right. [$]130, 140.

The oil market has this other regime of these very high prices. If you go back in history, when did those prices prevail? They always prevailed in periods where we asked the same question. What is the demand destruction price? And yeah, to erode demand by a somewhat meaningful quantity, yeah, you end up in that regime. These very high prices, like [$]130. And it's… It's not a gradual scale. You sort of at one point shoot through these levels and that's where you then end up.

Andrew Sheets: It's quite, quite serious stuff.

Martijn Rats: Well, yeah. Also, because we can casually say in the oil market, ‘Oh, demand erosion has to be the answer.’ But we don't erode demand in isolation. Like, you know, diesel is trucking. Yeah, jet is flying. NAFTA is petrochemicals.

Andrew Sheets: These are real core parts of economic activity.

Martijn Rats: It's all GDP.

Andrew Sheets: So maybe Martijn, in conclusion, let me give you a slightly different scenario. Let's say that the conflict goes on for another couple of weeks, but then there is a resolution. Traffic goes back to normal. Walk us through a little bit of what that would mean. You know, kind of how long does it take to get back to normal in a market like this?

Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, if you say, weeks, I would say that is an uncomfortable period of time actually.

Andrew Sheets: Feel free to use a slightly different scenario.

Martijn Rats: If you say days. Let's say next week something happens, the whole thing comes soon to end. Look, then we will have logistical supply chain issues. But look, we can work through that.

There is at the moment somewhat of an air pocket in the global oil supply chain. There should be oil tankers on their way to refineries for arrival in April and May that currently are not. So, we will have hiccups and things need to be rerouted and we draw on some inventories here or there, but… And that will keep commodity prices tense, I would imagine. The equity market will probably look through it.

We'll have a month or six weeks, not more than two months, I would imagine of logistical issues to sort out. Look, of course, if that, you know, doesn't happen, then we're back in the scenario that we discussed. But yeah, look, that that's equally true. If it's short, we can sort of live with a disruption.

Andrew Sheets: It's fair to say that this is a situation where days really matter, where weeks make a big difference.

Martijn Rats: Oh, totally. Look, the oil industry has built in various, sort of, compensatory measures, I think. You know, inventories along the supply chains. But nothing of the scale that can work with this. I mean, this is truly yet another order of magnitude.

Andrew Sheets: Martijn, thank you for taking the time to talk.

Martijn Rats: My pleasure.

Andrew Sheets: And thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Oil Rally Tests Diversification Strategy Mar 10, 2026

Show notes

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses how rising oil prices and geopolitical tensions could make stocks and bonds move in the same direction, challenging one of the key principles of portfolio diversification.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist.

Today: what happens if your main diversification strategy suddenly stops working because of oil price moves?

It’s Tuesday, March 10th, at 10am in New York.

For decades, investors have relied on the idea that stocks and bonds return tend to move in opposite directions. When equities fall, bonds often rise, helping cushion portfolio losses. But that relationship isn’t guaranteed. Between 2021 and 2023, coming out of the pandemic, stocks and bonds sold off together, and the traditional 60/40 equity-bond portfolio suffered its worst annual performance in nearly a century.

Now, recent geopolitical tensions and rising oil prices are raising a familiar concern for investors: Could that uncertainty dynamic return? At first glance, oil prices may seem like a narrow commodity story. But in reality, they can shape the entire macroeconomic environment.

The classic negative correlation between stocks and bonds depends on a fairly simple economic pattern: growth and inflation moving in the same direction. When economic growth accelerates, inflation often rises as well. In that environment, equities may perform well while bonds weaken. But when growth and inflation move in opposite directions, the relationship between stocks and bonds can flip. That’s what happened coming out of the pandemic. Bond investors worried about rising inflation, while equity investors were worried about slowing growth. In that scenario, both asset classes' returns declined at the same time.

A sustained oil price shock could potentially recreate those conditions. Higher oil prices can push up inflation while also weighing on economic activity – a combination that economists often refer to as stagflation. If markets begin to price in that kind of environment again, the relationship between stocks and bonds could shift back toward that less favorable regime.

Despite recent volatility tied to tensions in the Middle East, the relationship between stocks and bonds today still largely reflects the traditional pattern. Overall, stock-bond returns correlation remains negative, meaning bonds can still help diversify equity risk. In fact, correlations between U.S. stocks and 2-year Treasury returns have been trending negative since 2024, and on a longer-term basis they are now extremely negative relative to the past three years. But the key point here is that not all bonds behave the same way.

Many investors think of government bonds as a single asset class. But the maturity of the bond – how long it takes to repay – matters a lot for diversification. Shorter-dated bonds, such as 2-year U.S. Treasuries, have maintained stronger negative correlations with equities. Longer-dated bonds, however – particularly the 30-year Treasury – have behaved a bit differently. Their correlation with stocks has been stickier and less negative, partly because markets increasingly view longer-dated bonds as risky. As a result, the difference between how 2-year and 30-year Treasuries move relative to stocks has remained unusually wide for several years.

In recent days oil prices have been rising -- linked in part to concerns around the Strait of Hormuz. That’s pushing up yields at the front end of the Treasury curve, creating what’s known as a bear-flattening. In other words, short-term interest rates are rising faster than long-term ones, reflecting markets placing more emphasis on inflation risks. And that brings us to the key questions for investors: Which risks will dominate from here – is it going to be higher inflation or slower growth? The answer could determine which assets provide better diversifications in the months ahead.

So the takeaway is this: Higher oil prices and geopolitical risks could increase the chances that stocks and bonds move together again. But diversification isn’t disappearing. It’s just becoming more nuanced. For investors, the real question isn’t whether bonds diversify portfolios. It’s which bonds do.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The Reasons for the Bull Market to Resume Mar 09, 2026

Show notes

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why history, technicals and fundamentals suggest a clearer runway for U.S. stocks six months out, despite geopolitical concerns.

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 the conflict in Iran and what it means for equities.

It's Monday, March 9th at 11:30 am in New York.

So, let’s get after it.

While most believe the current equity market correction began in February, it's clear to me that it actually began last fall when liquidity began to tighten. In fact, back in September I warned that the Fed was not doing enough with the balance sheet – and financial conditions were likely to tighten and cause some stress in equities. Starting in October, that stress manifested as a sharp correction in the most speculative parts of the equity market and crypto currencies. The Fed responded by ending its balance sheet reduction earlier than expected and restarting asset purchases which led to strong equity performance in January.

At this point, the correction is very well advanced in both time and price, with many stocks down 30 percent, or more. Meanwhile, dispersion has rarely been higher with the spread between winners and losers the highest we have seen in 20+ years. As usual, the markets got it right by anticipating many of the concerns that are now obvious to all. The questions for equity investors now are what will the world look like in six months and are prices cheap enough to start assuming a better future?

The short answer is not yet, but get your shopping lists ready. In many ways, we find ourselves in a very similar position to last year. Recall that the major indices started to accelerate lower in Late February and early March. The concern at the time was centered around tariffs, but like today, equity markets had already been trading poorly for months on concerns that had nothing to do with tariffs. This time around, markets have been worried about AI labor disruption, private credit defaults and liquidity shortages long before the Iran conflict escalated.

Corrections typically don’t end until the best stocks and highest quality indices get hit and that usually takes a bigger shock, like Liberation Day or war. That process has begun with the S&P 500 having its worst week since October. The other thing to consider is that market levels tend to be tied to where they were a year ago. This year-over-year comparison is very important when thinking about support.

Given the sharp decline last year, it tells me we have another month during which the equity markets are likely to struggle. Based on this simple observation and other technical indicators, I think the S&P 500 could trade toward 6300 by early April before our favorable fundamental outlook can take hold again.

Does this mean we shouldn’t worry about the conflict in Iran taking oil prices sustainably above $100? No, but since no one seems to be able to predict the outcome of military conflicts or oil prices, I am not going to try either. Instead, I am going to assume that in six months, things have likely settled down after this initial surge, much like we saw after Russia invaded Ukraine. Importantly, the spike in oil prices is the result of a logistical logjam in the Straits of Hormuz rather than a shortage of supply. That logjam is a real constraint, but necessity is the mother of ingenuity and will likely be solved.

Another reason to be optimistic six months out is the broadening in earnings growth, a trend that remains intact and a key call in our 2026 outlook. Secondarily, the US is much more resilient than Asia and Europe to an oil shock given its energy independence. This should attract investor flows back to the US. And finally, tax incentives for capital spending and tax cuts for individuals in the [One] Big Beautiful Bill should provide a positive offset to the higher oil prices in the short term. On the negative side, the flight to quality and safety could lead to more US dollar strength which is a headwind to global liquidity.

Bottom line, oil and US dollar strength is likely to persist until the conflict simmers down. While much of the damage has likely been done to the most vulnerable parts of the equity market, the index remains vulnerable to another 5-7 percent downside in my opinion while crowded stocks could see double digit declines before a final low appears next month. Remember market lows happen faster than tops so be ready to add risk in anticipation of the bull market resuming later this year.

AI’s $3 Trillion Question: How to Pay the Bill? Mar 06, 2026

Show notes

In the second of our two-part panel discussion from Morgan Stanley’s TMT conference, our analysts break down the complexity of financing AI’s infrastructure and the technological disruption happening across industries.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Michelle Weaver: Welcome back to Thoughts on the Market, and welcome to part two of our conversation live from the Technology, Media and Telecom conference. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley.

Today we're continuing our conversation with Stephen Byrd, Josh Baer and Lindsay Tyler. This time looking at financing AI and some of the risks to the story.

It's Friday, March 6th at 11am in San Francisco.

So yesterday we spoke about AI adoption. And while there's a lot of excitement on this theme, there've also been some concerns bubbling up.

Lindsay, I want to start with you around financing. That's another critical component of the AI build out. What's your latest on the magnitude of the data center financing gap, and what role [are] credit markets playing here?

Lindsay Tyler: Yeah, in partnership with Thematic Research, Stephen and team, and colleagues across fixed income research last summer, we did put out a note, thinking about the data center financing gap, right? So, Stephen and team modeled a $3 trillion global data center CapEx need over a four-year timeframe.

So, in partnership with fixed income across asset classes, we thought: okay, how will that really be funded? And we came to the conclusion that the hyperscalers, the high quality hyperscalers, generate a good amount of cash flow, right? So, there's cash from ops that can fund approximately half of that. But then we think that fixed income markets are critical to fund the rest of the funding gap. And really private credit is the leader in that and then aided by corporate credit and also securitized credit.

What we've seen since is that yes, private credit has served a role. There is this difference between private credit 1.0, which is more of that middle market direct lending. And then private credit 2.0, which is more ABF – Asset Based Finance or Asset Backed Finance. And what we see there is an interest in leases of hyperscaler tenants, right?

We've also seen in the market over the past nine months or so, investment grade bond issuance by hyperscalers. Obviously, a use of cash flow by hyperscalers. We've seen the construction loans with banks and also private credit per reports. We've also seen high yield bond issuance, which is kind of a new trend for construction financing. We've seen ABS and CMBS as well. And then something new that's emerging in focus for investors is more of a chip-backed or compute contract backed financings, like more creative solutions.

We're really in early innings of the spend right now. And so, there is this shift. As we start to work through the construction early phases, the next focus is: okay, but what about the chips? And so, I think a big focus is that, you know, chips are more than 50 percent of the spend for if you're looking at a gigawatt site. And it depends what type of chips and kind of what generation. But that's the next leg of this too.

So, it's kind of a focus, you know, for 2026.

Michelle Weaver: And how do you view balance sheet leverage and financing when you think about hyperscaler debt raising magnitude and timelines?

Lindsay Tyler: So just to bring it down to more of a basic level, if you need compute, you really might need two things, right? A powered shell and then the chips. And so, if you're looking for that compute, you could kind of go in three basic ways. You could look to build the shell and kind of build and buy the whole thing. You could lease the shell, from, you know, a developer, maybe a Bitcoin miner too – that is converted to HBC. And then you kind of buy the chips and you put them in yourselves. Or you could lease all the compute; quote unquote lease, it's more of a contract.

In terms of the funding, if you're thinking about the cash flows of some of the big companies – think of that as primarily being put towards chip spend. If you're thinking about the construction that's kind of split between cash CapEx but also leases. And so, what we've seen is that there is more than [$]600 billion of un-commenced lease obligations that will commence over the next two to five years, across the big four or five players.

And then my equity counterparts estimate around [$]700 billion of cash CapEx that needs this year for some of those players as well. So, these are big numbers. But that's kind of how, at a basic level, they're approaching some of the financing. It's a split approach.

Michelle Weaver: And what have you learned around financing the past few days at the conference? Anything incremental to share there?

Lindsay Tyler: Sure. Yeah. I think I found confirmation of some key themes here at the conference. The first being that numerous funding buckets are available. That was a big focus of our note last year is that you can kind of look at asset level financing. You can look at public bonds, you can look at some equity. There are these different funding buckets available.

The second is that tenant quality matters for construction financing. I think I've seen this more in the markets than maybe at this conference over the past two to three weeks. But that has been a focus of pricing for the deals, but also market depth for the deals.

A third confirmation of a key theme was around the neo clouds and also the GPU as a service business models. Thinking about those creative financings, right. Are they thinking about from their compute counterparties? Would they like upfront payments? Might they look to move financing off [the] balance sheet, if they have a very high-quality investment grade rated counterparty? So, there is some of this evolution around those solutions.

And then a fourth key theme is just around the credit support. And Stephen has and I have talked about this around some of the Bitcoin miners – is that, you know, there can be these higher quality investment grade players that might look to lend their credit support. Maybe a lease backstop to other players in the ecosystem in order to get a better pricing on construction financing. And we are seeing some press pickup around how that might play out in chip financing down the road too.

Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. AI driven risk and potential disruption has been a big feature of the price action we've seen year-to-date in this theme. Stephen, what are some asset classes or businesses you see as resistant to some of this disruption?

Stephen Byrd: We spend a lot of time thinking about, sort of, asset classes that are resistant to deflation and disruption. And what's interesting is there's actually a handful of economists in the world that are doing remarkable work on this concept. That they would call it the economics of transformative AI.

There are three Americans, two Canadians, two Brits, a number of others who are doing really, really interesting work. And essentially what they're looking at is what do economies look like? As we see very powerful AI enter many industries – cause price reductions, deflation… What does that do? They have a lot of interesting takeaways, but one is this idea that the relative value of assets that cannot be deflated by AI goes up.

Very simple idea. But think of it this way, I mean, there's only, you know, one principle resort on Kauai. You know, there's a limited amount of metals. And so, what we go through is this list that's gotten a lot of investor attention of resistant asset classes or more of the resistant asset classes that can go up in value.

So, there are obvious ones like land, though you have to be a little careful with real estate in the sense that like, office real estate probably wouldn't be where you would go. Nor would you potentially go sort of towards middle income, lower income housing. But more, you know, think of industrial REITs, higher-end real estate.

But there are a lot of other categories that are interesting to me. All kinds of infrastructure should be quite resistant, all kinds of critical materials. Metals should do extremely well in this. But then when you go beyond that, it's actually kind of interesting that there; arguably there's a longer list than those classic sort of land and metals examples.

Examples here would be compute…

Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Byrd: I thought Jensen put it, well, you know, if there's a limited amount of infrastructure available, you want to put the best compute. And ultimately, in some ways, intelligence becomes the new coin of the realm in the world, right? So, I would want to own the purveyors of intelligence.

It could include high-end luxury. It could include unique human experiences. So, I don't know how many of y'all have children who are sort of college age. But my children are college age, and they absolutely hate what they would call AI slop.

They want legit human content, and they seek it out. And they absolutely hate it when they see bad copies of human content. And so, I think there is a place in many parts of the economy for unique human experiences, unique human content, and it's interesting to kind of seek out where that might be in the economy. So those would be some examples of resistant assets.

Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Josh, software's been at really the center of this AI disruption debate. How would you compare the current pullback in software multiples to prior periods of peak uncertainty? And do you think any of these concerns are valid? Or how are you thinking about that?

Josh Baer: Great question. I mean, software multiples on an EV to sales basis are down 30 – 35 percent just from the fall, I will say. And that's overall in the group. A lot of stocks, multiple handfuls, are down 60-70 percent over the last year. And what's being priced in is really peak uncertainty, a lot of fear. And these multiples, now four times sales – takes us all the way back about 10 years to the shift to cloud. And this time in many ways reminds us of that period of peak fear. In this case, what's being priced in is terminal value risk.

We talked about this TAM yesterday. But you know, who is going to win that share? How is it divided from a competitive perspective across these model providers? The LLMs with new entrants. Of course, the incumbents. And this other idea of in-housing.

Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm.

Josh Baer: So, there's competitive risk, there's business model risk. Are companies going to need to change their pricing models from seat-based to consumption or hybrid. And then last margin risk. Just thinking about the higher input costs and higher capital intensity. And so, you know, all of those fears are being priced in right now.

Michelle Weaver: And we, of course though, had a bunch of these companies live with us at the conference. How are they responding to some of these risks? How are they addressing these investor concerns?

Josh Baer: Most of the companies here from our coverage are the incumbent software vendors. And I think that the leadership teams did a really nice job coming out and defending their competitive moats and really articulating the story of why they are in a great position to capitalize on the opportunity. And the reasons can vary across different companies. But some of the commonalities are around enterprise grade, trust, security, governance, acceptance from IT organizations.

The idea of vibe coding all apps in an organization get squashed when you actually talk to companies and chief information officers. For some companies there's proprietary data moats, network effects. All of that's on top of existing customer relationships.

And so, you know, that was the message from the companies that we had. That we’re the incumbents. We get to use all of the same innovative AI technology in the same way that all these different competitive buckets do. But we have, you know, that differentiation in that moat. And so, we're in a good place.

Michelle Weaver: I want to wrap on a positive note. Stephen, what did you hear at the conference that you're most excited about?

Stephen Byrd: I'd say the life sciences. A few investors pointed out that perhaps AI has a PR problem these days. And I do think showing a significant benefit to humanity in terms of improved health outcomes, whether that's just better diagnosis, you know. Away from this event, but I was in India the week before and, you know, AI can have a powerful benefit to the people who suffer the most in terms of providing very powerful medical tools in a distributed manner. So, I’m a big fan there.

But you know, in many ways, curing the most challenging diseases plaguing humanity. The kind of problems involved in providing those and developing those cures are perfect for AI. So that, for me – stepping way back – that is by far the most exciting thing.

Michelle Weaver: Josh, same to you. What are you most excited about?

Josh Baer: From my perspective, it's potentially the turning point for software. The ability to showcase that we are at this inflection point and acceleration. To actually see that it takes time for our software companies to develop new AI technologies. Put that into products that have been tested and proven and go through the enterprise adoption cycle. And that we're at the cusp of more adoption – that's what our survey work says. And to see that inflection, I think can help to rerate this sector.

Michelle Weaver: Lindsay, same question for you…

Lindsay Tyler: Maybe I'll tie it to markets. I've already had a lot of more conversations with equity investors over the past, how many months? There's a big fixed income focus right now, which is a great, you know, spot and really interesting opportunity in my seat. And there's a lot of interesting structures coming to be right now in the credit space. So, I think it's an exciting time.

Michelle Weaver: Lindsay, Stephen, Josh, thank you very much for joining to recap the event and let us know what you learned at the conference. To our audience, thank you for listening here live. And to our audience tuning in, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

AI’s Tangible Wins and Disruption Mar 06, 2026

Show notes

Live from Morgan Stanley’s TMT conference, our panel break down where AI is already delivering real returns—and where rapid advances are raising new risks.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.

Today we've got a special episode on AI adoption. And this is a first in a two-part conversation live from our Technology, Media and Telecom conference.

It's Thursday, March 5th at 11am in San Francisco.

We're really excited to be here with all of you taping live. And we've got on stage with me. Stephen Byrd, he's our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research; Josh Baer, Software Analyst; and Lindsay Tyler, TMT Credit Research Analyst.

So, Stephen, I want to start with you, pretty broad, pretty high level. We recently published our fifth AI Mapping Survey that identifies how different companies are exposed to the broad AI theme. Can you just share with us some insights from that piece and how stocks are performing with this AI exposure?

Stephen Byrd: Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, we've been doing this survey now, thanks to you, Michelle, and your excellent work, for quite a while. And every six months it is pretty telling to see the progression.

I would say a few things that got my attention from our most recent mapping was the number of companies that are quantifying the adoption benefits continues to go up quite a bit. And to me that feels like that's going to be table stakes very soon as in every industry you see two or three companies that are really laying out quite specifically what they expect to be able to do with AI and lay out the math. I think that really is going to pull all the other companies to follow suit. So, we're seeing that in a big way.

We do see adopters, with real tangible benefits performing well. But a new thing that we're seeing now, of course, in the market is concerns that in some cases adoption can lead to dramatic deflation, disruption, et cetera. That's coming up as well. So, we're seeing greater concerns around disruption as well.

But broadly, I'd say a proliferation of adoption, that that universe of companies continues to grow, increases in quantification of the benefits. So, that is good. What's really surprised me though, is the narrative among investors has so quickly moved from those benefits which we've talked about into flipping that to toggle all negative, which I know some of our analysts have to deal with every day. The mapping work suggests significant benefits. But the market is fast forwarding to very powerful AI that is very disruptive in deflation. And that's been a surprise to me.

Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Josh, I want to bring software into this. Your team has been arguing that AI is actually good for software. And it's really something that you need that application layer to then enable other companies to adopt AI. Can you tell us a little bit about how much GenAI could add to the broader enterprise software market? And how are you thinking about monetization these days?

Josh Baer: Of course. I think the best starting place is a reminder that AI is software, and so we see software as a TAM expander. And in many ways, even though this is extremely exciting innovation, it's following past innovation trends where first you see value accrue and market cap accrue to semiconductors, and then hardware and devices, and then eventually software and services. And we do think that that absolutely will occur just given [$]3 trillion in infrastructure investment into data centers and GPUs.

There's got to be an application layer that brings all of these productivity and efficiency gains to enterprises and advanced capabilities to consumers as well. And so we see AI more as an evolution for software than a revolution. An evolution of capabilities and expansion of capabilities. LLMs and diffusion engines absolutely unlocked all of these new features of what software can do. But incumbents will play a key role in this unlock.

And our CIO surveys really support that. Quarterly we ask chief information officers about their spending intentions, and these application vendors who we cover in the public markets are increasingly selected as vendors that companies will go to, to help deploy and apply AI and LLM technologies.

So, to answer your question, we estimate GenAI could unlock [$]400 billion in incremental TAM for software; for enterprise software by 2028. And this is based on looking at the type of work able to be automated, the labor costs associated with that work, the scope of automation, and then thinking about how much of that value is captured typically by software vendors.

Michelle Weaver: And you have a bit of a different lens on AI adoption. So, what are some of the ways you're hearing software customers using these AI tools and anything interesting that popped up at the conference?

Josh Baer: To echo what Stephen laid out, I mean, all of our software companies are using AI internally, both to drive efficiencies, but also to move faster. So thinking about product. Innovation, you know, the incumbents are able to use all of the same coding tools and, you know, …

Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm.

Josh Bear: … products geared to developers to move faster and more efficiently on R&D. So, they're doing more. From a sales and marketing perspective, a G&A perspective, every area of OpEx, our software companies are in a great position to deploy the AI tools internally.

I think more important[ly], speaking to this TAM and expanded opportunity, is our companies have skews that they're monetizing. It might be a separate suite that incorporates advanced AI functionality. It might be a standalone offering, or it might be embedded into the core platform because the essence of software is AI and it, you know, leading to better retention rates and acceleration from here.

Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. And Stephen, going back to you on the state of play for AI, we had the AI labs here and we heard a lot about the developments and what's to come. So, what's your view on the trajectory for LLM advancements and what are some of the key signposts or catalysts you're watching here?

Stephen Byrd: Yeah, this is for me, maybe the most important takeaway of the conference – is this continued non-linear improvement of LLMs, which we've been writing about for quite some time. And just to give you an example, we think many of the labs have achieved a step change up in terms of the compute that they have, in some cases 10 x the amount of compute to train their LLMs. And that [if] the scaling laws hold – and we see every sign that they will – a 10x increase in compute used to train the models results in about a doubling of the model capabilities.

Now just let that sink in for a moment. Let's just think about that. A doubling from here in a relatively short period of time is difficult to predict. It's obviously very significant and I think several of the LLM execs at our event sounded to me extremely bullish on what that will be. A lot of that I think will be evident in greater agentic capabilities.

But also, I'd say greater creativity. It was about three weeks ago, three of the best physics minds in the world worked with an LLM to achieve a true breakthrough in physics – solving a problem that had never been solved before. A couple of days ago, a math team did the same thing. And so, what we're seeing is sort of these breakthrough capabilities in creativity. This morning I thought Sam speaking to, you know, incredible increases in what these models can do – which also brings risk. You know, I think it was interesting he spoke to, you know, the risk of misalignment, the risk of what these models are doing.

But for me, that's the single biggest thing that I'm thinking about, and that's going to be evident in the next several months.

Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Byrd: So, you know, on the positive side, it leads to greater benefits from AI adoption. And to Josh's point that, you know – more and more the economy can be addressed by AI, I do get concerned about the risk that that kind of step change will create greater concerns about disruption and deflation.

That causes me to think a lot about that dynamic. Interestingly, we think the Chinese labs will not be able to keep pace just for one reason, which is compute. We think the Chinese labs have everything else they need. They have the talent, the infrastructure. They certainly have the energy, power. But they don't have the chips.

If what we laid out with the American models turns out to be true, I could see a chain reaction where the Chinese government pushes the Trump administration for full transfer of the best technology to China. And China could use their rare earth trade position to ensure that. So, that's sort of the chain reaction I've been thinking about.

Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. So, let's think about then bottlenecks in the U.S. Power is still one of the main bottlenecks. We had several of the solutions providers here at the conference. So, what are you thinking in terms of the size of the power bottleneck in the U.S. and how are we going to fix that?

Stephen Byrd: Yeah, absolutely. I am bullish on the companies that can de-bottleneck power, not just in the U.S., a few other places. Let's go through the math in terms of the problem we face and then the solution.

So, we have this very cool – it is cool if you're a nerd – power model that starts in the chip level up, from our semiconductor teams. And from that, we build a global power demand model for data centers. We then apply that to the U.S.

Through 2028 we need about 74 gigawatts of data centers, both AI and non-AI to be built in the United States. I don't think we'll be able to achieve that for lots of reasons. But starting from that 74, we have sort of 10 gigs that have been recently built or are under construction. We have 15 gigs of incremental grid access, but after those two, we have to go to unconventional solutions, meaning typically off-grid solutions, over 40 gigawatts of unconventional solutions.

So that will be repurposing Bitcoin sites, which could be sort of 10 to 15 gigawatts. That'll be big. Renewable energy, fuel cells will be part of the solution. Gas turbines will be a big part of the solution. Co-locating at a few nuclear plants. I'm less bullish than I used to be on that. But when we net all that out, we think the U.S. is likely to be 10 to 20 percent short of the data center capacity that will need to be in.

It's not just a power grid access issue, though, that's a big one. Labor is now showing up as a huge issue. Many of the companies I speak to trying to develop data centers struggle with availability of labor. Electricians being one very tangible example. In the U.S. we need hundreds of thousands of additional electricians.

So, for any of your children, like mine, thinking about careers, you know, you'd be surprised [at] the amount of money that people are making in the infrastructure business that does feel like it's a labor shift that's going to have to happen, but it's going to take years. So, in that context, we had a number of the Bitcoin companies at our event here. And the economics of turning a Bitcoin site into hosting a data center are extremely attractive. I mean, extremely attractive.

To give you a sense of that. Before this opportunity presented itself to these Bitcoin players, those stocks tended to trade at an enterprise value per watt of about $1 to $2 a watt. Then we started to see these deals in which the Bitcoin players build a data center and lease them to hyperscalers. Those deals – depends a lot on the deal but – have created between $10 and $18 a watt of value. Let me repeat that. 10 to 18 – relative to where these stocks were at 1 to 2.

Now many of these stocks have rerated, but not all of them. And there's still quite a bit of upside. And what we've noticed is the economics that the hyperscalers are paying are trending up and up and up. Because of this power shortage that we're dealing with. So, a lot of exciting opportunities are still in the power space.

Michelle Weaver: Great. Well, I think that's a good place to wrap this first part of our conversation around AI adoption and the state of play. We'll be back again tomorrow with Part Two, looking at financing and risks.

To our panelists, thank you for talking with me. And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected