Thoughts on the Market

Tom Wigg and Stephen Byrd discuss the accelerating pace of AI breakthroughs, the forces driving them and why the next phase of development may look very different from anything we’ve seen so far.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Tom Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Tom Wigg, Head of Specialty Sales in the Americas at Morgan Stanley, and a sector specialist in Technology, Media and Telecom.
We wake up every day to new AI product releases, so it’s easy to lose sight of the unprecedented non-linear improvement in AI capabilities. But things are about to get weird.
 It’s Tuesday, April 28th at 8am in New York.
The market has been thinking about AI in linear terms. But we need to reframe that assumption of only incremental improvement and think about exponential improvement.
That was my takeaway from a conversation with Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. In our conversation, we zeroed in on Stephen’s bull case for broader AI model improvements.
 Tom Wigg: First, I want to talk about one obsession that you’ve been writing about for the last several months – is this idea that we’re going to see nonlinear improvements in the frontier models coming out this spring.
Stephen Byrd: Yes.
Tom Wigg: There’s been, you know, some big headlines around new models, benchmarks coming out publicly. Is this, you know, your bull case playing out on these models? And what are the implications?
Stephen Byrd: Yes! Absolutely, Tom. So we have, to your point, we are obsessed. And I know I’m not shy about that – with the nonlinear rate of AI improvement. It is the most important impact to so many stocks that I can think of in the sense that it can impact all industries, all business models. So, what we’ve been saying for some time is, if you look back over the last couple of years at the relationship between the amount of compute used to train these LLMs and the capabilities, we have a very clear scaling law.
And approximately the law is, if you increase the training compute by 10x, the capabilities of the models go up by 2x. Now, as you and I’ve talked about this a lot; just meditate on that for a moment. I think things are about to get weird in the sense that on the positive side, we’re going to see all kinds of underappreciated capabilities across many industries. So this disruption discussion, I think, is going to spread, but it’s also going to require investors to, kind of, be more thoughtful about what they do with that concept. Meaning you can’t sell everything. In the sense that AI will disrupt some businesses.
I actually think this is healthy in some ways because now it forces investors to really look at each business model and assess which is going to get disrupted, which can get supported and enabled by AI, which are immune. Because there are some business models that actually are immune.
But essentially from here, Tom, I’d say we are expecting through the spring and summer to see multiple models that are able to perform a much greater percentage of the economy at better levels of accuracy at incredibly low cost. Which I know you and I have talked a lot about the cost of actually doing this work from the LLMs.
This is massive. This is going to impact so many industries. I think this is all to the good for the AI infrastructure plays because it shows the importance of getting more intelligence out into the world.
Tom Wigg: So, you mentioned the constraints we’re seeing across compute, memory and power. It seems like most of the CEOs of the labs and hyperscalers are talking about this. Investors are bullish in terms of the ownership in, you know, memory, optical, semi-cap, et cetera. But the question I’m getting more recently is around what’s the ROI on all this spending. And does the market action in these hyperscalers, which have been pretty bearish year-to-date, force a cut on CapEx? So, maybe if you can marry that with what you’re picking up on the ground in terms of compute spend and whether the frenzy still continues, you know, versus the ROI? And, like, what could happen?
Stephen Byrd: Yeah. The short answer – I’m going to go through detail – is I think the bullishness is going to get more bullish over the coming months. And let me walk you through a couple of the mathematics and then just what I’m seeing on the ground to your point, Tom.
So the mathematics. We have a token economics model that looks from the perspective of a hyperscaler or an LLM developer in terms of – if they sell their token at a certain price and you fully load the cost of a data center and all associated costs, financing, you name it – in what are the returns? And the bottom line is the returns are excellent.
The other element we spend a lot of work on, and you and I talk a lot about, is the demand for compute. In this world where the LLMs are increasing in capability and the token usage goes way up with agentic AI, video world models, all that stuff, we think that there is a massive shortage of compute. So, if you’re lucky enough to be a hyperscaler with the compute, with the power, we think that they will have a lot of pricing power on the tokens.
Let me explain why we see price power on the tokens. Now I’m going to flip to the perspective of an adopter. Let me give you just rough mathematics. There was a study last year from one of the big labs showing that on average, an enterprise user using an LLM might be able to replace work that would take about one and a half hours from a human. That would save about $55 of cost. A million tokens, depends on whether you’re looking at input or output – but let’s just call it $5 for a million tokens.
The average usage case today for a fairly complex agentic task in an enterprise setting is in the tens of thousands of tokens. Okay? So let’s just do that math again. $55 of savings. A million tokens cost $5, and a typical agentic usage is far less than the million tokens today, though that will accelerate. The economics are a home run for adopters.
So, we’re in a situation where compute is very scarce. I see pricing power all over the place for those who have the compute and have the power.
Tom Wigg: So, when you put it like that, Stephen, it seems so inevitable and obvious. But I wonder why the hyperscalers are trading the way they are? And when do they see the revenue inflection you’re talking about? Is this like a stay tuned kinda 2026 event? Is this something we have to wait for for 2027-2028?
Like, how do you think this flows through to the extent that the market will get more comfortable that all this free cash flow pressure is worth it on the other side?
Stephen Byrd: Yeah. This is, in short, I think this is a 2026 event. But let me dive into that because what you just asked is so important for so many stocks.
So, let’s talk through this. The capabilities of the models are advancing so fast that the average corporate user is not yet keeping up. There is this gap. But that will happen quickly, and we’re seeing signs from these labs of revenue at the lab level that is accelerating. So that’s a good sign.
What we’re seeing, though, among fast adopters is those adopters who really understand the capabilities are quickly realizing just how economically beneficial there is. An example, one of my best friends founded a software company many years ago. Last month was – that was the last month in which his programmers wrote code. They’re done with writing code.
The efficiency benefits for his business are absolutely massive. But he feels like he’s just scratching the surface, and he’s about as technically capable as anyone I know. He has two PhDs in the subject matter. He’s very, very good.
So long way to say that we’re living in almost two worlds where the fast adopters will show what’s possible. The average utilization for enterprises will still take some time. But I do think that the market will react to what they see from the fast adopters in the sense of – the tangible economic benefits are so big.
Now, on the ground, what I’m seeing on the infrastructure side, my friends in power tell me that a couple months ago is when they saw the sense of urgency from the AI community go up a couple of notches for them to get the infrastructure they need. So they saw this explosion in compute coming. In the last two months, the weekly usage of tokens according to OpenRadar is up a couple hundred percent in a couple months.
So, I do think we’re seeing this. So, this is; it’s happening quickly. What I would say is the market will have these signposts in every industry of early adopters showing this benefit. I think that’s enough for us to start to get bullish. We also… I just think when you look at the demand for compute, the compute numbers need to go up. And with that, you know, everything in the AI value chain, infrastructure value chain, the volumes need to go up.
Tom Wigg: One bear case that I wanted to interrogate was – there’s one view that, yes, there’s a token explosion right now. But it’s because the first use case is coding. Which is inherently, you know, very developer-friendly and token-intensive relative to other knowledge work.
Can you talk about, you know, whether you subscribe to that? Or whether the token intensity will be as high or lower as this expands to other areas of knowledge work in the next several years?
Stephen Byrd: Yeah, it’s a great question. The short version is that, yes, it’s true that software usage is more token intensive. However, what we’re going to be seeing – we’re starting to see it – is in almost every knowledge-based job, we’re going to move to agentic AI. And when we do that, you tend to see an explosion in compute.
Let me walk you through the numbers. There are a couple studies that show essentially when you go from a query-based usage of LLMs to an agentic use for any occupation, you see about a 10x increase in token usage per use of those models. And you can see why.
I’ve anecdotes of some of my friends who are newer to this – who set their agents loose overnight to do non-coding work. And in the morning they get some pretty amazing results. But they also used a lot more tokens than they’d expected … (laughs)
Tom Wigg: And a five grand credit card bill?
Stephen Byrd: Exactly. It’s like maybe next time you put a few parameters around that. But long way to say, it’s agentic across every workflow that I can think of that will still result in an explosion in token demand.
Tom Wigg: It’s definitely a good idea to put some parameters around your agentic workflow.
My thanks to Stephen for that conversation. And thank you for listening. Let us know what you think of the show by leaving us a review where you listen. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or a colleague about us today.

Major U.S. stock indexes have rebounded sharply in recent weeks. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses the fundamentals that could support the continuation of the bull market.
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 I remain bullish even after such a strong run in stocks.
It's Monday, April 27th at 11:30am in New York.
So, let’s get after it.
The U.S. equity market just experienced one of the most dramatic bounces in history from a technical standpoint. It went from oversold to overbought territory in just 12 days. Based on our conversations, the speed of this move has led some to express caution about the near-term path of equities – but that's the way it usually works. The market waits for no one once it decides to move on.
From our perspective, this feels like last year. Many investors are contemplating the lagging impacts of higher commodity prices on inflation just like they were thinking through the effects of higher tariff rates a year ago. Many companies will feel the downstream impacts on a lagging basis. But we believe equity indices and many subgroups already suffered enough damage to account for these concerns. In other words, the equity market isn't simply looking past the risks, it already priced them.
Take into consideration that the earnings picture is much stronger today with forward 12-month earnings growth approaching 25 percent versus just 9 percent a year ago. As well, we still hear many commentators suggesting that growth is only coming from a handful of stocks. While mathematically that is a fair point for the top-heavy S&P 500, it doesn't acknowledge that forward earnings growth for the median company and for small caps is also well into the double digits.
This cadence is very different from the prior three to four years when the economy was experiencing a rolling recession. It also supports our rolling recovery and broadening thesis we laid out a year ago. So far, the first quarter earnings season has delivered a 10 percent beat rate in aggregate. This is two times the long-term average. More importantly, second quarter and forward 12-month company guidance have increased by an additional 2 to 3 percent.
Besides earnings beat rates and guidance, we are also watching capex guidance and signs of pricing power. We entered 2026 with a view that the capex cycle was gaining momentum, thanks to three tailwinds: First, strong earnings and cash flow, which tend to correlate with capex. Second, tax incentives from the BBB; and third, strong demand for the AI buildout and reshoring of manufacturing.
Early indications on this front are supportive with median stock capex growth running almost 10 percent, and our factor work continuing to show that the market is rewarding high capex. It's important to see these trends continue as the quarter progresses, especially this week when the hyperscalers are scheduled to report.
Another point; given potential downstream cost headwinds from the Iran war, we want to see pricing power and top line durability persist. Early indications here are also supportive with sales surprises for the S&P 500 running well above average and close to 2 percent.
Finally, as noted in prior podcasts, one of the last hurdles for the market to overcome was the Fed's recent hawkish pivot on higher oil prices and the transition of its leadership from Jay Powell to Fed Chair nominee Kevin Warsh.
This past week, Kevin Warsh appeared in front of the Senate. He signaled some caution on near-term rate cuts, noting that inflation risks are not resolved. He also reiterated his well-established criticism of the Fed’s historic willingness to intervene in markets and the economy too aggressively with its balance sheet.
Every Fed Chair transition typically requires a learning period for the markets where they test the new chair's resolve and figure out how to interpret his or her communication style. This time should be no different and could lead to some corrective price action in the near-term caused by short spikes in bond volatility or stress in funding markets.
In my view, the Treasury and Fed will be able to manage these risks in the end leaving the bull market intact.
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!

Kevin Warsh, President Trump’s nominee for the next Fed Chair, testified in front of the Senate earlier this week. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets presents key takeaways from the two-and-half-hour testimony.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.
Today on the program, a first look at potentially the next Fed chair.
It's Friday, April 24th at 9am in New York.
Financial markets can often struggle to keep track of more than one story at a time – and at present, we're really pushing the limit. At one end, the Iran conflict continues to create a historic disruption in global energy markets. At the other, signs of corporate animal spirits and activity hint at the potential for an even larger boom if this disruption ends.
Merger activity, capital spending, loan growth and earnings growth are all strong and accelerating. And so, into this mix enters a third story, the Federal Reserve. Indeed, both Iran and the investment boom introduce real questions as to how a central bank should react to these factors.
For example, if oil prices spike further, should the central bank raise interest rates to counter the inflation that would follow? Or should it lower them because that increase in oil prices could potentially hit growth? And what about corporate aggression? As that aggression increases, should the Fed look to raise interest rates and take away the punch bowl, so to speak, to avoid an even larger overheating in the economy? Or maybe all of this investment will create abundance – actually lower prices and warrant interest rate cuts.
These questions will weigh on the Fed and, in particular, Kevin Warsh, who has been nominated by President Trump to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve. This week saw Warsh testify in front of the Senate as part of that process, giving us the most detailed insight into his current thinking that we've had so far.
Two things really stood out. First, Warsh believes that this historic boom in AI and technology investment really is likely to boost productivity. A productivity boost, all else equal, should mean a greater supply of goods and services into the economy from the same number of workers; and thanks to that greater supply, relatively lower prices and less inflation. This belief in investment driven productivity underpins why he thinks interest rates can be lower even if current inflation is elevated.
Second, Warsh was critical of the Fed, stating that it had “lost its way,” from expanding its balance sheet too much to being too slow to reign in inflation following COVID. He outlined a sweeping agenda for change, including how the Fed could forecast inflation, manage its assets, and communicate its policy.
But another challenge that's going to be facing the next Fed chair will be personal as much as it's economic. Fed decisions are made by a majority vote. And while Warsh may feel strongly that the historic investment cycle that we're seeing in technology will bring down inflation, can he convince others of this as well – especially at a time when current inflation readings are somewhat elevated? And will his criticism of how the Fed has conducted action over the last several years make it harder to gain the support of colleagues, some of whom were there for those measures? Or will it be welcomed as a breath of fresh air and a chance for the Fed to have a new start?
The uncertain timing of the handover and the fact that policy is still up to committee means that we think markets will likely stay focused on other factors in the near term and expect relatively modest shifts in Fed policy for now. But it's still worth watching.
Since 1979, only five individuals have occupied this important seat leading the U.S. Central Bank. We may be about to get the sixth.
Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts of the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research Seth Carpenter asks Mayank Phadke, a member of his team, to give up an update on tariffs and their real cost to the U.S. economy.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And I'm joined by Mayank Phadke, a member of my global economics team. And today we're going to talk about tariffs. I bet that was a surprise.
It is Thursday, April 23rd at 10am in New York.
I have to say, for the past couple of months, the focus on energy markets, energy supply, energy prices – that has dominated everything that we've been talking to clients about around the world. And so, everyone would be forgiven if they had forgotten that we were talking about tariffs much the same way, nonstop last year.
Now, tariffs kind of seem like an afterthought. But part of the stated motivation for tariffs when they were imposed was to boost reshoring. That is to have more production of goods in the United States that had been imported. So, tariffs still matter. They matter for CapEx, in that regard, they matter for domestic production. And because of all of that, presumably they matter for markets and for the Federal Reserve.
But for the narrow question of reshoring, the data so far, I would argue, suggests that there's been very little net effect. There will be more tariff news arriving in coming months. So Mayank, I am going to pull you into this conversation because you have been one of the key people on the team, doing of analysis on the data work on tariffs, trade and reshoring. So, could you tell us a little bit about what’s been happening to the effective tariff rate for the United States recently? And where we think that’s likely to go?
Mayank Phadke: Tariff levels have declined steadily in recent months, falling to 8.5 percent as of February, with the decline having accelerated after the Supreme Court ruling. The decision on IEEPA forced a shift in underlying tariff authorities with country level IEEPA tariffs temporarily reconstituted under Section 122.
We have long argued, even before the 2025 tariffs that the legal basis for durable tariffs would need to be anchored in section 232 and section 301 based authorities rather than in IEEPA. The current Section 122 tariffs are due to expire on the 24th of July. And after that, we expect more durable authorities to kick in. The shifts that we will see as IEEPA tariffs are replaced by new section 301 and 232 tariffs means that there will be some differences. But from a macro perspective, we expect the level to be roughly similar to where it stood at the end of 2025. An aggregate effective rate of around 10 percent.
Two sets of Section 301 investigations were announced by the administration in March, covering virtually all major trading partners. These investigations are likely to run on a faster timeline than prior efforts. Those took around nine months.
The comments were requested by the 15th of April, with hearings scheduled for early May. We're inclined to expect completed section 301 investigations over the summer while section 232 tariffs will likely arrive in waves as sector-based investigations proceed.
Seth Carpenter: Got it. Okay. So, I'm going to summarize that to say tariffs are not going away. Tariffs are here. In the aggregate for macro economists like us, probably about the same level it's been. But that escapes the question about the individual industries, and it brings us right back to this question of reshoring. Is that what's going to happen?
And so, when I think about it, we do have all these negotiations. But the reshoring question forces you to wonder about manufacturing, manufacturing growth and with it CapEx. And like I said at the top, it's non-AI CapEx that's really on the soft side of things.
So, you've spent a lot of time looking at the data. I would say one industry that tends to stand out in all these conversations is steel. So, if we look at what's happened with the steel industry, with tariffs, with changes in imports and that sort of things, what's happened? Do we see clear evidence that there's this big reshoring push?
Mayank Phadke: The case of steel is certainly very interesting. It helps frame why tariff uncertainty matters. And the supply chain for steel is relatively compact, which makes it easier to observe how the sector responds to tariffs.
Domestic production has risen as imports have fallen consistent with the idea of reshoring. But when we look at the total supply of steel to the domestic economy, it hasn't risen. More importantly, U.S. steel prices have materially diverged from global peers. And the risk of more aggressive sector tariffs across the economy, in our view is higher prices. An outcome which is consistent with our expectations from a year ago – and with economic theory.
Seth Carpenter: As an economist, I'm always happy when the reality matches what I was expecting in theory. So, that's super helpful. Now, that is one specific industry, and I know that you have spent a bunch of time looking at the data across industries.
The point that you made though, about the higher prices, the higher domestic prices for steel means, to me as an economist, that we have to try to maybe separate out the effects of the nominal versus the real. Which is to say, if we're measuring how much output there is, how much that increase is coming from just prices going up versus how much is coming from, total quantity.
So, if I asked you, when you look across industries, when you look at the data, what evidence do you see in terms of lots of reshoring. That is to say a diversion of trade, a reduction of imports, and with it an increase in domestic production. Is that there broadly in the data?
Mayank Phadke: When we look at production and imports across industries and goods and identify the industries both with and without reduced imports, we see that the increase in domestic production has come largely in nominal terms. Which means that the price has risen, but very little of that increase is actually higher output. The evidence for meaningful reassuring here is quite limited.
Seth Carpenter: Alright. So that's super helpful to me because when I think about the implications of tariffs, the economist in me says it reduces the overall productive capacity of the economy. It raises cost for the economy. The counter argument has been we're going to make more in the United States and that's going to boost the U.S. economy.
As far as I can tell, when we look at the data themselves, there's not a lot of evidence for the upside. But there is clear evidence that we're raising costs for the U.S. economy.
Alright, well Mayank, thank you so much for joining me. And thank you to the listeners. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Although the conflict in Iran keeps dominating the news cycle, investors have an eye on the upcoming U.S. midterm elections. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore consider policy implications – from healthcare and consumer to AI.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley.
Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.
Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the midterm elections and their implications for U.S. markets.
It's Wednesday, April 22nd at 10am in New York.
All right, so Ariana, midterm elections are coming up. And I feel like every cycle we hear the same question. How much do elections actually matter for markets?
Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, I would say, you know, we're still six months out and obviously a lot of the market's focus has been on the U.S.-Iran conflict. But it does keep coming up in our conversations with investors.
And to your question, our view is these elections probably matter a little bit less than people think, at least from a macro perspective.
Michael Zezas: Okay, so that seems a bit counterintuitive, right? Because policy has felt like a huge driver of markets recently. Tariffs. Geopolitics. Really all the above.
Ariana Salvatore: Exactly. But there's some nuance here. So, policy does matter, but the big takeaway is that the direction of policy doesn't really change based on the midterms. That's because some of the key policy variables that you mentioned – trade, geopolitics, also deregulation – those are all likely to keep going regardless of who wins.
At the same time, it's worth noting upfront that the race itself is still pretty fluid. A lot of the indicators that investors are watching – polling prediction markets, the president's approval rating, even things like domestic gasoline prices and consumer sentiment – they're somewhat giving mixed signals right now. There's a growing narrative around a potential democratic sweep. But when you actually look in more detail at the Senate map, we think the path there is still pretty challenging.
So, I think it's important to emphasize there's much more uncertainty in the outcome than the headlines right now might suggest.
Michael Zezas: So, if those indicators end up being right and we do in fact see a divided government, what do you think investors should be paying attention to?
Ariana Salvatore: There are some incremental shifts that will be worth watching. In particular as they pertain to fiscal policy. So, for example, things like SNAP and Medicaid, those are the real swing factors depending on the election outcome.
If you recall last year, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act legislated some changes to those programs that are meant to start taking effect in 2027 and 2028. Things like shifting more of the cost burden onto states and tightening eligibility requirements to offset some of the deficit impact from tax cuts.
And where elections come in is around whether or not those changes actually get implemented or delayed or softened. In our view, the most likely way you can get meaningful adjustments is in some form of divided government where there actually might be an incentive to negotiate around those fiscal cliffs.
But crucially, we think that can only happen if you have what we call a robust rather than a fragile majority.
Michael Zezas: Okay. Can you explain the difference between those two things?
Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, the question is not just who controls Congress, it's how unified they are. If you get a robust majority, that means the party can agree internally on what their core policy objectives are. And then use their leverage in a cohesive way to extract political concessions from the opposing party.
So, to put it in simpler terms. If Democrats have a large enough majority or are able to coalesce around some of the key policy asks – for example, delaying some of these cuts – we think they can tie those two, some must pass bills. Think appropriations bills or debt ceiling extensions, for example, that they will need to be consulted on in a split government scenario.
Now conversely, if it's a fragile majority, you probably see more internal disagreement, less coordination, and a lot more political noise with less actual policy getting done.
Michael Zezas: Okay, so a lot of good insights there. Can you boil it down to a few key takeaways for investors?
Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so one I would say is that fiscal policy is really where the midterm elections might matter the most. But even there, we think the impact is more micro than macro. Another is that divided government doesn't necessarily mean less policy activity. It just changes the form that it takes. And then of course there's AI, which is a topic that we've been getting a lot of questions about.
Michael Zezas: Yeah, so let's dig in a bit more there because there's obviously a lot of interest in the intersection between public policy and the development of artificial intelligence.
Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. This was the key focus of our policy symposium that we hosted in New York last week. AI is increasingly viewed as a strategic priority across both parties. So, unlike some of these fiscal debates, we think that AI policy is likely to take shape regardless of the election outcome. What could change is the approach.
So, think about things like how quickly infrastructure gets built, how permitting is handled, how energy constraints are addressed. We're seeing growing recognition across the aisle that the bottleneck for AI isn't just on the innovation front, it's the physical infrastructure – power, data centers and supply chains.
Now at the same time, there's also emerging pushback from communities and from policy makers around things like energy usage and cost of living. We've done a lot of research on this front, and it's actually a really critical factor in some of these off-cycle elections that we've seen even back to last year.
So, you end up with this dynamic where AI investment probably continues both in a more constrained and increasingly regulated environment in the split government scenarios.
Michael Zezas: So, direction's the same, but the pace and the friction points may vary. And that has implications in particular for a few key sectors like power and data center REITs, while consumer and healthcare sectors are more exposed to those SNAP and Medicaid changes we mentioned earlier. Obviously the more unified Democrats are, the more they're able to extend or push off those shifts. Meaning the downside impact on the consumer could be limited versus current expectations.
But aside from these policies we're watching. You'll probably see noise around debt ceiling fights, government shutdowns. And those things don't usually derail growth. But they can create volatility and short-term uncertainty, especially around funding deadlines.
Ariana Salvatore: Right. And that's important for the macro-outlook. So, in short, our economists think that the growth outcomes are only going to vary modestly across the scenarios while the broader business cycle should stay intact.
Now, following from that, our rate strategists see episodic risk, to your point around funding fights, which could drive risk off rallies in notes and bonds. And then you have to weigh that against cooling expectations for growth and inflation in both the divided government scenarios. Similarly, our FX strategists see opposing forces between yields, fiscal policy and the broader policy uncertainty variable driving dispersion across currencies more than a clear dollar direction.
Michael Zezas: Got it. So, a lot to pay attention to ahead of the midterms and we'll obviously keep people updated here about what we're seeing.
Ariana Salvatore: Sounds good.
Michael Zezas: 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.