Thoughts on the Market

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the path for U.S. interest rates after the nomination of Kevin Warsh for next Fed chair.
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 we'll be talking about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting that occurred last week.
It's Thursday, February 5th at 8:30 am in New York.
So, Mike, last week we had the first Federal Open Market Committee meeting of 2026. What were your general impressions from the meeting? And how did it compare to what you had thought going in?
Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think that the main question for markets was how hawkish a hold or how dovish a hold would this be. As you know, it was widely expected the Fed would be on hold. The incoming data had been fairly solid. Inflation wasn't all that concerning, and most of the employment data suggested things had stabilized. So, it was clear they were going to pause.
The question was would they pause or would they be on pause, right? And in our view, it was more of a dovish hold. And by that, it suggests to us, or they suggested to us, I should say, that they still have an easing bias and rates should generally move lower over time.
So, that really was the key takeaway for me. Would they signal a prolonged pause and perhaps suggest that they might be done with the easing cycle? Or would they say, yes, we've stopped for now, but we still expect to cut rates later? Perhaps when inflation comes down and therefore kind of retain a dovish bias or an easing bias in the policy rate path. So, to me, that was the main takeaway.
Matthew Hornbach: Of course, as we all know, there are supposed to be some personnel changes on the committee this year. And Chair Powell was asked several questions to try to get at the future of this committee and what he himself was going to do personally. What was your impression of his response and what were the takeaways from that part of the press conference?
Michael Gapen: Well, clearly, he's been reluctant to, say, pre-announce what he may do when his term is chair ends in May. But his term as a governor extends into 2028. So, he has options. He could leave normally that's what happens. But he could also stay and he's never really made his intentions clear on that part. I think for maybe personal or professional reasons. But he has his own; he has his own reasons and, and that's fine.
And I do think the recent subpoena by the DOJ has changed the calculus in that. At least my own view is that it makes it more likely that he stays around. It may be easier for him to act in response to that subpoena by being on staff. It's a request for additional information; he needs access to that information. I think you could construct a reasonable scenario under which, ‘Well, I have to see this through, therefore, I may stay around.’ But maybe he hasn't come to that conclusion yet.
And then stepping back, that just complicates the whole picture in the sense that we now know the administration has put forward Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair. Will he be replacing the seat that Jay Powell currently sits in? Will he be replacing the seat that Stephen Myron is sitting in?
So yes, we have a new name being put forward, but it's not exactly clear where that slot will be; and what the composition of the committee will look like.
Matthew Hornbach: Well, you beat me to the punch on mentioning Kevin Warsh…
Michael Gapen: I kind of assumed that's where you were going.
Matthew Hornbach: It was going to be my next question. I'm curious as to what you think that means for Fed policy later this year, if anything. And what it might mean more medium term?
Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, first of all, congratulations to Mr. Warsh on the appointment. In terms of what we think it means for the outlook for the Fed's reaction function and interest rate policy, we doubt that there will be a material change in the Fed's reaction function.
His previous public remarks don't suggest his views on interest rate policy are substantively outside the mainstream, or at least certainly the collective that's already in the FOMC. Some people would prefer not to ease. The majority of the committee still sees a couple more rate cuts ahead of them.
Warsh is generally aligned with that, given his public remarks. But then also all the reserve bank presidents have been renominated. There's an ongoing Supreme Court case about the ability of the administration to fire Lisa Cook. If that is not successful, then Kevin Warsh will arrive in an FOMC where there's 16 other people who all get a say. So, the chair's primary responsibility is to build a consensus; to herd the cats, so to speak. To communicate to markets and communicate to the public.
So, if Mr. Warsh wanted to deviate substantially from where the committee was, he would have to build a consensus to do that. So, we think, at least in the near term, the reaction function won't change. It'll be driven by the data, whether the labor market holds up, whether inflation, decelerates as expected. So, we don't look for material change.
Now you also asked about the medium term. I do think where his views differ, at least with respect to current Fed policy is on the size of the Fed's balance sheet and its footprint in financial markets. So, he has argued over time for a much smaller balance sheet. He's called the Fed's balance sheet bloated. He has said that it creates distortions in markets, which mean interest rates could be higher than they otherwise would be. And so, I think if there is a substantive change in Fed policy going forward, it could be there on the balance sheet.
But what I would just say on that is it'll likely take a lot of coordination with Treasury. It will likely take changes in rules, regulations, the supervisory landscape. Because if you want to reduce the balance sheet further without creating volatility in financial markets, you have to find a way to reduce bank demand for it. So, this will take time, it'll take study, it'll take patience. I wouldn't look for big material changes right out of the box.
So Matt, what I'd like to do is, if I could flip it back to you, Warsh was certainly one of the expected candidates, right? So, his name is not a surprise. But as we knew financial markets, one day we're thinking it'd be one candidate. The next day it'd be thinking at the next it was somebody else.
How did you see markets reacting to the announcement of Mr. Warsh? For the next Fed share, and then maybe put that in context of where markets were coming out of the last FOMC meeting.
Matthew Hornbach: Yeah, so the markets that moved the most were not the traditional, very large macro markets like the interest rate marketplace or the foreign exchange market. The markets that moved the most were the prediction markets. These newer markets that offer investors the ability to wager on different outcomes for a whole variety of events around the world. But when it comes to the implications of a Kevin Warsh led Fed – for the bigger macro markets like interest rates and currencies, the question really comes down to how?
If the Fed's balance sheet policies are going to take a while to implement, those are not going to have an immediate effect, at least not an effect that is easily seen with the human eye. But it's other types of policy change in terms of his communication policy, for example. One of the points that you raised in your recent note, Mike, was how Kevin Warsh favored less communication than perhaps some of the recent, Federal Open Market Committees had with the public.
And so, if there is some kind of a retrenchment from the type of over-communication to the marketplace, from either committee members or non-voters that could create a bit more volatility in the marketplace. Of course, the Fed has been one of the central banks that does not like to surprise the markets in terms of its monetary policy making. And so, that contrasts with other central banks in the G10. For example, the Swiss National Bank tends to surprise quite a lot. The Reserve Bank of Australia tends to surprise markets. More often, certainly than the Fed does. So, to the extent that there's some change in communication strategy going forward that could lead to more volatile interest rate in currency markets.
And that then could cause investors to demand more risk premium to invest in those markets. If you previously were comfortable owning a longer duration Treasury security because you felt very comfortable with the future path of Fed policy, then a Kevin Warsh led Fed – if it decides to change the communication strategy – could naturally lead investors to demand more risk premium in their investments. And that, of course, would lead to a steeper U.S. Treasury curve, all else equal. So that would be one of the main effects that I could see happen in markets as a result of some potential changes that the Fed may consider going forward.
So, Mike, with that said, this was the first FOMC meeting of the year, and the next meeting arrives in March. I guess we'll just have to wait between now and then to see if the Fed is on hold for a longer period of time or whether or not the data convinced them to move as soon as the March meeting.
Thanks for taking time to talk, Mike.
Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt.
Matthew Hornbach: 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.

Affordability is back in focus in D.C. after the brief U.S. shutdown. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore look at some proposals in play.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley.
Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.
Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the continued focus on affordability, and how to parse signals from the noise on different policy proposals coming out of D.C.
It's Wednesday, February 4th at 10am in New York.
Ariana Salvatore: President Trump signed a bill yesterday, ending the partial government shutdown that had been in place for the past few days. But affordability is still in focus. It's something that our clients have been asking about a lot. And we might hear more news when the president delivers his State of the Union address on February 24th and possibly delivers his budget proposal, which should be around the same time.
So, needless to say, it's still a topic that investors have been asking us about and one that we think warrants a little bit more scrutiny.
Michael Zezas: But maybe before we get into how to think about these affordability policies, we should hit on what we're seeing as the real pressure points in the debate. Ariana, you recently did some work with our economists. What were some of your findings?
Ariana Salvatore: So, Heather Berger and the rest of our U.S. econ[omics] team highlighted three groups in particular that are feeling more of the affordability crunch, so to speak. That's lower income consumers, younger consumers, and renters or recent home buyers.
Lower income households have experienced persistently higher inflation and more recently weaker wage growth. Younger consumers were hit hardest when inflation peaked and are more exposed to higher borrowing costs. And lastly, renters and recent buyers are dealing with much higher shelter burdens that aren't fully captured in standard inflation metrics.
Now, the reason I laid all that out is because these are also the cohorts where the president's approval ratings have seen the largest declines.
Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it makes sense that those are the groups where the administration might be targeting some of these affordability initiatives.
Ariana Salvatore: That's right. But that's not the only variable that they're solving for. Broadly speaking, we think that the president and Republicans in Congress really need to solve for four things when it comes to affordability policies.
First, targeting these quote right cohorts, which are those, as we mentioned, that have either moved furthest away from the president politically, or have been the most under pressure. Second feasibility, right? So even if Republicans can agree on certain policies, getting them procedurally through Congress can still be a challenge. Third timing – just because the legislative calendar is so tight ahead of the November elections. And fourth speed of disbursement. So basically, how long it would take these policies to translate to an uplift for consumers ahead of the elections.
Michael Zezas: So, thinking through each of these constraints, starting with how easy it might be to actually get some of these policies done, most of the policies that are being proposed on the housing side require congressional approval. In terms of these cohorts, it seems like these policies are most likely to focus on – that seems aimed at lower-income and younger voters. And in terms of timing, we know the legislative calendar is tight ahead of the midterms, and the policy makers want to pursue things that can be enacted quickly and show up for voters as soon as possible.
Ariana Salvatore: So, using that lens, we think the most realistic near-term tools are probably mostly executive actions. Think agency directives and potential changes to tariff policy. If we do see a second reconciliation bill emerge, it will probably move more slowly but likely cover some of those housing related tax credit changes.
But of course, not all these policies would move the needle in the same way. What do we think matters most from a macro perspective?
Michael Zezas: So, what our economists have argued is that the affordability policies being discussed – tax credits subsidies, payment pauses – they could be meaningful at a micro level for targeted households, but for the most part, they don't materially change the macro outlook. The exception might be tariffs; that probably has the broadest and most sustained impact on affordability because it directly affects inflation. Lower tariffs would narrow inflation differentials across cohorts, support real income growth and make it easier for the Fed to cut rates.
Ariana Salvatore: Right. And just to add a finer point on that, I think directionally speaking, this is where we've seen the administration moving in recent months. Remember, towards the end of last year, the Trump administration placed an exemption on a lot of agricultural imports. And just the other day, we heard news that the trade deal with India was finalized reducing the overall tariff rate to 18 percent from about 50 percent prior.
Michael Zezas: Okay. So, putting it all together for what investors need to know. We see three key takeaways. First, even absent new policy, our economists expect some improvement in affordability this year as inflation decelerates and rate cuts come into view. And specifically, when we talk about improvements in affordability, what our economists are referring to is income growth consistently outpacing inflation, lowering required monthly payments.
Second, most proposed affordability policies are unlikely to generate the meaningful macro growth impulse, so investors shouldn't overreact to headline announcements. And third, the cohort divergence matters for equities. Pressure on lower income in younger consumers helps explain why parts of consumer discretionary have lagged. While higher income exposed segments have remained more resilient.
So, if inflation continues to cool, especially via tariff relief, that's what would broaden the consumer recovery and potentially create better returns for some of the sectors in the equity markets that have underperformed.
Ariana Salvatore: Right, and from the policy side, I would say this probably isn't the last time we'll be talking about affordability. It's politically salient. The policy responses are likely targeted and incremental, and this should continue to remain a top focus for voters heading into November.
Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.
Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike.
Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang and senior leaders from Investment Management Andrew Slimmon and Jitania Kandhari unpack new investment trends from supportive monetary and fiscal policy and shifting market leadership.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Today we're revisiting the 2026 global equity outlook with two senior leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management.
Andrew Slimmon: I am Andrew Slimmon, Head of Applied Equity Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.
Jitania Kandhari: And I'm Jitania Kandhari, Deputy CIO of the Solutions and Multi-Asset Group, Portfolio Manager for Passport Strategies and Head of Macro and Thematic Research for Emerging Market Equities within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.
It's Tuesday, February 3rd at 10 am in New York.
So as investors are entering in 2026, after several years of very strong equity returns with policy support reaccelerating. As regular listeners have probably heard, Mike Wilson, who of course is CIO and Chief Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley – his view is that we ended a three-year rolling earnings recession in last April and entered a rolling recovery and a new bull market.
Now, Andrew, in the spirit of debate, I know you have a different take on valuations and where we are at in the cycle. I’d love to hear how you're framing this for investment management clients.
Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I mean, I guess I focus a little bit more on the behavioral cycle. And I think that from a behavioral cycle we're following a very consistent pattern, which is we had a bad bear market in 2022 that bottomed down 25 percent. And that provided a wonderful opportunity to invest. But early in a behavioral cycle, investors are very pessimistic. And that was really the story of [20]23 and really 2024, which were; investors, you know, were negative on equities. The ratios were all very negative and investors sold out of equities. And that's consistent with a early cycle.
And then as you move into the third-fourth year, investors tend to get more optimistic about returns. Doesn't necessarily mean the market goes down. But what it does mean is the market tends to get more volatile and returns start to compress, and ultimately, bull markets die on euphoria. And so, I think it's late cycle, but it's not end of cycle. And that's my theme; is late cycle but not end of cycle.
Serena Tang: And I think on that point, one very unusual feature of this environment is that you have both monetary and fiscal policy being supportive at the same time, which, of course, rarely happens outside of recession. So how do you see those dual policy forces shaping market behavior and which parts of the market tend to benefit?
Andrew Slimmon: Well, that's exactly right. Look, the last time I checked, page one of the investment handbook says, ‘Don't fight the Fed.’ And so, you have monetary policy easing. And what we; remember what happened in 2021? The Fed raised rates and monetary policy was tightening. Equities do well when the Fed is easing, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's not end of cycle. And then you layer in fiscal policy with tax relief coming, it is a reason to be relatively optimistic on equities in 2026. But it doesn't mean there can't be bumps along the way – and I think a higher level of optimism as we're seeing today is a result of that.
But I think you stick with those more procyclical areas: Finance, Industrials, Technology, and then you move down the cap curve a little bit. I think those are the winning trades. They really started to come to the fore in the second half of last year, and I think that will continue into 2026.
Serena Tang: Right. And we've definitely seen some bumps recently, but I think on your point around yields. So, Jitania, I think that policy backdrop really ties directly to your idea of the age of capped real rates. In very simple terms, can you explain what that means and what's behind that view?
Jitania Kandhari: Sure. When I say age of real rates being capped, I mean like the structural template within which I'm operating, and real rates here are defined by the 10-year on the Treasury yield adjusted for CPI.
Firstly, I'd say there was too much linear thinking in markets post Liberation Day. That tariffs equals inflation equals higher rates. Now, tariff impacts, as we have seen, can be offset in several ways, and economic relationships are rarely linear.
So, inflation may not go up to the extent market is expecting. So that supports the case for capped rates. And the real constraint is the debt arithmetic, right? So, if you look at the history of public debt in the U.S., whenever there was a surge in public debt during the Civil War, two World Wars, Global Financial Crisis, even during COVID. In all these periods, when debt spiked, real rates have remained negative.
So, there can be short term swings in rates, but I believe that markets not necessarily central banks will even enforce that cap.
Serena Tang: You've described this moment, as the great broadening of 2026. What's driving this and what do you think is happening now after years of very narrow concentration?
Jitania Kandhari: Yes. I think like if last decade was about concentration, now it's going to be about breadth. And if you look at where the concentration was, it was in the [Mag] 7, in the AI trade. We are beginning to see some cracks in the consensus where adoption is happening, but monetization is lagging. But clearly the next phase of value creation could happen from just the model building to the application layer, as you guys have also talked about – from enablers to adopters.
The other thing we are seeing is two AI ecosystems evolve globally. The high cost cutting edge U.S. innovation engine and the lower cost efficiency driven Chinese model, each of them have their own supply chain beneficiaries. And as AI is moving into physical world, you're going to see more opportunities. And then secondly, I think there are limitations on this tariff policies globally; and tariff fears to me remain more of an illusion than a reality because U.S. needs to import a lot of intermediate goods And then lastly, I see domestic cycles inflecting upwards in many other pockets of the world. And you add all this up; the message is clear that leadership is broadening and portfolio should broaden too.
Serena Tang: And I want to sort of stay on this topic of broadening. So, Andrew, I think, you've also highlighted, you know, this market broadening, especially beyond the large cap leaders, even as AI investment continues, I think, as you touched on earlier.
So why does that matter for equity leadership in 2026? And can you talk about the impact of this broadening on valuations in general?
Andrew Slimmon: Sure. So I think, you know, I've been around a long time and I remember when the internet first rolled out, the Mosaic browser was introduced in 1993. And the first thing the stock market tried to do is appoint winners – of who was going to win the internet, you know, search race. And it was Ask Jeeves and it was Yahoo and it was Netscape. Well, none of those were the winners. We just don't know who's ultimately going to be the tech winner. I think it's much safer to know that just like the internet, AI is a technology productivity enhancing tool, and companies are going to embrace AI just like they embraced the internet. And the reason the stock market doubled between 1997 and the dotcom peak was that productivity margins went up for a lot of companies in a lot of industries as they embraced the internet.
So, to me, a broadening out and looking at lower valuations, it is in many ways safer than saying this is the technology winner, and this is technology loser. I think it's all many different industries are going to embrace and benefit from what's going on with AI.
Serena Tang: You don't want to know where I was in 1993. And I don't recognize most of those names.
Andrew Slimmon: Sorry. I was 14!
Serena Tang: [Laughs] Ok. Investors often hear two competing messages now. Ignore the macro and buy great companies or let the big picture drive everything. How do you balance top-down signals with bottom-up fundamentals in your investment process?
Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I think you have to employ both, and I hear that all the time; especially I hear, you know, my competitors, ‘Oh, I just focus on my stock picks, my bottom up.’ But, you know, look statistically, two-thirds of a manager's relative performance comes from macro. You know, how did growth do? How did value do? All those types of things that have nothing to do with what stock picks... And likewise, much of a return of an individual stock has to do with things beyond just what's happening fundamentally.
But some of it comes from what's happening at the company level. So, I think to be a great investor, you have to be aware of the macro. The Fed cutting rates this year is a very powerful tool, and if you don't understand the amplifications of that as per what types of stocks work, because you're so focused on the micro, I think that's a mistake.
Likewise, you have to know what's going on in your company [be]cause one third of term does come from actual stock selection. So, I'm a big believer in marrying a top down and a bottom up and try to capture the two thirds and the one third.
Serena Tang: Since that 2022 bear market low that you talked about earlier. I mean, your framework really favored growth and value over defensives. But I think more recently you've increased your non-U.S. exposure. What changed in your top-down signals and bottom-up data to make global opportunities more compelling now? Is it the narrative of the end of U.S. exceptionalism or something else?
Andrew Slimmon: No, I really think it's actually something else, which is we have picked up signals from other parts of the world, Europe and Japan. That are different signals than we saw really for the last decade, which is namely that pro-cyclical stocks started to work. Value stocks started to work in the first half of 2025. And you look at the history of when that happens, usually value doesn't work for a year and peter out.
So that's been a huge change where I would say, a safer orientation has shown the relative leadership, and we have to be – recognize that. So, in our global strategies, we've been heavily weighted towards, the U.S. orientation because we didn't see really a cyclical bias outside. And now that's changing and that has caused us to increase the allocation to non-U.S. exposure. It's a longwinded way of saying, look, I think what the story of last year was the U.S. did just fine. But there were parts of the world that did better and I think that will continue in 2026.
Serena Tang: Andrew, Jitania thank you so much for taking the time to talk.
Andrew Slimmon: Great speaking with you, Serena.
Jitania Kandhari: Thanks for having us on the show.
Serena Tang: 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 CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses how the nomination of Kevin Warsh to lead the Fed could move markets.
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: The implications of Kevin Warsh’s nomination as the next Fed Chair.
It's Monday, February 2nd at 10 am in New York.
So, let’s get after it.
Last Friday, President Trump officially nominated Kevin Warsh to be the next Chair of the Fed. The prevailing narrative around Warsh is fairly straightforward: he’s seen as more hawkish on the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, potentially more flexible on interest rates, and less comfortable with open-ended liquidity support than the current leadership. That characterization is fair, but it doesn’t answer the more important question—why pick Warsh now, and what problem is this nomination trying to solve?
In my view, the answer starts with markets, not politics. Over the past several months, we’ve witnessed parabolic moves in precious metals alongside persistent weakness in the U.S. dollar. While this administration has been very clear that a weaker dollar is not inherently a bad thing—especially as part of a broader economic rebalancing strategy—there’s an important distinction between a controlled decline and a disorderly one.
To understand why this matters so much, you need to zoom out. The administration is attempting to rebalance the U.S. economy across three dimensions simultaneously, all with the same ultimate goal—growing out of an enormous debt burden that’s been building for more than two decades. At this point, simply cutting spending isn’t realistic, economically or politically. Nominal growth is the only viable path forward.
The current strategy is more supply side driven. It focuses on rebalancing trade through tariffs and a weaker dollar, shifting the economy away from over-consumption and toward investment, and addressing inequality through immigration enforcement and deregulation. The goal is to let companies—not the government—make capital allocation decisions, while boosting income through wages rather than entitlements. If it works, the result should be higher nominal growth with a healthier mix of real growth driven by productivity.
Markets, to some extent, have already started to price this in. Since last spring, cyclical stocks have outperformed, market breadth has improved, and leadership has begun to rotate away from the mega-cap names that dominated the last cycle. Small and mid-cap stocks are working again too. That’s exactly what you’d expect in the middle stages of a ‘hotter but shorter’ expansion, my core view. At the same time, the surge in gold tells us something else is going on. Precious metals don’t move like that unless investors are questioning the endgame.
That’s where Kevin Warsh comes in. His nomination appears designed to restore credibility around the balance sheet and slow the momentum of that skepticism. Based on Friday’s price action, it worked. Gold and silver sold off sharply, the dollar strengthened modestly, and equities and rates stayed relatively stable. That combination buys time—and time is exactly what this strategy needs to work.
One of the best ways to track whether markets are buying into this story is by watching the ratio of the S&P 500 to gold. It’s a simple but powerful proxy for confidence in productive growth. The recent collapse was driven mostly by gold rising—and Friday’s sharp reversal was mainly gold prices falling, one of the largest on record.
That doesn’t mean skepticism has been eliminated. Instead, it tells me the administration is paying attention and understands they need to restore confidence. If the ratio continues to recover, it will likely come first through lower gold prices and tighter liquidity expectations, and later through stronger earnings growth driven by productivity gains. That could mean near term risk for other risk assets, including equities.
Bottom line, the current ‘run it hot’ approach has a better chance of delivering sustainable growth than prior policy mixes—but it won’t be smooth, and confidence will ebb and flow along the way. Watching how markets respond, especially through signals like gold, the dollar, and capital spending trends, will tell us whether this strategy ultimately succeeds. My view is that it’s the best approach which keeps me bullish on 2026 even if the near term is more rocky.
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 discusses key market metrics indicating that valuations should stay higher for longer, despite some investors’ concerns.
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 I'm going to talk about key signposts for stability – in a world that from day to day feels anything but.
It's Friday, January 30th at 2pm in London.
A core theme for us at Morgan Stanley Research is that easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy in 2026 will support more risk taking, corporate activity and animal spirits. Yes, valuations are high. But with so many forces blowing in the same stimulative direction across so many geographies, those valuations may stay higher for longer.
We think that the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of Japan, all lower interest rates more, or raise them less than markets expect. We think that fiscal policy will remain stimulative as governments in the United States, Germany, China, and Japan all spend more. And as I discussed on this program recently, regulation – a sleepy but essential part of this equation – is also aligning to support more risk taking.
Of course, one concern with having so much stimulative sail out, so to speak, is that you lose control of the boat. As geopolitical headwinds swirl and the price of gold has risen a 100 percent in the last year, many investors are asking whether we're seeing too much of a shift in both government and fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy.
Specifically, when I speak to investors, I think I can paraphrase these concerns as follows: Are we seeing expectations for future inflation rise sharply? Will we see more volatility in government debt? Has the valuation of the U.S. dollar deviated dramatically from fair value? And are credit markets showing early signs of stress?
Notably, so far, the answer to all of these questions based on market pricing is no. The market's expectation for CPI inflation over the next decade is about 2.4 percent. Similar actually to what we saw in 2024, 2023. Expected volatility for U.S. interest rates over the next year is, well, lower than where it was on January 1st. The U.S. dollar, despite a lot of recent headlines, is trading roughly in line with its fair value, based on purchasing power based on data from Bloomberg. And the credit markets long seen as important leading indicators of risk, well, across a lot of different regions, they've been very well behaved, with spreads still historically tight.
Uncertainty in U.S. foreign policy, big moves in Japanese interest rates and even larger moves in gold have all contributed to investor concerns around the potential instability of the macro backdrop. It's understandable, but for now we think that a number of key market-based measures of the stability are still holding.
While that's the case, we think that a positive fundamental story, specifically our positive view on earnings growth can continue to support markets. Major shifts in these signposts, however, could change that.
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.