Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses why the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its impact on oil prices could define the entire market cycle. 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: how the latest energy shock is rippling across every major asset class. It’s Thursday, April 2nd, at 10am in New York. Right now, the markets aren’t just reacting to oil – they’re being shaped by it. The path of energy prices is quickly becoming the lens through which investors interpret everything else: growth, inflation, policy, and ultimately risk appetite. And depending on where oil settles, the market story could look very different from here. The starting point is simple: the baseline for energy prices has shifted higher. If tensions ease, our Chief Commodities Strategist, Martijn Rats, expects oil to settle around $80 to $90 per barrel in 2026, quite a step up from what we saw in 2025. If constraints persist, that rises to $100 to $110 per barrel. And in a more extreme scenario – where supply disruptions intensify – oil can reach $150 to $180 per barrel. Now, at those higher levels, the impact becomes nonlinear. Oil stops being just an inflation story and starts weighing directly on demand and growth. That’s why we see the current environment as binary: markets either revert to their pre-shock trajectory, or they begin pricing in a much tougher mix of tighter policy and weaker growth. To make sense of this, we frame the outlook through three scenarios. In a de-escalation scenario, supply disruptions ease quickly and oil stabilizes in that $80 to $90 per barrel range. Markets effectively breathe a sigh of relief. Investors refocus on growth drivers like earnings resilience and AI investment. And equities outperform, particularly cyclical sectors like consumer discretionary, financials, and industrials, while defensives lag. Bond yields fall, as inflation expectations decline. All in all, in plain terms, this is a classic risk-on environment. The second scenario – ongoing constraints – is a little bit more complicated. Oil stays elevated around $100 to $110 per barrel. Markets can absorb that, we think, but it creates friction. Equities still perform, but with more volatility and less conviction. The S&P [500] is likely to move within a wide 6400 and 6850 range in the near term. Leadership shifts toward higher-quality companies – those with steadier earnings and stronger balance sheets – along with select defensives like healthcare. At the same time, credit markets start to really feel the strain with spreads widening in general under performance. The third scenario – effective closure – is where the backdrop really changes. With oil above $150 per barrel, the focus shifts from inflation to growth risk. Investors will move into what we call a ‘recession playbook,’ dialing back equity exposure and increasing allocations to government bonds and cash. Defensive sectors like utilities, telecoms, and energy take the lead, as markets begin to price in a higher risk to the earnings cycle. Credit conditions tighten sharply, with high-yield spreads potentially widening materially. What makes this environment especially challenging is how everything connects. In a typical cycle, bonds help offset equity losses. But in an oil shock, that relationship can break down because inflation is rising at the same time growth is slowing. That’s what we usually call a stagflationary setup, and it makes diversification harder just when investors need it most. Currencies are reacting as well. In a more severe shock, the U.S. dollar strengthens, with EUR/USD potentially falling toward 1.13, while safe-haven currencies like the Swiss franc outperform. In a de-escalation scenario, EUR/USD could move back above 1.17 as risk sentiment improves. Importantly, markets have adjusted over the past month. Equity valuations at one point was down about 15 percent on a forward price-to-earnings basis, suggesting in a large part of the risk was being priced in. At the same time, sentiment has improved from deeply negative levels, especially over the last few days, even as volatility remains closely tied to oil. 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.

As the Strait of Hormuz continues to be a chokepoint for oil, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and our Head of Commodity Research Martijn Rats discuss possible outcomes for the interconnected market. 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: And today in the program: Oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz remain restricted. The implications for global energy markets and what may lie ahead. It's Wednesday, April 1st at 2pm in London. So, Martijn, it's great to sit down with you again. Three weeks ago, we were having this conversation; a conversation that was a little bit alarming about the scale of the disruption of the oil market with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and how that could have ripple effects through the global economy. Three weeks later, oil is still not flowing. What is happening? And what has maybe surprised you? Or been in line with expectations over the last couple of weeks? Martijn Rats: Yeah. Many things have been in line with expectations, in the sense that we're seeing the effects of the closure of the strait the earliest in regions that are physically the closest to the strait. So, we saw the first examples of physical shortages in, say, the west coast of India. Then we saw examples from the east coast of India From there on it's reverberated throughout Asia, where now governments have announced a whole host of. Effectively, energy demand, uh, management measures, uh, work from home, kids staying at home from school, um, cancellation of flights. There are quite many through, through Asia Also in Asia, we're seeing the type of prices that you would expect with this situation. Bunker fuel for shipping, somewhere between $150 to $200 a barrel. Jet fuel over $200 a barrel. Naphta going into Japan; naphta normally trades well below the headline price of Brent. Now $130 a barrel, that's more than double what it was in February. So, those things tell the story of this historic event. What has been surprising on the other end is how slow the reaction has been in many of the oil prices that we track the most. Like… Andrew Sheets: The numbers people will see on the news. You know, it's $100 a barrel maybe as we're talking. Martijn Rats: Yeah. It's strange to see jet fuel cargoes in Rotterdam more than $200 a barrel, but then the front month Brent future only trading at [$]100. That spread is historically wide and very surprising. But look, there are some reasons for it. The crude market had more buffers. There are a few other things. But how slow Brent futures have rallied? That has been somewhat surprising. Andrew Sheets: But you know, from those other prices you mentioned, those prices in Asia, those prices in Rotterdam that are maybe higher than the numbers that people might see on the news or on a financial website. Is it fair to say that in your mind that's sending a signal that this is a market that really is being affected by this? And being affected maybe in a larger way than the headline oil price might suggest? Martijn Rats: Oh, clearly. Look, the oil market is full with small price signals that tell the story of the underlying plumbing of the oil market. So, you can look at price differential. So, physically delivered cargoes versus financially traded futures. West African oil versus North Sea oil. Brazilian oil versus North Sea oil. Oil for immediate physical delivery versus the futures contract that trades a month out. And many of those spreads have rallied to all time highs. That is no exaggeration. And so, in an underlying sense, the stress in the market is clearly there. It is just that in front of Brent futures, which is the world's preferred speculative instrument to express a financial view on oil. Yeah, there the impact has been slower to come. But you're now seeing a lot of Asian refineries bidding for crudes that are further away in the Atlantic basin. So, demand is spreading to further away regions. And that should over time still put upward pressure on Brent. Andrew Sheets: In our first conversation, you know, you had this great walkthrough of both just putting the scale of this disruption in the Strait of Hormuz into the global context. How many barrels we're talking about, how that's a share of the global market. Maybe just might be helpful to revisit those numbers again. And also, some of the mitigation factors. You know, we talked about – well maybe we could release reserves, maybe some pipelines could be rerouted. Based on what you're currently seeing on the ground, what is this disruption looking like? Martijn Rats: Yeah, so to put things in context, global oil consumption is a bit more than 100 million barrels a day. That number lives in a lot of people's heads. But if you look at the market that is critical for price formation, that's really the seaborne market. You can imagine that if, say you're in China, and you have a shortage. But there is a pipeline from Canada into the United States – that pipeline's not really going to help you. What you need is a cargo that can be delivered to a port in Shanghai. So, the seaborne market is where prices are formed. That is roughly a 60 million barrel a day market, of which 20 million barrels a day flows through the Strait of Hormuz. So, for the relative market, the Strait of Hormuz is about a third. It's very, very large. Now, out of that 20 million barrel a day that is, in principle, in scope, there is still a little bit of Iranian oil flowing through. That continues. They let their own cargo through. Then Saudi Arabia has the East-West pipeline. They can divert some oil from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. That's about 4 million barrels a day, incremental on top of the flow that already exist on that pipeline. The UAE has a pipeline that can divert half a million barrel a day. But you are still left with a problem that is in the order of 14-ish million barrels a day. You're going to have some SPR releases to offset that a little bit. But global SPRs can flow maybe 1 to 2 million barrels a day. You're very quickly left with a double digit shortage – and that is historically large… Andrew Sheets: And just to take it to history, I mean, again, if we were placing a 14 million barrel a day disruption in the context of some of these historical oil disruptions that people might have a memory of – what is the relative scale? Martijn Rats: Yeah. This is at the heart of why this is such a difficult period to manage. Like, normally we care about imbalances of 0.5 to 1 million. That gets interesting for oil analysts. At a million, you can expect prices to move. If you have dislocations in supply and amount of, say, 2 to 3 million barrels a day, you have historically epic moves that we talk about for decades, literally. Like in 2008, oil fell from $130 a barrel to [$]30 on the basis of two to three quarters of 2 million barrel a day oversupply. In 2022, around the Ukraine invasion, oil went from 60-70 bucks to something like [$]130 at the peak on the basis of the expectation, but not realized. This was just an expectation that Russia would lose 3 million barrels a day of productive capacity. And so, 2 to 3 million barrels a day normally already gets us to these outsized moves. And so, this event is four, five times larger than that. That means we don't have historical reference for what's currently happening. Andrew Sheets: I guess I'd like to now focus on the future and maybe I'll ask you to summarize two highly complex scenarios in a[n] overly simplified way. But let's say tonight we get an announcement that hostilities have ceased, that the strait is open, that oil can flow again. Or a second scenario where it's another three weeks from now, we're having this conversation again, and the strait is still closed. Could you just kind of help listeners understand what the energy market could look like under each of those scenarios? Martijn Rats: Yeah. So maybe to start off with the latter one. Because from an analytical perspective, that one is perhaps a bit easier. Look, if the Strait stays closed, at some point, consumption needs to decline. Andrew Sheets: Significantly. Martijn Rats: Yeah, significantly. We need demand destruction. Now that's easier said than done. Who gets to consume in those type of environments – are those who are willing to pay the most. And that means that certain consumers need to be priced out of the market. We tried to answer this question in 2022, and the collective answer that we all came up with is that you need prices for Brent – in money of the day – $150 or something thereabouts. That is not an exaggeration. Now, let's all hope we can avoid that scenario because that is… You know, that looks like a spectacular price. But that is not a beneficial scenario for anybody in the economy. The other scenario is more interesting, and it can actually be split in sort of two sub scenarios… Andrew Sheets: And this is the scenario where actually stuff starts flowing tomorrow. Martijn Rats: Exactly, exactly. If it completely flows like it always did – sure, we go back to the situation we had before these events. Brent can fall substantially – 70 bucks. Before these events we thought the oil market would be oversupplied. Who knows? True freedom of navigation may be even lower. But, at the moment, that doesn't quite look like that will be the scenario that's in front of us. What seems to be emerging is an outcome whereby this could deescalate but leave the Iranian regime structurally in control of the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. And if the Iranian regime continues to manage the flow as they currently do – cargo by cargo. Because there are some cargoes trickling out and there is a process that seems to be established for it. There seems to be a toll that seems to be paid. And if it remains that sort of relatively heavy handed -- This cargo goes, that cargo doesn't. Given that that will then manage 20 percent of global oil supply, that is not the same oil market that we had before. Like all of OPEC spare capacity would be behind this system. Would that spare capacity be available in the case of an emergency? Maybe, maybe not. This is only one of many questions. But if the Iranians stay in control of the strait, we will not return to the oil market that we once knew. Andrew Sheets: And is that fair to say we might need a higher, long-term oil price? A higher risk premium in future oil prices to offset some of that? Martijn Rats: Yes. I would say that that is very likely. First, a lot of the supply would be fundamentally less reliable. Second, we would have de minimis effective spare capacity in the system. Thirdly, if this is the scenario we are left with, that creates an enormous incentive for countries to start expanding their strategic storages. And building strategic inventories is like exerting demand. China has built a lot of strategic storage over the last two years. They are now in a better shape than if they hadn't. In the west, we've historically had strategic storage. But India for example, has none. And so, the rest of Southeast Asia, no strategic storage; a lot of strategic storage buying that will is price supportive. And also, look, the prices that we care about are the price of Brent and WTI, and they are not behind the Strait of Hormuz. They have higher security of delivery. You can totally see how refineries would be willing to pay premium for those crudes relative to others. So, when you add all of that up, it leaves you with a higher risk premium. That people would pay particularly for the crudes that form our perceptions about the oil market, Andrew Sheets: Martijn, one final question I'd love to ask you about is how the U.S. fits into all of this. You know, you do encounter this perception that the U.S. is energy independent. It produces a lot of oil. It's net energy neutral in terms of its imports-exports. You can correct me to the extent that's correct. But to what extent do you think it's true that the U.S. is more isolated energy wise from what's going on? And to what extent do you think that that could be a little bit misleading given a global interconnected market? Martijn Rats: Look, the United States is in a better position than many other countries, that's for sure. China, it's a very large importer of oil Europe, very large importer of oil, uh, and at least the United States has, has a much bigger base of its own production. Um, But the practical reality is also that that is, I would just say, mostly sort of a volume argument, but not a price argument. The United States is a net exporter of oil. But that is a net effect after very large imports and very large exports. It's just that the exports are a little bit bigger than the imports… Andrew Sheets: So, it's a lot of flow in both directions… Martijn Rats: There is an enormous flow in both directions and that connects the United States with the rest of the world. In the end, in the seaborne market, there really is only one oil price and we all pay it, including the United States. But nevertheless, relative to other parts of the world, yeah, better positioned, Andrew Sheets: But still not immune from what’s going on. Martijn Rats: No, no. We're all connected. Andrew Sheets: Martin, it's been wonderful talking with you and while I hope to catch up with you again soon, if we're not talking again in three weeks, it maybe is a good sign. Martijn Rats: Might be. Thank you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And 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.

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and Morgan Stanley Investment Management’s Global Head of Private Credit & Equity David Miller discuss the recent pressure on the private credit market, potential risks and opportunities that remain in that space. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. David Miller: And I'm David Miller, Global Head of Private Credit and Equity within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Vishy Tirupattur: Today – the evolving risks and opportunities in private credit. It's Tuesday, March 31st at 10 am In New York. Until recently, private credit was among the fast-growing parts of the financial system. In just over a decade, it went from a niche strategy to a market that's well worth over a trillion dollars. After years of outsized inflows and unusually smooth return, private credit is now in focus, and investors are asking tough questions about liquidity, transparency, and valuation. David, you manage private credit and equity portfolios within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Do you think the industry is facing its first real stress test? And how do you think the industry is faring? David Miller: So, I think private credit has been tested before, you could go back to the GFC. And I know that was a long time ago and the industry was quite a bit smaller. But you could certainly look to the pandemic and the rate shocks of [20]22 - [20]23 as a stress test. And I think private credit performed, you know, quite well through that, despite the initial volatility. We saw some of that recently last year with Liberation Day; and the current environment from a fundamental perspective doesn't feel as bad as those times, and the industry does not feel under that stress. I think the current situation is more of a test of the non-traded BDC structure where roughly 20 percent of direct lending assets sit. And the liquidity provisions in those vehicles are designed to provide some liquidity, but not total liquidity. And so, while I think the vehicles are working as intended, obviously there's been a lot of noise. Vishy Tirupattur: So, I totally agree with you, David. The liquidity provisions that are in these structures are there for a reason; are designed to be that. It’s part of the feature and not a bug, precisely to prevent a fire sale of assets. And that really would hurt the overall system. So, we think that there’s a greater understanding of this is very much required. David Miller: I think that's right. The limitations on liquidity are there so that the vehicles can operate properly over the long run. When you have illiquid assets, you maintain some liquidity. But clearly those protections are in place so that the vehicle continue to run in ordinary fashion. I think there is a bit of a disconnect, you know, in the media between the sentiment and the fundamentals that are underlying private credit. And yeah, there are concerns about software, and macro, and unseen future risks. But right now, private credit portfolios are performing pretty well. And actually, if you look at 2025 versus [20]24, the metrics were actually improving… Vishy Tirupattur: Absolutely. I mean, we look at across various metrics, you know, in leverage and coverage metrics, we see overall trends are actually improving. Software [is] very much in focus. Fitch reported, yesterday that, uh, in the last, uh, you know, year to date there have been no software defaults. Another point I would make is there are about 5 percent defaults in – generally speaking – in the private credit space. And the default rates within the software sector is a little bit less than half of that. So, that's an important distinction to make. David Miller: Yeah, I think software is a very interesting and long topic. But generally, our view is: we think that AI is going to be a net tailwind overall for software over time. You know, even factoring in some of the erosion to the SaaS business models, I think well positioned incumbents will get their share of the upside. And so there will be some losers. We think that'll be pretty narrow. But overall, we feel very good about our software book. We've been looking at AI risk for at least three years, when we made loans. And we think that a lot of the embedded enterprise software platforms are going to be net beneficiaries of AI. Vishy Tirupattur: I have slightly different take on the software exposure and all the discussion points on this. The way I think about it is the market assumption is that AI disruption is necessarily going to disrupt all of software companies. And that disruption is imminent. I would push back on both of those points. You know, you could easily imagine that AI will lead to some disruption at some point in the future. But a necessary thing for that to happen is a significant amount of CapEx related to infrastructure to enable AI from innovation to adoption that needs to take place. That will take some time. So, this potential disruption is not imminent. It's potentially coming in the future. But all in, disruption is also not going to be negative. You know, we will have some companies whose business models, who don't have the moats and may not be able to benefit. But on the other hand, as you point out, there will be a number of business models which will actually flourish because of AI adoption and see their margins expand. So, I think I would push back on this notion that's prevalent in the media narrative here. That all AI disruption is imminent and it is all bad. David Miller: I think that's a very good point, and we do believe that there will be dispersion and outcome in private credit portfolios because of some of those facts. And it's really important for managers to have deep experience, not just in software, but any industries that they participate in. And really do very strong credit selection. Vishy Tirupattur: So, another thing that's happening in the private credit space is really the advent of the retail investor into the private credit. What do you think the advent of retail investors had done to the portfolio selection, portfolio construction and credit selection in your portfolios? David Miller: So, for us, we haven't changed our portfolio construction or credit selection process for retail portfolios. They're virtually the same as our institutional portfolios. And that's, you know, based on a lot of diversification, limiting borrower concentration, avoiding cyclicals, et cetera. The one difference that's important for our non-traded BDC is we do have about 10 percent of the portfolio in broadly syndicated loans, to add a little bit more liquidity to the portfolio. But otherwise, they're pretty much the same. I think the biggest impact that we've witnessed over the past few years, where there's been a large inflow of retail capital, has been to push spreads tighter. And weaken some of the terms than they would've otherwise been. There was a lot of capital that needed to be deployed quickly, so we saw that and we're quite cautious. You're seeing that trend reverse now as flows have moderated, and we expect that those trends will result in better pricing and better terms going forward. So, Vishy, how are you thinking about risk in the system now? Are you seeing signs of systemic risk? Or is the pressure more isolated? Vishy Tirupattur: I think the pressure is really more isolated, more focused on the software sector. As we just discussed, it will take time to figure out the winners and losers coming out of this. But that process is really; we think will result in some pickup in default rates. But we think it'll be very concentrated within the software sector. So, when I look back at the systemic risks, the echoes of the financial crisis of 2008 come back, you know. We both have gone through that in different roles, you know. I used to be tall and good looking is before the financial crisis. So, the scars of financial crisis are clearly on upon me now. But I compare these two time periods – and I say in any metric, the risks in the system today are nowhere comparable to the kind of systemic risk that existed back then. You look at the risks, the leverage at the company level. You look at the leverage; the vehicles where credit risk is sitting. Look at the risks and the leverage within the banking system. And the links of the non-banks to banks. All of them put together make us think that the systemic risks are very, very contained. And any allusion to that ‘We are back in 2008,’ I would very strongly push back against that illusion. So, David, let me ask you one final question here. If we had to highlight one risk or one opportunity in private credit for investors over the next year, what would it be? David Miller: I think the headlines have covered most of the risks, so I'll go with an opportunity. So, we believe spreads on private credit loans have widened quite a bit for direct lending. Both for non-software and software names. So, for investors looking to deploy new capital or investors who are underweight their target allocations, we think it's an interesting time. But we believe there's also a really nice opportunity in opportunistic or hybrid private credit. And that's coming from borrowers who need more flexible solutions, and that can come from M&A activity, non-dilutive growth capital. Or balance sheet rationalizations where one can inject junior capital to good businesses that have over-levered balance sheets. And you can get paid well for the flexibility and the optionality that's providing equity holders. There's been far less capital raised for these types of opportunities over the last few years, and they're pretty favorable dynamics going forward as demand increases. Vishy Tirupattur: That's very insightful. David, thanks for taking the time to talk. David Miller: Great speaking with you, Vishy. Vishy Tirupattur: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. David Miller is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research department. Unless otherwise indicated, his views are his own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

The stock market has already discounted many disruptions, including geopolitics, oil and AI. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why investors are now focused on one thing: whether monetary policy stays too tight for too long. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why the balance between the upside and the downside is actually better than at the start of the year. It's Monday, March 30th at 11:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it. Everyone I’ve been speaking with lately is focused on the same things: the conflict in Iran, oil prices, and of course, AI—whether it’s CapEx, disruption of labor markets, and efficiency. When I look at how markets are trading, I come away with a different conclusion than the consensus. First, the U.S. equity market is far less complacent about growth risks than people think. Consider this: more than half of the Russell 3000 stocks are down at least 20 percent from their highs, while the S&P 500’s Price/Earnings multiple is down 17 percent. That’s not complacency. That’s a well advanced correction consistent with prior growth scares, if not an outright recession. Second, let’s talk about oil, everyone’s top concern. Historically, oil spikes have often ended business cycles. However, recessions only occurred when earnings growth was decelerating or outright negative. Today, it’s accelerating and running close to 14 percent while forward earnings growth is north of 20 percent. Meanwhile, the magnitude of the oil move, on a year-over-year basis, is only about half of what we saw in the recession outcomes. In other words, the market isn’t pricing in a recession because the odds of that happening appear low. Instead, we believe it’s pricing in continued uncertainty about oil and other key resources until there is ultimately a resolution where tanker flows resume and prices stabilize or come back down. From my observations, I think interest rates are weighing more heavily on U.S. stocks rather than oil. Specifically, the correlation between equities and yields has flipped deeply negative. Stocks are extremely sensitive to moves in higher yields—more so than they’ve been in years. This is mainly due to the recent hawkish pivot by the Fed and other central banks. As a result, we’re also approaching the 4.5 percent level on 10-year Treasury yields, a point where we typically observe further equity valuation compression. Finally, bond volatility is also rising, and equity valuations are always sensitive to that. The good news is that the Fed is more sensitive to bond than stock volatility and any further rise could likely lead to a Fed pivot back to a more dovish stance. In short, the tightening in financial conditions driven by rates and bond volatility is the bigger near-term risk, not the geopolitical backdrop. Ironically, it’s also what could provide relief. At the end of the day, I still think we’re getting closer to the end of this correction; and when I look at the next 6 to 12 months, the risk-reward looks better today than it did at the start of the year. On the positioning side, I’m also seeing some interesting shifts. Defensive stocks and Gold had a strong run from early January right up until tensions in the Middle East began at the end of February. But they have underperformed significantly since. Meanwhile, some of the better-performing sectors recently have been the more cyclical ones. That tells me the market got ahead of these concerns and may be ready to look past it, sooner than most investors. As for AI, there’s still a lot of focus on disruption, but I think the near-term story is more about efficiency and margin expansion. We’re not seeing a demand shock that would trigger a traditional labor cycle. Instead, we’re seeing companies use AI to right-size costs and improve productivity. Bottom line, the market has already done a lot of the heavy lifting of this correction by discounting the war, higher oil prices, AI, and credit risks. What it’s wrestling with now is the risk of a monetary policy mistake with central banks staying too tight for too long. If that hawkish bent starts to ease, which it probably will if bond volatility rises much further, the resumption of the bull market is likely to arrive faster than most expect. 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!

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets and Head of U.S. Credit Strategy Vishwas Patkar discuss what’s driving record debt issuance and growing worries about private credit. 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. Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, we're going to talk about two of the biggest questions facing global credit markets. A rush of issuance and questions around private credit. It's Friday, March 27th at 2pm in London. Vishwas, it's great to have you in town, talking over what I think are two of the biggest questions that are hanging over the global credit market. A large wave of issuance and a lot of questions around a segment of that market, often known as private credit. So, let's dig into those in turn. I want to start with issuance. You know, you and your team had a pretty aggressive forecast at the start of the year, for a significant level of supply. How's that going? How is it shaping out? We're now almost through the first quarter… Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. So, we came into the year expecting a record, [$]2.25 trillion of gross issuance in investment grade. That's 25 percent higher than last year. That would mark a record one year number for investment grade. And for the high yield market, we expected about [$]400 billion of issuance; up roughly 30 percent. If I were to mark to market those, the forecast is roughly playing out as expected through mid-March. IG issuance is up about 21 percent. High yield issuance is up about 25 percent. So far at least, it's along the lines of what we'd call for. More importantly though, when I think about the drivers of the issuance, that I think in some ways is a little more validating. Because there were two big components of what was going to drive the issuance. One was AI related issuance from the large hyperscalers, and the second was a decent uptick in M&A. And we've seen both of those. So, year-to-date, we've had north of [$]80 billion of issuance from hyperscalers alone in the dollar market. That's on top of significant non-USD issuance that we've had this year. So, I think this idea of AI CapEx investments and by extension issuance being somewhat agnostic to macro, that seems to be playing out so far. Andrew Sheets: So, let's talk a little bit more about that – because, you know, this is a new development. This kind of is a new regime to have this much supply, sort of, somewhat independent of a very volatile macro backdrop. And you know, maybe if you could talk just a little bit more about what we're learning about the issuers. What do they care about? What is bringing them to market? And then maybe what would cause them to slow down or speed up? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, I think we've learned a couple of things, right? First is – this issuance is being driven by investments that are not opportunistic, right? They are competitive in nature. Clearly there is an arms race to figure out who will win the AI race. I think a second leg of it is the issuance is somewhat spread agnostic. So, you know, in credit we look at this metric called new issue concessions, which is effectively how much is a company paying in terms of excess funding costs relative to their bonds outstanding. And what we've seen with some of the larger deals is that new issue concessions are well above average. And that's pretty important in the grand scheme of things because, you know, we're talking about one sector that is driving AI infrastructure. But when you have issuance that comes in size, and it comes wide to where existing bonds are, we think that has knock-on effects repricing other companies that are downstream of those names. Andrew Sheets: So, we have a market for issuing corporate debt that's pretty wide open. You know, as you mentioned, very high levels of issuance and supply going through, despite what would've been a lot of concerns. And one of those concerns is the conflict in Iran. But another concern that's been cropping up is a concern around this market often known as private credit where you've seen a lot of focus, a lot of headlines, volatility in some of the managers of private credit. But also, I think this is an area where less is known. And where there's still a lot of confusion about what it is and how it's performing. So, for the second set of questions, Vishwas, maybe we could just start with, you know, when you think about private credit, what is it to you? And how do you break up the market? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, so I think at a very high level, you can think about private credit as capital that is provided by non-bank lenders. And in some ways – that is not broadly syndicated. So it's different from investment grade bonds or high yield bonds or leverage loans in that respect. You know, the second factor I laid out. You know, private credit overarchingly is a big umbrella term. It includes direct lending to businesses. It includes infrastructure finance, project finance, the private placement market, asset-based finance. So, there are a lot of subcomponents. Now, you know, to your point where the market's a little worried and there is growing anxiety is around the direct lending portion of private credit. That segment of the market has grown substantially over the last decade. It was about [$]500 billion or so 10 years ago. It's about [$]1.3 trillion right now. Andrew Sheets: And this is lending directly to companies? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. This is lending directly to companies. Leverage typically tends to be higher than what you see in the public market. So, one of the challenges around navigating the risks are, you know, when you get a bunch of negative headlines that isn't necessarily the readily available information to either disprove or validate it. So, I think that's some of the anxiety, which is building among the investor base. Our view is, you know, these risks are significant and investors should be cognizant of what's happening. Andrew Sheets: So maybe just to take a step back a little bit there. Why have investors been more worried about the private credit space? Have we seen particular events? Or is it more, kind of, other factors that you think have driven this increased focus? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, I think it's been a rolling set of factors. This year the whole story has really been about software and concerns about AI disruption. But before I get into that, I think it was a process that really began, I would say, second half of last year. So, private credit really had its moment in the sun a few years ago where inflows were massive. The public market was choppy while the Fed was hiking rates, and a lot of stressed issuers were choosing to raise capital via direct lenders. And at that time, spreads in the private credit market were also very attractive. What you've seen last year is private credit AUM was effectively flat. The fee income being generated on the loans has come down as the Fed has eased policy and the spread on private credit versus the public market has also narrowed. So, what started off, I think, was more macro. It was driven more by what was happening on the policy front… Andrew Sheets: More yield compression. Less yield for investors, which caused them to be just a little bit less attracted to the space… Vishwas Patkar: Absolutely, yeah. And I think that was largely the driver of, you know, the correction in some of these asset manager stocks to begin with. Then you had some of the headlines around specific single name headlines. Double pledging of collateral, some accounting malpractices, which, you know, I think we can say with the benefit of hindsight, those were idiosyncratic. Those were one offs. But again, you know, doesn't make for a positive headline when you get news flow to that effect. And then this year, as I said, it's really been about concerns around the software sector… Andrew Sheets: Which is a very big part of the private credit market. Vishwas Patkar: It is a very big part of the private credit market. It made up for almost a third of all LBOs that were originated between 2018 through 2022. And in fact, really if you look at 2021, when interest rates were very low, a lot of the outstanding software loans were originated in those really weak vintages. And so, you know, I think AI disruption has maybe been the catalyst to drive some of this price action. But that's on top of software, where a lot of loans were originated with high leverage. But now that, you know, you have a very disruptive force around margins, potentially looming, the concern has now shifted towards what do balance sheets look like. And the software sector is very levered. In the bank loan market, for example, more than 50 percent of software loans outstanding are rated B- or lower. And one extension of that is that, you know, you have a non-trivial amount of debt that is maturing in the next few years. So, through 2028, we see about [$]65 billion of software loans maturing largely in that lower quality cohort. So, you know, even before we get clarity around how AI will diffuse and disrupt or will not disrupt these names, the issue is really refinancing. In this period of uncertainty, will all these software loans over the next 12 to 18 months – will they have the capital to term out their maturities? Andrew Sheets: So, Vishwas, maybe just in closing, as you're going around and talking to credit investors at the moment, what do you think are the two or three biggest, kind of, high level takeaways and views that you're trying to get across? Vishwas Patkar: A few things I would say. So, specifically on private credit, we are saying that, you know, I think we are in for a period where returns might be subpar. It is possible that private credit sees AUM growth that is sluggish, maybe even down year-over-year this year. But we would not conflate that with something that's systemic. And I think it's very important to lay that out. But importantly, some of the linkages to the banking system are through, you know, leverage that is significantly lower in this cycle than what we've seen in the past, say prior to the GFC. So that's one. Second, I continue to think that the aspect of issuance being very high and somewhat agnostic to macro conditions, that's been validated so far. And when I look at what credit markets are priced for, in aggregate, we think valuations are still too tight. And that's not withstanding everything that's going on in the Middle East. You know, we clearly have a commodity price shock to navigate. And that can have a feedback loop via what central banks will do. And the U.S. consumer. But I would say just the convexity of credit is very weak. If, let's say, we get a… Andrew Sheets: Limited upside versus relative to more downside… Vishwas Patkar: Very limited upside. And downside, if we get both a technical and a fundamental – and why it is, is significant. And the third thing I would say is it makes sense to own hedges here. You know, again, hedges can be expensive, can lead to loss of carry. But they can also be a very efficient way to protect yourself. And if you look at this time last year in the lead up to Liberation Day, credit had held up really well for the first, say, five or six weeks of that sell off. But then when it moved, it moved very quickly. And in some ways, you know, if you; if investors were able to protect themselves through that last leg of volatility, that effectively provided a very good entry point to capture the rally that played out thereafter. Andrew Sheets: Vishwas. I think that's a great thing to keep in mind. Thanks for taking the time to talk. Vishwas Patkar: Alright. Thank you for having me, Andrew. 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.

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss how oil prices, tariffs and inflation expectations are raising the bar for rate cuts by the Fed, and markets’ response to the new scenario. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today, the outcome of the March FOMC meeting and what it means for our economic and rates outlook for the rest of the year. It's Thursday, March 26th at 8:30am in New York. So, Mike, as we expected, the Fed stayed on hold last week at the FOMC meeting and retained its easing bias. But what do you think the heightened macro uncertainty means for rate cuts this year? Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think the answer is caution and probably rate cuts come later than earlier. So, we've changed our view on the back of the FOMC meeting. We previously thought rate cuts would come in June and September. We've slid those back to September and December. The short answer here is I think with the rise in oil prices and at least some renewed upward pressure on headline inflation – it will likely take the Fed longer to conclude that disinflation is occurring. So, I think they need more time, and that obviously means the Fed pushes rate cuts out. Matthew Hornbach: Is there anything about the press conference that struck you as being interesting? Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think the almost near singular focus on inflation. So, after the meeting was over and the press conference was done, we did a little deep dive into the transcript. Because that's what we do as economists who follow the Fed. And there were about 18 questions on inflation or prices. There were only five on labor markets. And if you do, kind of, a word count on inflation- and oil-related terms, that would've popped about 200 answers. If you looked at labor market terms, you would've gotten about 40. So, by a five-to- one ratio, the press conference was dominated by fears or concerns around inflation, inflation expectations, and oil prices. And, you know, whatever message the Fed was trying to send, I think it's hard to send either a neutral or a dovish message when nearly every question was about inflation. So, for me, I think the singular focus on inflation was what surprised me. Matthew Hornbach: And one of the questions that I think market participants, and I'm sure you yourself expected Powell to be asked, was about how the Fed would respond to this supply side energy shock that would raise inflation. And whether or not the Fed would look through that type of supply side effect. How did you interpret his answer? Michael Gapen: His answer was, for me, a little more complicated than I thought it would be. You're right that it is, kind of, traditional monetary policy knowledge or views that you're supposed to look through an increase in headline inflation from oil prices. History says in the U.S., they have little effect on core inflation. Very little second round effects. So, you do, I think, want to come into this event thinking we're primed to look through. But what he said was, ‘Well wait. First of all, what we have to do is get through this tariff pass through to core goods first that I can't even tell you…’ I'm paraphrasing here. ‘That I can't even tell you whether or not we want to look through an increase in headline inflation until we get greater clarity that tariff pass through to core goods has ended.’ So, this, I think, contributes to our view that it's going to take a longer time until the Fed's comfortable easing, because I think that raises the bar for a conclusion that disinflation is happening. Matthew Hornbach: Right. So, they want to first check the box on being past the tariff-related inflation before they start to consider whether or not they look through the energy-related inflation. And as a part of that question, the reporter, sort of, framed it as: Well, in the context of missing your inflation target for five years – how are you going to think about it? And he layered that into his answer as well. Michael Gapen: They've missed their target for five years? I wasn't aware. Yes. No. That was the additional context, which is to conclude that you can look through increases in headline inflation from oil, one of the conditioning factors there is – that long run inflation expectations remain stable and well anchored around the Fed's 2 percent target. So, short run inflation expectations have moved higher. Just as they did when tariffs were implemented, just as they did during COVID. So yes, there's a multiple kind of step box checking – to use your term – that the Fed needs to go to before it can say, ‘Okay, fine. We think disinflation is in place.’ I still think they can get there this year. But obviously that's a later than sooner kind of decision. Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely, and I think in terms of the market response to the FOMC meeting and the press conference, it was that exchange with that reporter that was concerning to investors. And they said, ‘Well, if the Fed first needs to see tariff related inflation pass, and then they're going to consider whether or not to look through energy related inflation in the context of having missed their inflation target for five years.’ Market participants said, ‘Well, gosh, that really increases the chance the Fed doesn't ease at all this year.’ And so, at the end of that trading day, the market had been pricing about a 50 percent probability that the Fed would deliver its only rate cut in December. And of course, the market has moved since the FOMC meeting. But that was my takeaway, at least. In terms of inflation expectations… Because this is so critical in terms of how the Fed and other central banks around the world – who have slightly different mandates than the Fed does – how do you expect the Fed to think about inflation expectations later this year; when perhaps they're actually considering whether or not to look through the energy price inflation in the context of what happened to longer run inflation expectations in the wake of the pandemic? Michael Gapen: So, my view on this, and at least my takeaway from listening to Powell in prior press conferences – and hearing other FOMC members. I think they feel that coming out of COVID, yes, long run inflation expectations moved up. But they actually moved up for a good reason. I think they felt that long run inflation expectations were a little low going into COVID. So, still generally consistent with 2 percent outcomes. But kind of on the downside. So, a little increase in long run inflation expectations coming out of COVID, I think they were okay with. The risk now will be, COVID has been followed by a tariff price shock and an oil price shock. And in theory, these are supply side shocks that shouldn't result in long run inflation. But you never know, business and consumers may feel differently. So, I think as long as they – they meaning long run inflation expectations – are about where they are, I think the Fed's okay with that. Matthew Hornbach: Right. You did mention that the labor market didn't come up all that much. What’s your view on the labor market going into the end of the year? Michael Gapen: Well, I think that; I think it's pretty similar to the way Powell characterized it. Which is: it is abundantly clear that immigration controls have had a strong effect on the labor market and reduced growth in labor supply. It's obvious also, we've had a year now where hiring has come down. So, on one hand the labor market… I'm an economist, so I have to say on the one hand, and on the other hand. On the one hand, the labor market's generally in balance – low labor supply, low labor demand. The unemployment rate has been, you know, broadly unchanged, pretty stable since September. That's what Powell in the past has characterized as “the curious balance.” So yes, the labor market is in balance. But what concerns me and concerns us is – it's not a very dynamic labor market. An economy the size of the U.S., about 360-ish million people or so. We're basically not adding many jobs every month. 20,000 to 30,000, if you, kind of, take a six month or so average is about all we're adding every month. That doesn't feel very robust. Rates of turnover, movement in and out of the labor market have slowed down. And so, I think you can say ‘Yes, the labor market is in a general equilibrium.’ But payroll growth close to zero doesn't feel good. This is also why I think it's reasonable to expect rate cuts out of the Fed in the second half of the year. It can come either because disinflation happens. Or higher oil prices can weigh on demand, slow consumer spending, delay business spending plans. If that happens, I think it'd be reasonable to think the unemployment rate may drift up a little. Not a lot, but enough to get the Fed thinking maybe we should give it some more support. Matthew Hornbach: And I think if that's what we end up seeing out of the economy and out of the Fed, then the U.S. Treasury market is set up for a decent run into the end of the year. The market today isn't pricing many rate cuts at all to speak of. And in fact, at one point after the FOMC meeting for a moment in time, we were pricing rate hikes. But I think if we get that outcome for the U.S. economy and for Fed policy, I think investors in U.S. treasuries will be rewarded. And even if they're not rewarded in the way that they might expect or hope – the U.S. Treasury market itself and the correlations that it has delivered vis-a-vis riskier assets like the equity market, suggest that U.S. Treasuries, despite the recent sell off, have been behaving as good hedge securities for broader risky asset portfolios. So, we certainly would expect the U.S. Treasury market to perform quite well in this scenario. And so, with that, Mike, I am afraid I will have to bid you adieu until the next FOMC meeting. Michael Gapen: Thanks for having me on, Matt. It's great speaking with you. Matthew Hornbach: Likewise, 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 Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore breaks down what’s being discussed by policymakers around the world to try to cap the oil price spike. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Today, I’ll be talking about the ongoing conflict in Iran and the policy options to offset a rise in oil prices. It’s Wednesday, March 25th at 8pm in Tokyo. The U.S.-Iran conflict is stretching into its fourth week, and markets are still trying to distill headlines for news of an off-ramp or further escalation. Even here in Tokyo, the global supply crunch is top of mind. But we’re also watching for second order effects among a number of key supply chains, ranging from food to semiconductors. As you’ve been hearing on the show, the Middle East is a critical supplier of aluminum, petrochemicals, and fertilizers—all industries that are energy intensive and deeply embedded in global supply chains. There’s also sulphur, which is needed to produce copper and cobalt, largely used for chip materials and components. And helium, which is a critical material for semiconductor manufacturing. So with all this supply chain disruption on the line, what are policymakers’ options to mitigate that loss? Let’s start by putting some numbers around the disruption. The Strait of Hormuz accounts for about 20 percent of global oil supply, and about a third of seaborne oil. Our strategists highlight three potential offsets. First, alternative pipelines. Saudi Arabia maintains an East-West pipeline and the UAE similarly has a smaller scale Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline. Those together can allow for some crude to bypass Hormuz. Second, the U.S. has publicly discussed potential naval escorts. We’ve written about the logistical difficulties with this plan, in addition to significant execution risks. Third, the IEA has coordinated a strategic stock release, which could translate to a sustained release of around 2 million barrels a day, depending on the duration of the conflict. There are also geographic considerations though that can add a lag to those strategic releases. On net, our oil strategists think these policy levers can mitigate about 9 million barrels per day from the lost 20, meaning that the global economy will still be short about 11 million barrels per day; more than three times the supply shock the market feared from the Russia-Ukraine conflict back in 2022. So, given those limitations, we’re starting to see countries around the world – particularly in Asia – begin to implement rationing measures to conserve energy. The Philippines, for example, has implemented a four-day workweek for government workers and mandated agencies to cut fuel and electricity use. Myanmar has imposed driving limits, and Sri Lanka has introduced gasoline rationing. But what about in the U.S.? We’ve seen domestic gasoline prices climb due to this conflict, and the national average is now close to $4, almost a dollar up from where we were about a month ago. The President has announced a number of policy efforts – including a Jones Act waiver, which temporarily allows foreign vessels to transport fuel between U.S. ports, and a temporary pause on some Russian and Iranian oil sanctions. President Trump has also directed a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but similarly to the IEA stockpile, the flow rate is going to be the key limit. The authorization was for 172 million barrels over a 120 period, which translates to just about 1.4 million barrels per day on average. So what should we be watching? Tanker transits, signs of upstream shut-ins as storage fills, refinery run-cuts, and—most crucially—whether policy announcements on insurance and escorted convoys can actually translate into reality. These are all going to be critical elements going forward. For now, our oil strategists have raised their near-term Brent forecast to $110 per barrel, which underscores our U.S. economists’ outlook for weaker growth and stickier inflation than previously expected. And for now, policy tools seem to be unable to meaningfully offset that disruption. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses how the Strait of Hormuz shutdown has created a deep air pocket that will likely keep markets tighter and prices higher for longer than many expect. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Today – an update on the global impact on the Strait of Hormuz shutdown. It’s Tuesday, March 24th, at 3pm in London. More than three weeks into the Iran conflict and the Strait of Hormuz disruptions, the numbers are striking. Normally, around 35 oil tankers leave the Gulf each day. Today, that number is closer to zero to two. That amounts to a shock. In fact, we estimate this event has disrupted roughly 20 percent of global oil supply – double the scale of the Suez crisis in the 1950s. Now, you might think: can’t the system adapt? Can’t oil just flow another way? At first, oil kept moving by being stored on ships already inside the Gulf. But that buffer is now full. Floating storage has surged in the area to over 120 million barrels, and new loadings have effectively stopped. Once storage is filled, producers have no choice but to cut output – and that’s exactly what we’re seeing. About 10 million barrels per day of upstream oil and gas production is now offline. Now once we reach this point, the Hormuz closure becomes a real supply loss. There are some partial workarounds. Pipelines that bypass the Strait. Strategic reserve releases. Possibly, naval escorts at some point to help ships move along. But unfortunately, none of these fully solve the problem. Even after accounting for all these offsets, the market still faces a shortfall of around 10 to 12 million barrels per day. Now, that is more than three times the supply shock markets feared in 2022, when Brent oil prices surged to around $130 a barrel. And beyond crude oil, the supply strain is showing up even more in refined products. Now, how so? By comparison, crude oil is still flexible. One barrel can sometimes be substituted with another. But refined products – like jet fuel or petrochemical feedstocks – are much more specific. They’re harder to replace quickly. And we’re already seeing acute shortages. Europe relies on imports for about 37 percent of its jet fuel needs, and those flows have now declined sharply. Middle East exports of naphtha, a key input for plastics and chemicals to destinations in Asia, have fallen from about 1.2 million barrels per day to almost zero. And in shipping hubs like Singapore, marine fuel prices have surged dramatically, with some fuels exceeding $250 per barrel. Once fuel shortages hit logistics, the disruption spreads beyond energy to affect the movement of goods across the economy. So where does this leave us? We envision two broad scenarios. First, a reopening. Even if the Strait reopens relatively quickly, say within one to two weeks, the system doesn’t just snap back. There’s what we call an air pocket in the system – a gap created by delayed shipments, empty inventories, and disrupted supply chains. In that case, oil prices are still likely to stay elevated throughout the second and third quarters, rather than quickly returning to pre-crisis levels which were about $70 per barrel at the time. A second scenario would be a prolonged closure. If the disruption continues, the market shifts from substitution to rationing. And rationing means demand has to fall. Historically, that only happens at much higher prices – typically in the range of $130 to $150 per barrel. Now given all this, we’ve revised our base case forecasts higher. We now expect Brent oil prices to average around $110 per barrel in the second quarter, easing only slightly to $90 in the third and $80 by the fourth quarter. But it’s key to realize that reopening the Strait is not the same as repairing the system. This supply chain shock to the oil market will take time to unwind. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Asia Energy Analyst Mayank Maheshwari discusses how the conflict in the Middle East is sending ripple effects through Asia’s energy, power and food systems. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s research analyst covering energy markets in India and Southeast Asia. Today—how disruptions linked to Iran and the Strait of Hormuz are creating energy-related disruptions across Asia. It’s Monday, March 23rd, at 8am in Singapore. To understand the scale of the impact, let’s start with a simple fact: about a quarter of Asia’s energy—that is oil, liquefied natural gas, and propane—comes from the Middle East, much of it flowing through a single chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption here affects more than just oil prices. It also hits power generation, industrial output and even food supply chains across the region. Asia hasn’t seen a true energy access shock in over 50 years. So that makes this moment very critical. And with oil around $100 per barrel, stress is building in the system. Diesel margins are double pre-conflict levels. Jet fuel premiums have nearly doubled. And Dubai crude—normally cheaper than Brent historically—is now trading at a premium of more than $20 per barrel. This kind of price move signals tightening supply chains. Asia’s dependence on [the] Middle East runs deep. Refiners source up to 80 percent of crude from the region, and 30–40 percent of LNG imports originate there. For major economies like India and China, roughly 40–50 percent of oil demand passes through Hormuz. It’s a critical energy highway. And when flows slow, the entire system backs up. Inventories may look like a buffer. Asia holds around 65–70 days of crude. But the system reacts sooner than waiting to run out. Governments are already rationing energy, industries are cutting LNG and LPG usage, and export restrictions are limiting downstream production of fuels. The tightening has already begun. The real pressure point may not be oil, but natural gas—particularly LNG, as Qatar, which is a big supplier of Asia's LNG, has seen infrastructure damage. Asia accounts for about half of global LNG consumption, with up to 40 percent secured from the Middle East. Unlike oil, LNG has very limited buffers; in number of days, and not in months. This is where the story extends well beyond energy. Around 25 million tons per year of petrochemical capacity has been impacted, along with roughly 10 million tons of fertilizer production. Prices for key materials like polymers have risen 15–25 percent in just a few weeks, and the premiums are still rising. These inputs feed into everyday products—from cars and electronics to packaging and agriculture. Even basic services are affected, with cooking gas shortages hitting restaurants in parts of Asia. Policymakers are responding, but options are limited. Around 100 million barrels of crude has been released from reserves. Countries are securing higher-cost LNG cargoes. And many are turning back to coal for reliability despite environmental trade-offs. Ultimately, the longer this disruption persists, the more pressure builds across energy, power, chemicals, and food systems. And in a region as interconnected and import-dependent as Asia, those ripple effects spread quickly—and widely. 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.

As the Iran conflict upends market narratives, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets offers his take on how to view the historic disruption happening in March and what the next few weeks could bring. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today on the program, a survey of just how quickly key narratives have changed and how lasting that might be. It's Friday, March 20th at 2pm in London. The NCAA basketball tournament, also known as March Madness, is one of my favorite times of the year. The single elimination tournament of 64 teams is wonderfully chaotic with plenty of surprises, especially in the early games. And basketball is one of those sports where momentum often seems real. A team that has somehow forgotten how to shoot in the first half of the game can suddenly look unstoppable in the second. As I said, March is one of my favorite times to watch sports. It is often not one of my favorite times to forecast markets. In 2005, 2008, 2020, 2022, 2023, and 2025, March saw outsized market volatility. And it’s the case again this year. I'm sure, it's just a coincidence. This time, it's not just about a historic disruption to the energy markets, which my colleague Martijn Rats and I discussed on this program last week. It's also a major reversal of the market storyline. If this were a basketball game, the momentum just flipped. In January and February of 2026, there were strong overlapping signals that the U.S. and global economy were in a good – even accelerating – place, boosted by cheap energy, stimulative policy, and robust AI investment. Oil prices were down as metals, transports, cyclicals and financial stocks, all rose. Europe, Asia, and emerging market equities – all more sensitive to global growth – were outperforming. Inflation was moderating. Central banks were planning to lower interest rates. The yield curve was steepening and the U.S. dollar was weakening. The January U.S. Jobs report was pretty good. And then … it all changed. In a moment, the Iran conflict and the subsequent risk of an oil price shock flipped almost every single one of those storylines on its head. Now, oil prices rose and the prices for metals, transports, cyclicals and financial stocks all fell. Equities in Europe and Asia – regions that rely heavily on importing oil – underperformed. The U.S. dollar rose as investors sought out safe haven. Inflation jumped following oil prices. The yield curve flattened on that higher inflation, as we and many other forecasters adjusted our expectations for what central banks would do. And, as it happens, the last U.S. Jobs report was pretty bad. If the Iran conflict ends and oil resumes flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, it's very possible that this story could once again swing back. But until it does, the speed of which this momentum has flipped means that almost by definition, many investors have been caught off guard and left poorly positioned. If you couple that with the challenge of diversifying in this new environment – where the prices for stocks, bonds, and even gold have all been moving in the same direction – the path of least resistance for investors may be to continue to reduce their exposure to ride out the storm, driving further near term weakness. Unfortunately, that could make for an uncomfortable few weeks. At least, there's some good basketball on. 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.

Live from Morgan Stanley’s European Financials Conference, our Head of European Banks Alvaro Serrano and European Equity Research Banks Analyst Giulia Aurora Miotto discuss how geopolitics, private credit risk and AI are testing how resilient banks really are. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Alvaro Serrano: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Alvaro Serrano, Head of European Banks. Giulia Aurora Miotto: And I'm Giulia Aurora Miotto, European Equity Research Banks Analyst. Alvaro Serrano: Today we're at our annual European Financials Conference. It's Thursday, March 19th at 1:30pm, London. We're at our European Financials conference. Attendance is up almost at record levels, a great deal of engagement with both investors and companies – with three main topics dominating the debate: geopolitics, private credit, and AI. I think, on the Middle East, clearly a lot of focus during the whole three days. I think the message from banks has been about the resilience of the business model, acknowledging the loan growth could be weaker. Some of the investment decisions could be delayed, given the uncertainty. And of course, fees could also be affected as a result. On the flip side, there's an acknowledgement that during stress, savings rates go up. Deposit growth could be better, and with a steeper curve that could be better monetized. So, the message from the banks is about the resilience of the pre-provision profit outlook. Some banks have been talking about top-up of provisions if the situation persists in a IFRS9 world. But we do believe the overall outlook for earnings is of a resilient picture. However, we acknowledge the positioning of the sector is much richer than it was this time last year. The positioning; that means if stress continues, we could see the multiple suffering. And that, to be honest, is what we see the biggest channel of contagion to the sector is – is multiple de-rating if the stress continues, in what otherwise looks like a pretty resilient earnings picture. Giulia, what did you learn on private credit? Giulia Aurora Miotto: Yes, private credit was definitely another area of big focus and worrying from investors. From a bank's perspective, all the banks that are involved in private credit highlighted a couple of things. First of all, they tend to be senior when they lend to B2Cs. Secondly, they are over collateralized by hundreds, if not thousands of loans. And then thirdly, most investment banks have been doing this for a decade or more, and they tend to partner only with prime sponsors. So overall, the message was actually rather reassuring. Alvaro, AI was the other big topic at the conference. What did you learn there? Alvaro Serrano: It's even a bigger topic than last year. And obviously some of the volatility we've seen year-to-date contributed to that. I think overall the banks are seen as net beneficiaries of AI from an operational perspective. There's an acknowledgement that in an AI world, competition might increase, deposit competition has come up. Some fee products has also come up. But you have banks guiding to 9 percentage points improvement in cost income ratio in the next three years. So, the operational savings from productivity are seeing them more than offsetting any potential increase in competition. I think the known-unknown is employment; consequences of the improved productivity further down the line. But the message in Europe is relatively reassuring considering that over 20 percent of the workforce in Europe is expected to retire [in] the next 10 years. So, overall, seen as net beneficiaries. There's also discussions around regulation Giulia… Giulia Aurora Miotto: Yes, we had Maria Luís Albuquerque, European Commissioner in charge of the Savings and Investment Union project. This was one of the most attended sessions. And we heard on one side definitely determination to deliver on the project of the savings and investment union and deepen European capital markets. And mobilize savings towards more productive investments. On the other side, investors were rather skeptical and are really in wait and see mode. Some banks highlighted that they expect the progress on some of the key packages like securitization or market integration package as soon as May. So, we think this is a key area to monitor over the coming months – from a European competitiveness standpoint, Alvaro Serrano: I think that's a great place to wrap it up. And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy listening to Thoughts on the Market, do let us know wherever you listen and share the podcast with friends and a colleague today.

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.

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.

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!

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!