Thoughts on the Market

Our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter joins our chief regional economists to discuss the outlook for interest rates in the U.S., Japan and Europe.
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 today we're kicking off our quarterly economic roundtable for the year. We're going to try to think about everything that matters in economics around the world. And today we're going to focus a little bit more on central banking. And when we get to tomorrow, we'll focus on the nuts and bolts of the real side of the economy.
I'm joined by our chief regional economists.
Michael Gapen: Hi, Seth. I'm Mike Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist at Morgan Stanley.
Chetan Ahya: I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia economist.
Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe economist.
Seth Carpenter: It's Thursday, January 22nd at 10 am in New York.
Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4 pm in Frankfurt.
Chetan Ahya: And 9 pm in Hong Kong.
Seth Carpenter: So, Mike Gapen, let me start with you as we head into 2026, what are we thinking about? Are we going into a more stable expansion? Is this just a different phase with the same amount of volatility? What do you think is going to be happening in the U.S. as a baseline outlook? And then if we're going to be wrong, which direction would we be wrong?
Michael Gapen: Yeah, Seth, we took the view that we would have more policy certainty. Recent weeks have maybe suggested we're incorrect on that front. But I still believe that when it comes to deregulation, immigration policy and fiscal policy, we have much more clarity there than we did a year ago.
So, I think it's another year of modest growth, above trend growth. We're forecasting something around 2.4 percent for 2026. That's about where we finished 2025.
I think what's key for markets and the outlook overall will be whether inflation comes down. Firms are still passing through tariffs to the consumer. We think that'll happen at least through the end of the first quarter. It's our view that after that, inflation pressures will start to diminish. If that's the case, then we think the Fed can execute one or two more rate cuts. But we have those coming [in] the second half of the year. So, it looks like growth is strong enough. The labor market has stabilized enough for the Fed to wait and see, to look around, see the effects of their prior rate cuts, and then push policy closer to neutral if inflation comes down.
Seth Carpenter: And if we go back to last year to 2025, I will give you the credit first. Morgan Stanley did not shift its forecast for recession in the U.S. the way some of our main competitors did.
On the other hand, and this is where I maybe tweak you just a little bit. We underestimated how much growth there would be in the United States. CapEx spending from AI firms was strong. Consumer spending, especially from the top half of the income distribution in the U.S. was strong. Growth overall for the year was over 2 percent, close to 2.5 percent. So, if that's what we just came off of, why isn't it the case that we'd see even stronger growth? Maybe even a re-acceleration of growth in 2026?
Michael Gapen: Well, some of that, say, improvement vis-à-vis our forecast, the outperformance. Some of that I think comes mechanically from trade and inventory variability. So, . I'm not sure that that says a lot about an improving trend rate of growth.
Where there was other outperformance was, as you noted, from the consumer. Now our models, and I don't mean to get too technical here, but our model suggests that consumption is overshooting its fundamentals. Which I think makes it harder for the economy to accelerate further. And then AI; it's harder for AI spending to say get incrementally stronger than where it is. So, we’re getting a little extra boost from fiscal. We've got that coming through. And I just think what it is, is more of the same rather than further acceleration from here.
Seth Carpenter: Do you think there's a chance that the Fed in fact does not cut rates like you have in your forecast?
Michael Gapen: Yes, I do think... Where we could be wrong is we've made assumptions around the One Big Beautiful Bill and what it will contribute to the economy. But as you know, there's a lot of variability around those estimates.
If the bill is more catalytic to animal spirits and business spending than we've assumed, you could get, say, a demand driven animal spirits upside to the economy, which may mean inflation doesn't decelerate all that much. But I do think that that's, say, the main upside risk that we're considering. Markets have been gradually taking out probabilities of Fed cuts as growth has come in stronger. So far, the inflation data has been positive in terms of signaling about disinflation, but I would say the jury's still out on how much that continues.
Seth Carpenter: Chetan, When I think about Japan, we know that it's been the developed market central bank that's been going in the opposite direction. They've been hiking when other central banks have been cutting. We got some news recently that probably put some risk into our baseline outlook that we published in our year ahead view about both growth and inflation in Japan. And with it what the Bank of Japan is going to do in terms of its normalization.
Can you just walk us through a little bit about our outlook for Japan? Because right now I think that the yen, Japanese rates, they're all part of the ongoing market narrative around the world.
Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, look, I mean, on a big picture basis, we are constructive on the Japan macro-outlook. We think normal GDP growth remains strong. We are expecting to see the transition for the consumers from them seeing, you know, supply side inflation. Keeping their real wage growth low to a dynamic where we transition to real wage growth accelerating. That supports real consumption growth, and we move away from that supply side driven inflation to demand side driven inflation.
So broadly we are constructive, but I think in the backdrop, what we are seeing on currency depreciation is making things a bit more challenging for the BOJ.
While we are expecting that demand side pressure to build up and drive inflation, in the trailing data, it is still pretty much currency depreciation and supply side factors like food inflation driving inflation. And so, BOJ has been hesitant. So, while we had the expectation that BOJ will hike in January of 2027, we do see the risk that they may have to take up rate hike earlier to manage the currency not getting out of hand and adding on to the inflation pressures.
Seth Carpenter Would I be right in saying that up until now, the yen has swung pretty widely in both directions. But the weakening of the yen until now hasn't been really the key driver of the Bank of Japan's policy reaction. It's been growth picking up, inflation picking up, wanting to get out of negative interest rates first, wanting to get away from the zero lower bounds.
Second, the weaker yen in some sense could have actually been seen as a positive up until now because Japan did go through 25 years of essentially stagnant nominal growth. Is this actually that much of a fundamental change in the Bank of Japan's thinking – needing to react to the weakness of the yen?
Chetan Ahya: Broadly what you're saying is right, Seth, but there is also a threshold of where the currency can be. And beyond a point, it begins to hurt the households in form of imported inflation pressures. And remember that inflation has been somewhat high, even if it is driven by currency depreciation and supply side factors for some time. And so, BOJ has to be watchful of potential lift in inflation expectations for the households. And at the same time, they are also watching the underlying inflation impact of this currency depreciation – because what we have seen is that over period workers have been demanding for higher wages. And that is also influenced by what happens to headline inflation, which is driven by currency depreciation. So, I would say that, yes, it's been true up until now. But, when currency reaches these very high levels of range, you are going to see BOJ having to act.
Seth Carpenter: Jens, let's shift then to Europe. The ECB had been on a cutting cycle. They came to the end of that. President Lagarde said that she thought the disinflationary process had ended.
In your year ahead forecast and a bunch of your writing recently, you've said maybe not so fast. There could still be some more disinflationary, at least risk, in the pipeline for Europe. Can you talk a little bit about what's going on in terms of European inflation and what it could mean for the European Central Bank? Because clearly that's going to be first order important for markets.
Jens Eisenschmidt: I think that is right. I think we have a crucial inflation print ahead of us that comes out on the 4th of February. So, early February we get some signal, whether our anticipated fall of headline inflation here below the ECB’s target is actually materializing. We think the chances for this are pretty good.
There's a mix why this is happening. One is energy. Energy disinflation and base effects. But the other thing is services inflation resets always at the beginning of the year. January and February are the crucial month here. We had significant services upward pressure on prices the last years. And so just from base effects, we think we will see less of that. Another picture or another element of that picture is that wage disinflation is proceeding nicely. We have notably a significant weakness in the export-oriented manufacturing sector in Germany, which is a key sector of setting wages for the country. The country is around 30 percent of the euro area GDP. And here we had seen significant wage gains over the last year. So, the disinflationary trend coming from lower wage gains from this country, that will be very important. And an important signal to watch.
Again, that's something we don't know. I think soon we have to watch simply monthly prints here. But a significant print for the first quarter comes out in May, and all of that together makes us believe that the ECB will be in a position to see enough data or have seen enough data that confirms the thesis of inflation staying below target for some time to come. So that they can cut in June and September to a terminal rate of 1.5 percent.
Seth Carpenter: That is, I would say, out of consensus relative where the market is. When you talk to investors, whether they're in Europe or around the world, what's the big pushback that you get from them when you are explaining your view on how the ECB is going to act?
Jens Eisenschmidt: There are two essential pushbacks. So, one is on substance. So, 'No, actually wages will not come down, and the economy will actually start overheating soon because of the big fiscal stimulus.' That, in a nutshell is the pushback on substance. I would say here, as you would say before, not so fast. Because the fiscal stimulus is only in one country. It's 30 percent. But only 30 percent of the euro area.
Plus, there is another pushback, which is on the reaction function of the ECB. Here we tend to agree. So far, we have heard from policy makers that they feel rather comfortable with the 2 percent rate level that they're at. But we think that discussion will change. The moment you are below target in an actual inflation print; the burden of proof is the opposite. Now you have to prove: Is the economy really on a track that inflation will get back up to target without further monetary stimulus?
We believe that will be the key debate. And again, happy to, sort of, concede that there is for now not a lot of signaling out of the ECB that further rate cuts are coming. But we believe the first inflation print of the year will change that debate significantly.
Seth Carpenter: Alright, so that makes a lot of sense. However, looking at the clock, we are probably out of time for today. So, for now, Michael, Chetan, Jens, thank you so much for joining today. And to the listener, thanks for listening. And be sure to tune in tomorrow for part two of our conversation.
And I have to say, if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

All eyes have been on President Trump’s address at the World Economic Forum. Michael Zezas, our Deputy Global Head of Research, and Ariana Salvatore, our Head of Public Policy Research, talk about potential implications for policy and the U.S. outlook.
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 our takeaways from President Trump's speech in Davos and what we think it means for investors.
It's Wednesday, January 21st at 1pm in New York.
Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, over the last couple of weeks, there's been a lot of news about policy proposals coming out of the U.S. and from President Trump around affordability, as well as some geopolitical events around the U.S. relationship with Europe. And investors really started looking towards President Trump's speech at Davos, which he gave earlier today, as a potential vehicle to learn more about what these things would actually mean and what it might mean for the economic outlook and markets.
Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. I think specifically investors were looking for the President to focus on affordability proposals pertaining to housing and some commentary around Greenland. Remember last weekend, President Trump proposed a 10 percent tariff on some EU countries related to this topic specifically.
So obviously that did feature in his speech. What did we learn and what do you think are the most important things for markets to know?
Michael Zezas: So, maybe the most important headline we got was President Trump appearing to take off the table the use of force when it comes to an attempt to acquire Greenland. And that would seem to, therefore, take off the table the idea of a broader rupture in the U.S.-EU relationship. Both the security relationship vis-a-vis NATO, as well as the economic relationship which could have been ruptured with higher tariffs on both sides, anti coercion measures around trade, and that would be of obvious economic importance.
Europe is obviously a major importer of U.S. goods. Not as big as Canada or Mexico, but still pretty significant. So, anything that would've created higher barriers between the two would've had meaningful economic consequences for the U.S. outlook.
Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. And we've been saying that the bilateral trade framework agreement between the U.S. and the EU is actually pretty tenuous in nature, right? So, this doesn't yet have formal backing from the European Parliament. They, in fact, delayed a vote on this exact deal, kind of on the back of these Greenland headlines.
So how are we thinking about, you know, what's been priced into markets and maybe what this could mean for something like the dollar going forward?
Michael Zezas: Yeah, so it's important to point out that we're not out of the woods yet in terms of potential trade escalation on both sides around the Greenland issue. However, it seems like that bigger tail problem of a decoupling might have gone away. And so, what you saw in markets so far today was that some of the actions over the past, kind of, 24-48 hours with equity market weakness. You know, the S&P was down about 2 percent yesterday. The dollar was weaker. It seemed like more term premium was being baked into the U.S. Treasury market. A lot of that appears to be unwinding today.
Said more simply, the idea of a kind of riskier investment environment for the U.S. is getting priced out. At least today, it's getting priced out. And it all makes sense when you think about if there was less of a relationship between the U.S. and Europe, there would be less demand for U.S. dollar holdings overseas. And that's the type of thing that should manifest in a weaker dollar and higher term premia, steeper yield curves for U.S. Treasuries.
Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, and that dovetails really nicely with the work that we just put out with the FX team, kind of highlighting some of the policy factors as push factors for countries to move away from the dollar. We think that's happening marginally. We think it's not really a risk in the immediate term, but some of these policy drivers can actually create dollar weakness over the medium to longer term.
Michael Zezas: Of course, to the extent that we get news that this is a head fake and that tensions are re-escalating, you'd expect some of those trades to start pushing markets back in the other direction again.
Now, President Trump also talked quite a bit about domestic policy, largely about affordability, and some of the policy proposals he's put forward over the last couple of weeks. Was there any new details that you heard that you think are meaningful for investors?
Ariana Salvatore: So, the short version is nothing really new, and the reality is that a lot of housing policy in particular is actually out of the hands of the executive. And even if you do see congressional action here, it's likely to be marginal. A lot of housing policy is done at the state level, and even bipartisan efforts to address both the demand and the supply sides of the equation have faced some resistance in Congress.
That doesn't mean they can't reemerge. But we would need to see a very large decline in the mortgage rate to get noticeable effects on economic indicators like GDP, inflation and employment. And in terms of what this means for the housing outlook, the programs talked about so far should push sales marginally higher but have little impact on our expectations for our home prices.
Now it's important to note that the president didn't spend that much time of the speech talking about housing affordability proposals, as was telegraphed ahead of time. And since that, the head of the NEC Kevin Hassett has said they plan to announce more details on housing in the coming days.
Michael Zezas: Got it. So, on the two pieces here that investors have really focused on, which are capping institutional ownership of single-family homes and potentially capping interest rates on credit cards, it sounded like the president talked about he would go to Congress for authorization on those things.
Is that right? And if so, how plausible is it that Congress could actually deliver those authorities?
Ariana Salvatore: So, here's where I think it's really critical to understand the role that Congress has to play in all of these policy initiatives. So, there are not only political constraints, but there are also procedural ones. If we were to see Republicans kind of push for this 10 percent cap, for example, that likely would have to go through the reconciliation process. And that process, as we know, comes with a number of limitations because something like a 10 percent cap wouldn't have much of an impact on the federal budget in terms of revenues or outlays.
We think it's most likely not going to be permissible under that framework. So, understanding that the first filter here is Congress, and the second filter is these procedural limitations that exist in and of themselves is really important context for understanding the president's proposals on housing.
Michael Zezas: So, is it fair to say the starting point is that we think Congress is unlikely to act on these things? And what would you have to see that might make you think differently?
Ariana Salvatore: I think where we're looking for signals from Republican leadership in Congress – because as of right now, it's been our thinking that a second reconciliation bill ahead of the midterm elections is not feasible. It's too difficult politically, it takes a lot of time, but if you see enough of a push from the president, we do think that can start to become feasible. Again, we have to keep in mind these procedural limitations and where the rest of the party falls on these issues. But I think they're possible if the administration pushes hard enough for them.
Michael Zezas: Got it. So, even though we don't think it's likely, we obviously want to prepare in case that happens. When it comes to housing, it seems like our team has said institutional ownership of single-family housing is quite low, 1 percent or less. And so, restrictions there wouldn't necessarily change the game on home prices.
What about the 10 percent cap on credit card interests? What are the broader ramifications that our colleagues see?
Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so I'd say generally speaking, when it comes to consumer credit affordability policies, our strategists think that these could actually translate to a benefit for consumer ABS performance because they tend to be a tailwind for a consumer that's struggled with rising delinquencies and defaults post-COVID, right?
However, there are some specific proposals like this cap on credit cards, and that's likely going to have a negative consequence because it's going to limit credit access for consumers, especially for those carrying a balance. So, probably a little bit counterintuitive to the overall affordability agenda that the administration's trying to go for.
Michael Zezas: So, lots of interesting stuff coming out of the speech. Lots of things we have to track over the next few weeks and months. It certainly doesn't seem like it's going to be a boring year two of the Trump term for investors.
Ariana Salvatore: Certainly not, and not for us either.
Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for finding the time to talk.
Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike.
Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our co-heads of Securitized Products Jay Bacow and James Egan explain why recent U.S. government measures won’t change much the outlook for mortgage rates, home prices and sales this year.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Jay Bacow: Jim Egan, I see you sitting across from me wearing a quarter zip. As old things become new again, my teenager would think that is trendy.
James Egan: I think this is one of, if not the first, times in my life that a teenager has thought I was trendy, including back when I was a teenager.
Jay Bacow: Well, as captain of the chess team in high school, I was never trendy. But Jim…
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.
Today, we're here to talk about some of the programs that are being announced and their implications for the mortgage and U.S. housing markets.
It's Tuesday, January 20th at 10am in New York.
Now, Jay, there have been a lot of announcements from this administration. Some of them focused on affordability, some of them focused on the mortgage market, some of them focused on the housing market. But I think one of them that had the biggest impact, at least in terms of trading sessions immediately following, was a $200 billion buy program from the GSEs. Can you talk to us a little bit about that program?
Jay Bacow: Sure. As you mentioned, President Trump announced that there would be a $200 billion purchase of mortgages, which later was confirmed by FHFA director Bill Pulte, to be purchased by Fannie and Freddie. Now, we would highlight putting this $200 billion number in context.
The market was probably expecting the GSEs to buy about a hundred billion dollars of mortgages this year. So, this is maybe an incremental a hundred billion dollars more. The mortgage market round numbers is a $10 trillion market, so in the scope of the size of the market, it's not huge. However, we're only forecasting about [$]175 billion of growth in the mortgage market this year, so this is the GSEs buying more than net issuance.
It's also similar in size to the Fed balance sheet runoff, which is something that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant mentioned in his comments last week. And so, the initial impact of this announcement was reasonably meaningful. Mortgage spreads tightened about 15 basis points and headline mortgage rates rallied to below 6 precent for the first time since 2022 on some mortgage measures.
James Egan: Alright, so we had a 15 basis point rally almost immediately upon announcement of this program. That took us, I believe, through your bull case for agency mortgages in our 2026 outlook. So, what's next here?
Jay Bacow: Well, we have a lot of questions about what is next. There's a lot of things that we're still waiting information on. But we think the initial move has sort of been fully priced in. We don't know the pace of the buying. We don't know if the purchases are going to be outright – like the Fed's purchase programs were. Or purchased and hedging the duration – like historically, the GSEs portfolios have been managed. We don't know how the $200 billion of mortgages will be funded. The way we're kind of thinking about this is if the program is just – and this is a podcast, not a video cast but I'm putting air quotes around just – $200 billion, it is probably priced in and then maybe and then some.
However, if the purchases are front loaded or the purchases are increased, or maybe this purchase program indicates possible changes to the composition of the Fed's balance sheet, then there could be further moves in spreads and in mortgage rates.
But Jim, what does this mean to the mortgage market writ large?
James Egan: Right. So, when we think about what you're talking about, a 15 basis point move in mortgage rates, and we take that into the housing market, the first order implication is on affordability. And this is a move in the right direction, but it is small from a magnitude perspective. You mentioned mortgage rates getting below 6 percent for the first time since 2022. When we think about this in the context of our expectations for 2026, we already had the mortgage rate getting to about 5.75 in the back half of this year. This would take that forecast down to about 5.6 percent.
That has a very modest upward implication for our purchase volume forecast, but I want to emphasize the modest piece. We're talking about [$]4.23 million was our original existing home sales forecast. This could take it to [$] 4.25 [million], maybe as high as [$]4.3 [million] with some media effect layered in. But any growth in demand, when we think about the home price side of the equation, we think we'll be met with additional listings.
So, it really doesn't change our home price forecast for 2026, which was plus 2 percent. So very modest, slightly upward risk to some of our forecasts. And as we've been saying, when we think about U.S. housing in 2026, the risk to our modest growth forecasts, 3 percent growth in sales, 2 percent growth in home prices. The risk has always been to the upside.
That could be because demand responds more to a 5 percent handle in mortgage rates than we're expecting. Or because you get more and more of these programs from the administration. So, on that note, Jay, what else do we think can be done here?
Jay Bacow: I mean, there are a lot of potential things that could be done, which could be helpful on the margin or not, depending on how far they are willing to think about the possibilities.
Some of the easier changes to make would be changes to the loan level pricing adjustments and the guaranteed fees, and mortgage insurance premiums, which would lower the cost in the roughly 10 to 15 basis points. There are some other changes that could be put through which we think from a legal side which would be much more difficult to make retroactive. That would be either allowing you to take your mortgage with you to the next house, which is what we call portability. Or allowing you to transfer your mortgage to the new home buyer, which is what we call assumability. We think it's extremely difficult to make that retroactive, but that could have some larger impacts, if that were to go through.
Now, Jim, speaking of other impacts, mortgages spreads have tightened 15 basis points. What does that do to some of the other sectors that you cover?
James Egan: Right. We do think there is a portfolio channel effect here that could be good for risk assets broader than just the agency mortgage space, even though that is clearly the primary impact of that $200 billion buying program. Securitized credit, we think is one of the clear beneficiaries of that tightening, given the relationships it has to agency mortgages. The non-QM mortgage market in particular – one that we're looking at for positive tailwinds as a result of this.
Jay Bacow: All right, so we got a big announcement. We got a pretty quick market move after that, and now we're waiting to see what the next steps are. Likely going to have a marginal impact on housing activity, but we got to keep our ears and our eyes open to see what else might come. Jim, always great talking to you.
James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to all of you 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.

*** Disclaimer ***

James Egan: It's a shame it's not a video podcast. What a great cardigan.

Our Head of Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the main themes for European stocks this year.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product here in Europe.
Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.
Paul Walsh: Today, we are here to talk about the big debates for European equities moving into 2026.
It's Friday, January the 16th at 8am in London.
Marina, it's great to have you on Thoughts on the Market. I think we've got a fascinating year ahead of us, and there are plenty of big debates to be exploring here in Europe. But let's kick it off with the, sort of, obvious comparison to the U.S.
How are you thinking about European equities versus the U.S. right now? When we cast our eyes back to last year, we had this surprising outperformance. Could that repeat?
Marina Zavolock: Yeah, the biggest debate of all Paul, that's what you start with. So, actually it's not just last year. If you look since U.S. elections, I think it would surprise most people to know that if you compare in constant currency terms; so if you look in dollar terms or if you look in Euro terms, European equities have outperformed U.S. equities since US elections. I don't think that's something that a lot of people really think about as a fact.
And something very interesting has happened at the start of this year. And let me set the scene before I tell you what that is.
In the last 10 years, European equities have been in this constantly widening discount range versus the U.S. on valuation. So next one's P/E there's been, you know, we have tactical rallies from time to time; but in the last 10 years, they've always been tactical. But we're in this downward structural range where their discount just keeps going wider and wider and wider. And what's happened on December 31st is that for the first time in 10 years, European equities have broken the top of that discount range now consistently since December 31st. I've lost count of how many trading days that is. So about two weeks, we've broken the top of that discount range. And when you look at long-term history, that's happened a number of times before. And every time that happens, you start to go into an upward range.
So, the discount is narrowing and narrowing; not in a straight line, in a range. But the discount narrows over time. The last couple of times that's happened, in the last 20 years, over time you narrow all the way to single digit discount rather than what we have right now in like-for-like terms of 23 percent.
Paul Walsh: Yeah, so there's a significant discount. Now, obviously it's great that we are seeing increased inflows into European equities. So far this year, the performance at an index level has been pretty robust. We've just talked about the relative positioning of Europe versus the U.S.; and the perhaps not widely understood local currency outperformance of Europe versus the U.S. last year. But do you think this is a phenomenon that's sustainable? Or are we looking at, sort of, purely a Q1 phenomenon?
Marina Zavolock: Yeah, it's a really good question and you make a good point on flows, which I forgot to mention. Which is that, last year in [Q1] we saw this really big diversification flow theme where investors were looking to reduce exposure in the U.S., add exposure to Europe – for a number of reasons that I won't go into.
And we're seeing deja vu with that now, mostly on the – not really reducing that much in U.S., but more so, diversifying into Europe. And the feedback I get when speaking to investors is that the U.S. is so big, so concentrated and there's this trend of broadening in the U.S. that's happening; and that broadening is impacting Europe as well.
Because if you're thinking about, ‘Okay, what do I invest in outside of seven stocks in the U.S.?’ You're also thinking about, ‘Okay, but Europe has discounts and maybe I should look at those European companies as well.’ That's exactly what's happening. So, diversification flows are sharply going up, in the last month or two in European equities coming into this year.
And it's a very good question of whether this is just a [Q1] phenomenon. [Be]cause that's exactly what it was last year. I still struggle to see European equities outperforming the U.S. over the course of the full year because we're going to come into earnings now.
We have much lower earnings growth at a headline level than the U.S. I have 4 percent earnings growth forecast. That's driven by some specific sectors. It's, you know, you have pockets of very high growth. But still at a headline level, we have 4 percent earnings growth on our base case. Consensus is too high in our view. And our U.S. equity strategists, they have 17 percent earnings growth, so we can't compete.
Paul Walsh That's a very stark difference.
Marina Zavolock: Yeah, we cannot compete with that. But what I will say is that historically when you've had these breakouts, you don't get out performance really. But what you get is a much narrower gap in performance. And I also think if you pick the right pockets within Europe, then you could; you can get out performance.
Paul Walsh: So, something you and I talked about a lot in 2025, is the bull case for Europe. There are a number of themes and secular dynamics that could play out, frankly, to the benefits of Europe, and there are a number of them. I wondered if you could highlight the ones that you think are most important in terms of the bull case for Europe.
Marina Zavolock: I think the most important one is AI adoption. We and our team, we have been able to quantify this. So, when we take our global AI mapping and we look at leading AI adopters in Europe, which is about a quarter of the index, they are showing very strong earnings and returns outperformance. Not just versus the European index, but versus their respective sectors. And versus their respective sectors, that gap of earnings outperformance is growing and becoming more meaningful every time that we update our own chart.
To the point that I think at this rate, by the second half of this year, it's going to grow to a point that it’s more difficult for investors to ignore. That group of stocks, first of all, they trade again at a big discount to U.S. equivalent – 27 percent discount. Also, if you see adoption broadening overall, and we start to go into the phase of the AI cycle where adopters are, you know, are being sought after and are seen as in the front line of beneficiaries of AI. It's important to remember Europe; the European index because we don't have a lot of enablers in our index. It is very skewed to AI adopters. And then we also have a lot of low hanging fruit given productivity demographic challenges that AI can help to address. So that's the biggest one.
Paul Walsh: Understood.
Marina Zavolock: And the one I've spent most time on. But let me quickly mention a few others. M&A, we're seeing it rising in Europe, almost as sharply as we're seeing in the U.S. Again, I think there's low hanging fruit there. We're seeing easing competition commission rules, which has been an ongoing thing, but you know, that comes after decade of not seeing that. We're seeing corporate re-leveraging off of lows. Both of these things are still very far from cycle peaks. And we're seeing structural drivers, which for example, savings and investment union, which is multifaceted. I won't get into it. But that could really present a bull case.
Paul Walsh: Yeah. And that could include pensions reform across Europe, particularly in Germany, deeper capital…
Marina Zavolock: We're starting to see it.
Paul Walsh: And in Europe as well, yeah. And so just going back to the base case, what are you advocating to clients in terms of what do we buy here in Europe, given the backdrop that you've framed?
Marina Zavolock: Within Europe, I get asked a lot whether investors should be investing in cyclicals or value. Last year value really worked, or quality – maybe they will return. I think it's not really about any of those things. I think, similar to prior years, what we're going to see is stock level dispersion continuing to rise. That's what we keep seeing every month, every quarter, every year – for the last couple of years, we're seeing dispersion rising.
Again, we're still far from where we normally get to, when we get to cycle peaks. So, Europe is really about stock picking. And the best way that we have at Morgan Stanley to capture this alpha under the surface of the European index. And the growth that we have under the surface of the index, is our analyst top picks – which are showing fairly consistent outperformance, not just versus the European index, but also versus the S&P. And since inception of top picks in 2021, European top picks have outperformed the S&P free float market cap weighted by over 90 percentage points. And they've outperformed, the S&P – this is pre-trade – by 17 percentage points in the last year. And whatever period we slice, we're seeing out performance.
As far as sectors, key sectors, Banks is at the very top of our model. It's the first sector that non-dedicated investors ask me about. I think the investment case there is very compelling. Defense, we really like structurally with the rearmament theme in Europe, but it's also helpful that we're in this seasonal phase where defense tends to really outperform between; and have outsized returns between January and April. And then we like the powering AI thematic, and we are getting a lot of incoming on the powering AI thematic in Europe. We upgraded utilities recently.
Paul, maybe if I ask you a question, one sector that I've missed out on, in our data-driven sector model, is the semis. But you've worked a lot with our semi's team who are quite constructive. Can you tell us about the investment case there?
Paul Walsh: Yeah, they're quite constructive, but I would say there's nuance within the context of the sector. I think what they really like is the semi cap space, which they think is really well underpinned by a robust, global outlook for wafer fab equipment spend, which we see growing double digits globally in both 2026 and 2027.
And I think within that, in particular, the outlook for memory. You have something of a memory supercycle going on at the moment. And the outlook for memory is especially encouraging. And it's a market where we see it as being increasingly capacity constrained with an unusually long order book visibility today, driven really by AI inference. So strong thematic overlay there as well.
And maybe I would highlight one other key area of growth longer term for the space, which is set to come from the proliferation of humanoid robots. That's a key theme for us in 2025. And of course, we'll continue to be so, in the years to come. And we are modeling a global Humanoids Semicon TAM of over $300 billion by 2045, with key pillars of opportunity for the semi names to be able to capitalize on. So, I think those are two areas where, in particular, the team have seen some great opportunities.
Now bringing it back to the other side of the equation, Marina, which sectors would you be avoiding, within the context of your model?
Marina Zavolock: There's a collection of sectors and they, for the most part, are the culprits for the low growth that we have in Europe. So simply avoiding these could be very helpful from a growth perspective, to add to that multiple expansion. These are at the bottom of our data driven, sector models. So, these are Autos, Chemicals, Luxury Transport, Food and Beverage.
Most of these are old economy cyclicals. Many of these sectors have high China/old economy exposure – as well where we're not seeing really a demand pickup. And then lastly, a number of these sectors are facing ever rising China competition.
Paul Walsh: And I think, when we weigh up the skew of your views according to your model, I think it brings it back to the original big debate around cyclicals versus defensives. And your conclusion that actually it's much more complicated than that.
Marina, thanks for taking the time to talk.
Marina Zavolock: Great to speak with you Paul.
Paul Walsh: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets looks at the implications of the U.S. government’s efforts to ease regulations, from bank balance sheets to asset valuations.
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, a core theme of easing policy, and the latest iteration in the U.S. mortgage market.
It's Thursday, January 15th at 2pm in London.
Central to our thinking for the year ahead is that we're seeing an unusual combination of easing monetary policy, fiscal policy, and regulatory policy – all at the same time. This isn't normal, and usually this type of support is only deployed under much more dire economic conditions. All this is also happening alongside another large supportive force – over $3 trillion of AI- and datacenter-related spending that Morgan Stanley expects all to happen through the end of 2028.
This broad-based easing is a global theme. Equities in Japan have been rallying on hopes of even a larger fiscal leasing in that country. In Europe, we think that Germany will continue to spend more while the European Central Bank and Bank of England cut rates more than the market expects.
But like many things these days, it's the United States that's at the heart of the story.
We think that the U.S. Federal Reserve will continue to lower interest rates this year, even as core inflation persists above its target. The U.S. government will spend about $1.9 trillion more than it takes in, even after adjusting for tariffs as tax cuts from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act kick in.
But my focus today is on the third leg of this proverbial three-legged stimulative stool. While easing monetary and fiscal policy probably get the most focus, easing regulatory policy is another big lever that's being pulled in the same direction. Regulatory policy is opaque, and let's face it can be a little boring. But it's extremely important for how financial markets function. Regulation drives the incentives for the buyers of many assets, especially in the all-important banking and insurance sectors.
It can set almost by definition what price an asset needs to trade at to be attractive, or how much of an asset a particular actor in the market can or cannot hold. Regulatory policy tightened dramatically in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, but now it's starting to ease. Our U.S. bank equity analysts expect that finalization of key capital rules later this year – an important regulatory step – could free up about [$]5.8 trillion – with a T – of balance sheet capacity across the Global Systematically Important Banks. In mid-December, the office of the comptroller of the currency and the FDIC withdrew lending guidelines from 2013 that had discouraged banks from making loans to more highly indebted companies.
And just last week, the U.S. administration announced that the U.S. mortgage agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy [$]200 billion of mortgages to hold on their own balance sheet; a significant move that quickly tightens spreads in this key market. For investors, we see several implications. This simultaneous easing across monetary, fiscal, and now regulatory policy supports a market that runs hot and where valuations may overshoot.
And in the specific case of these agency mortgages, my colleague Jay Bacow and our mortgage strategy team think that this shift is now very quickly in the price. Having previously been positive on agency mortgage spreads, they've now turned to neutral.
Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.