PodcastsInvesterenThoughts on the Market

Thoughts on the Market

Morgan Stanley
Thoughts on the Market
Nieuwste aflevering

1646 afleveringen

  • Thoughts on the Market

    Who Owns Travel Loyalty?

    10-06-2026 | 13 Min.
    Morgan Stanley analysts Ravi Shanker and Jeff Adelson take a look at what the fight for affluent, loyal travelers could mean for banks and airlines.
    Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

    ----- Transcript -----

    Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Airlines analyst.
    Jeff Adelson: And I'm Jeff Adelson, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Consumer Finance analyst.
    Ravi Shanker: Today, who really owns your travel loyalty? The airline, the bank, the rewards platform, or you?
    It's Wednesday, June 10th at 7am in New York.
    Jeff Adelson: So, Ravi, you just came from your annual travel conference, and I'm about to head into the second day of Morgan Stanley's 17th Annual Financials Conference here in New York, where we're hosting roughly 135 corporates.
    A lot of themes are coming up there: retail engagement, product innovation, regulatory change, AI digital assets, capital markets recovery, and so on. All of these connect back to a bigger question. Who owns the customer relationship?
    Ravi Shanker: And that's exactly where travel co-branded cards come in. They sit at the crossroads of premium consumer spending, loyalty, and the competition for wallet share. They've become a more important revenue stream across travel, banking, and hospitality.
    But it's not as simple as more travel means more co-brand growth. Most customers still want flexibility, cashback, and low fees. Premium travelers and loyal airline customers behave differently.
    Let's start with the cardholder. Most consumers have a credit card, but travel co-branded cards are still a much smaller piece of the overall wallet. So, how big is the opportunity here, and how hard is it to get consumers to switch?
    Jeff Adelson: So, what's actually interesting, Ravi, is that travel co-branded cards are still relatively under-penetrated. In our survey, about 90 percent of cardholders have a general purpose card, while only about 22 percent have an airline card, and 12 percent have an hotel co-brand card. So, on the surface, the runway for growth does look significant.
    The upshot is also that once you get these consumers in the door, they are much higher spending and drive a ton of volume and incremental card economics for both the banks and their co-brand travel partners.
    The challenge is that consumers are pretty loyal to their cards or airlines that they already use, so most people aren't actively looking to switch. They tend to add a new card only when the value proposition is compelling enough. And sometimes given these one-time nature of the signup bonuses, it results in some churning without keeping the customer for the long term.
    So ultimately, what this all means is issuers and travel brands aren't just competing with each other, they're competing against habit. So, to win, they need to offer something that's meaningfully better than what's already in the consumer's wallet.
    Ravi Shanker: Got it. So, consumers seem to care most about value, fees, rates, and reward. Cashback still leads by a wide margin. So where do travel-specific rewards fit in?
    Jeff Adelson: The nuance here matters. Travel rewards don't need to win with everybody to be valuable. What makes them so powerful is they resonate with a specific group of customers, specifically the ones who are traveling – the frequent travelers, the ones who spend more, and those who engage more deeply with loyalty airline programs, for instance. For those consumers, lounge access, status benefits, upgrades, and airline or hotel points can create a level of engagement that's difficult for just a basic cashback card to replicate.
    The nuance here matters. Travel rewards don't need to win with everybody to be valuable. What makes them so powerful is they resonate with a specific group of customers, specifically the ones who are traveling – the frequent travelers, the ones who spend more, and those who engage more deeply with loyalty airline programs, for instance. For those consumers, lounge access, status benefits, upgrades, and airline or hotel points can create a level of engagement that's difficult for just a basic cashback card to replicate.
    Ravi Shanker: So, the premium consumer looks different. Why is that customer so important to card issuers?
    Jeff Adelson: So, higher income consumers frankly just spend a lot more. They're more loyal, they carry more cards, and they're more willing to pay a higher annual fee if they feel like they're getting the value from the card back after they pay that fee.
    In our survey, consumers earning over [$]150,000 per year of income spent roughly twice the amount on their primary card, and they were willing to pay almost twice the annual fee as other income cohorts. They're also attractive from a credit standpoint, from a, you know, delinquency perspective. These customers are more likely to pay their balances in full each month, and as a result, have lower credit risk. And often they keep long-standing relationships with their banks or their airline partner.
    That's why premium card and travel partnerships remain such an important customer acquisition tool for a bank. It has a really long lifetime value. The battle isn't really for the average card holder; it's for the affluent consumer who's driving a disproportionate share of spend in the U.S. economy.
    Ravi Shanker: Got it. So, the banks and travel brands are partners today. But they're also starting to potentially compete more directly for the same customer. What should investors watch to see whether this stays a partnership or becomes more of a tug-of-war?
    Jeff Adelson: So historically, this has been a successful partnership, especially in recent years as high-income consumer spending pie has grown in the U.S. How this works is airlines provide loyalty and travel experiences. Banks provide the card issuance, distribution scale, and share back those card economics to the airlines.
    Everybody wins when the travel spend grows. But we're starting to see some things overlap. Banks are building their own premium travel ecosystems. That includes things like flexible rewards points with the ability to transfer to any airline you want, proprietary lounges away from the airlines, and travel benefits that increasingly compete with airline loyalty programs.
    So, what investors should watch from here, in our view, are two things. Number one, is the high-income consumer and the travel pie continuing to grow? That's really what's held everything up and frankly, driven the airlines that you cover to realize that they hold this golden ticket. They hold the access to that consumer, so they've begun negotiating for more of the economics away from the card issuers.
    The second thing we think that you need to watch out for is whether consumers really continue to value these airline-specific rewards enough to justify the existing partnership model. Our survey indicated that most consumers still prefer flexible rewards over points tied to a single airline. But among frequent travelers and airline loyalists, the airline ecosystem does remain powerful.
    So, the future does seem to depend in part on whether these travel brands can continue to deliver on experiences that the consumers really can't get elsewhere.
    So, Ravi, maybe switching to you.
    For the airlines, the question I have for you is a little different. How do you turn loyalty into a durable, profitable revenue stream without losing sight of the core travel product?
    Ravi Shanker: That's exactly it. Kind of you referenced the strength of the travel ecosystem in your previous response, and I think that's exactly what the airlines need to focus on. I think the takeaways for the airlines from the survey is very clear.
    You cannot have a co-brand revenue opportunity in isolation. It is just a layer on top of your core revenues. You cannot build an incredible loyalty or co-brand franchise without having a very strong core airline product. The analogy we use in our report is that it's sort of like the restaurant business.
    Most restaurants usually make the bulk of their profitability off of the wine menu or the liquor menu, even though you're going there primarily for the food and the ambiance and the service. If you don't have really good food and ambiance and service, you can't make money off of the wine menu.
    Similarly, we think the airlines need to continue to focus on their core product, whether it's their network or their reliability, their safety, where they fly, the quality of the product in the sky, the lounges, as you mentioned. And once you get all of that in order, then you can tap into the co-brand revenue opportunity over time.
    Jeff Adelson: So maybe just running with that analogy on, you know, co-branded revenues becoming a more meaningful part of the airline business. Why are they so strategically important in your view? Why should the consumer pay for that bottle of wine that they can get?
    Ravi Shanker: Look, we, we don't have a full disclosure from the airlines just yet, but we have some nuggets that tell you that this is a very attractive revenue opportunity, right?
    So, look at some of the numbers we do have. We think that this business has been growing at a low double-digit CAGR for the industry, which is much faster than core revenue growth. We think it has already grown to be about low double-digit percentage of overall revenues. And from the little info we have, we can surmise that this is a very, very profitable business. Something in the order of 35-50 percent operating margins, if not much higher than that in an industry that is overall working really hard to get to double-digit margins on a core basis.
    So, this business can be about half of overall mid-cycle profitability, maybe even higher for some of the airlines, even though, it is considered to be an ancillary revenue stream. This is also a very, very stable business that doesn't exhibit the kind of cyclicality or volatility as the core passenger airline business. And so, we think the airlines will be looking to grow this for the margins, for the stability, and for the, honestly, growth opportunity over time.
    Jeff Adelson: And if we think about that opportunity growing over time, if consumers really do care more about tangible benefits than brand prestige, as I think our survey indicated, what does that mean for the airlines trying to build that loyalty through these card partnerships?
    Ravi Shanker: It's exactly as you mentioned, kind of, earlier – that we think both the banks and the airlines need to keep investing in the product. They need to keep giving the consumers enough rewards that make it seem worth the fees and worth the while to subscribe to a travel co-brand card – versus going with a more generic card that gives you just plain cash back.
    And I think, again, it comes down to whether the core airline product is strong enough for the consumer to warrant going down the path of building loyalty with the airline franchise. And if the consumer is committed to travel, as a share of the consumer's wallet significantly enough to commit to travel cards' benefits over generic benefits.
    We have a lot of confidence in the latter. In that all of our data, all of our surveys since the pandemic have shown that travel is now almost a consumer staple spending item rather than being a consumer discretionary spending item that it was before. And travel is now a significant spending priority – after only groceries and household staples for the average consumer. For the high-end consumer, it is the number one spending intent category.
    So, we know that travel is very important. Whether the airline is worth, kind of, committing to or not is very airline specific in our view.
    Jeff Adelson: So, if we put this all together and, you know, you think about your forecast for the industry and, you know, our joint forecast for the co-branded card revenues…
    Ravi Shanker: Mm-hmm.
    Jeff Adelson: Maybe just talk a little bit about how you think those revenues keep growing so strongly, or whether they continue to grow strongly. Or is there a risk that this all plateaus at some point in the near future?
    Ravi Shanker: Look, that's a great question, and that's why we highlight three possible scenarios in the report.
    In our base case, we have the industry growing at roughly the same double-digit CAGR that it has been for the last few years. That sees the market go from about $25 billion today to about [$]60 billion in the next 10 years.
    In our bull case, we have travel as a share of overall spending, and travel cards as a percentage of overall credit card issuance, which you highlighted earlier was a pretty low number, actually expand to something more reasonable. And that's where we see the potential for the market almost quadrupling from $25 billion today to [$]100 billion in the next 10 years. And our bear case, kind of that's when you talk about a macro risk. Second, maybe some kind of slowing down in travel as a spending priority, which we actually don't think happens.
    But what's more likely is the point you referenced earlier, in response to my question about the relationship between the airlines and the hotel companies versus the credit card issuers may be changing a little bit. And this becoming a little more of a free-for-all in the industry and a little more competitive. That could potentially, kind of, hurt the economics for the overall industry, even though the size of the pie will continue to grow.
    So that brings us back to the consumer's wallet. So, every time I'm on a trip, I have several options – maybe a cashback card, maybe a premium travel card, maybe an airliner hotel co-brand card. So, which one am I reaching for every time I look to swipe?
    Jeff Adelson: Well, I mean, I think at its core, it really depends. It's a battle at the end of the day for the loyalty of a high quality, sticky and heavy spending consumer. And consumers are largely rational, right? So, they're going to go with a card where they think they get the best value. And if that's their airline card where they think they can accrue the best loyalty status and maybe get their first class upgrade every now and then and get unlimited access to the lounges, maybe they'll choose that.
    But really in a survey what we learned was most consumers tell us they care about value, flexibility and rewards. So, the highest value consumers I just mentioned are also looking for experiences, convenience and status.
    So that's why the banks, airlines and hotels are all investing so aggressively in these premium ecosystems to try to lock them in and keep them loyal. Every swipe is really a vote for which ecosystem delivers the most value if you think about it, right?
    The winner isn't necessarily the company with the best card too. It's the company that creates so much of the strongest overall relationship with the consumer. And that's why this competition matters so much across banking, travel and hospitality.
    So, we are watching this competition. So far, it's working. It's a rising tide that's lifting all boats. But as I mentioned before, it really will only continue to work if our forecasts are right and the high-income consumer views this as less of a discretionary spend item and more of a stable spend item. And, if that pie, and the high-income consumer, continues to grow in the U.S., then this relationship can continue to work for the foreseeable future, we think.
    Ravi Shanker: That makes a ton of sense. Jeff, thanks so much for joining me on the show today.
    Jeff Adelson: Thanks, Ravi. It was my pleasure.
    Ravi Shanker: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts and share with a friend or colleague today.
  • Thoughts on the Market

    Asia’s Race to Power AI

    09-06-2026 | 4 Min.
    As AI demand surges, our Asia Energy Analyst Mayank Maheshwari discusses the new multi-trillion-dollar investment cycle to secure the power, fuels, grids and storage that keep modern life running.
    Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

    ----- Transcript -----

    Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s Asia Energy analyst.
    Today: how AI’s rapid growth is forcing Asia into a massive energy buildout across power grids, fuels, storage and dependable energy and power generation.
    It’s Tuesday, June 9th at 8am in Singapore.
    Every time you ask AI to draft a note, summarize a file, plan a trip or generate an image, the response feels instant and easy. But behind it sits a very physical system: data centers, electricity, cooling, fuel, metals, power lines, storage tanks and ships.
    There is no AI without energy. And in Asia, the power and energy needs could get much bigger. And right now, we are at a critical inflection point where energy, AI, and security converge into [a] once-in-a-generation investment cycle.
    We see a super cycle with $5 trillion plus in new investments in energy over next five years, almost double of what we have seen in the past decade. And this has global implications as Asia consumes almost half of the world's energy needs – but produces only about a third of it at home. Energy markets may be global, but energy insecurity is local. It shows up in electricity prices, fuel shortages, factory delays, food supply pressure and household budgets.
    By 2030, Asia’s energy use could rise by about 38 exajoules. That increase is roughly equal to all the energy the Middle East consumes today. Power demand alone could reach about 19 trillion units a year when expressed in kilowatt-hours. That is around four trillion more units of electricity usage than in 2025, driven by data centers, industry, and onshoring of businesses.
    AI is now part of that demand story. By 2030, data centers could use roughly one-sixth of all new power units in Asia. That makes AI a major new load on the power system.
    Meeting this demand requires a major investment cycle. Asia’s annual energy investment could rise to roughly US$1.1 trillion a year over the next five years. Much of that spending goes into the power system itself: generation, grids, storage and the equipment needed to connect everything.
    Grids may be the biggest bottleneck. Think of [the] grid as the highway system for electricity. You can build more power plants, but if the roads clog up, the power does not reach homes, factories or data centers. Asia’s grid investment needs could reach close to about US$1 trillion by 2030. Transformer lead times have stretched to years in some cases, which shows how tight the equipment supply chain has become.
    The hardest part is keeping the lights on every hour of the day. Baseload power means electricity that can run around the clock. Asia is adding a large amount of renewable power to its energy infrastructure. But that source depends on when the sun shines or the wind blows. That is why coal, gas and nuclear remain part of the conversation.
    Storage also moves from useful to essential. Batteries help smooth out renewable power demand when supply rises and falls during the day. Global energy storage installations could rise from about 500 gigawatt hours in 2025 to around 3,000 gigawatt hours in 2030.
    Powering AI also reaches beyond electricity. Data centers need power, but the system around them needs dependable fuels, grids, batteries, metals, refining, storage and shipping. Electricity has to be generated, moved, backed up and supplied through physical infrastructure. That is why this story pulls in copper and aluminum for grids, fuel refining for transport and petrochemical supply chains, and fertilizers because energy security also connects to food security.
    The future may look digital, but it will be powered by something far more physical: the largest energy buildout Asia has seen in decades.
    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.
  • Thoughts on the Market

    The High Cost of AI Memory

    08-06-2026 | 4 Min.
    The Head of our Europe and Asia Technology Team, Shawn Kim, explains how AI’s appetite for memory chips is boosting the cost of everything from data centers to smartphones, with consequences that may reach far beyond the tech industry.
    Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

    ----- Transcript -----

    Shawn Kim: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Europe and Asia Technology Team.
    Today, we’re talking about chipflation – when memory chips stop getting cheaper over time, and become more expensive and even harder to find.
    It’s Monday, June 8th, at 3pm in London.
    Memory chips are easy to ignore, until your laptop slows down, your phone costs more, or your cloud bill jumps.
    Memory is the computer’s workspace. It holds whatever the machine needs at that moment, whether that is a web search, a video, a spreadsheet, or an AI model answering a question. DRAM is the fast memory inside servers, PCs and phones. NAND is what stores files in solid-state drives. And HBM, or high bandwidth memory, is the high-performance version sitting right next to the AI chip, helping them move huge amounts of data quickly.
    That last one – HBM – is key because AI has become intensely memory hungry. Memory prices have risen more than six-fold over the last year, a sharp break from decades when the cost of DRAM generally kept falling.
    The pressure is coming from AI infrastructure buildouts. We see servers accounting for 59 percent of DRAM demand by 2028, up from 37 percent in 2023. We also see enterprise solid-state drives reaching 65 percent of NAND demand, up from 18 percent. And simply put, data centers are taking a much bigger share of the memory pie.
    AI memory use is climbing fast, and at every scale. A newer AI chip uses 7.2 times more HBM than earlier generations. A full system uses about 65 times more. Across an entire AI data center buildout, the jump gets even bigger. HBM has gone from roughly 10 terabytes in 2020 to about 18 petabytes in 2026, orders of magnitude more.
    This demand is running into a supply chain that cannot respond quickly. New memory capacity takes years to build, qualify and ramp up. Supply relief is a process, not a switch. And that creates a two-tier market. Large AI and cloud buyers can sign long-term agreements, prepay and secure priority access. Traditional buyers, including PC makers, smartphone makers and industrial hardware companies, must compete for what remains.
    This impacts everyday products. In 2027, we see PC memory demand potentially facing a 15 percent shortfall, equivalent to about 58 million PCs. Smartphones could face a 12 percent shortfall, equivalent to about 134 million units. Companies may have to raise prices, cut specifications, delay launches, and accept lower profits.
    The dollar numbers are striking. We see the memory market growing from about $220 USD billion in 2025 to about $890 billion in 2026. Expectations for 2026 memory revenue rose 71 percent in just three months. That implies roughly $600 USD billion of incremental memory revenue in 2026, more than the annual market for smartphones, PCs, or servers, each taken on its own.
    The broader economy may not see a significant direct inflation shock. We estimate the direct impact on headline CPI at about 0.1 percent in 2026. But pressure is showing up in producer prices, in corporate margins, cloud costs, capital spending plans and delayed technology upgrades.
    AI has turned memory from the cheapest part of the digital economy into one of its most contested resources. These tiny chips most people never think of may now decide what gets built or delayed, and how much we all end up paying.
    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.
  • Thoughts on the Market

    What New Tariffs Mean for Investors

    05-06-2026 | 4 Min.
    Trade policy is once again in the news with the announcement of new tariffs. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore digs into why tariffs may not be a disruptive factor for markets this time.
    Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

    ----- Transcript -----

    Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley.
    Today, I'll be talking about how investors should be digesting the latest tariff headlines and what they could mean for the broader economic and market outlook.
    It's Friday, June 5th at 10am in New York.
    Tariffs are back in focus as the U.S. administration has proposed new levies following Section 301 investigations into more than 60 of our trading partners. At the same time, USMCA negotiations appear to have begun in earnest, with recent headlines focused on autos, including the possibility of raising regional content requirements for vehicles and auto parts.
    Now, at first glance, these developments sound like a meaningful escalation in trade policy. But we think these headlines are best understood as a continuation of the existing tariff regime rather than a new and more disruptive phase.
    Let's start with Section 301. Listeners may recall that the administration replaced the IEEPA tariffs with Section 122 following the Supreme Court's decision back in February. However, that was done under a temporary authority that expires in the end of July. It's been our view that as we approach that deadline, the administration would seek to replace the existing regime under a new authority.
    The conclusion of the Section 301 investigations is really a step in that direction; or said differently, a continuation of existing policy. We see the administration preserving the current tariff regime come July, but without a larger inflation or growth shock.
    The second issue is the USMCA. Raising regional content rules may be part of the negotiation now, and those changes could create sector-level friction. Similarly, we think it's possible we see escalation ahead of the July deadline as all three countries work to improve the existing trade deal.
    Now that being said, we're still constructive on the longer-term trade alignment between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, and we see structural and procedural constraints that are going to limit the downside risk to something like a potential withdrawal from the agreement.
    We still expect the USMCA carve-out to remain in place even for Section 301 goods on a range of trading partners. That's because we think the administration sees value in maintaining supply chain integration within North America across a number of sectors. In general, we actually think the recent pattern on tariffs has been toward less, not more, trade pressure at the margin.
    Recent months have come with several carve-outs, exemptions, and delays on broad-based and sectoral tariffs. That suggests that the administration is still sensitive to the downstream cost impact of tariffs, and of course, affordability matters politically heading into the midterm elections in November.
    That view also fits with our broader U.S. economics outlook. Our economists continue to see a relatively benign macro backdrop. Growth is expected to remain trend-like, with consumer spending slowing but not collapsing, and strong AI-led CapEx offsetting some of the drag from higher energy prices and policy uncertainty.
    On inflation, tariffs remain part of the story, but much of the pass-through appears to be already in the data. That pairs with a more constructive outlook for equity markets as well, as our strategists there see a strong earnings story supported by things like positive operating leverage, AI adoption, improving pricing power, and a broadening out in earnings growth.
    So, the key message for investors is this: tariff policy is still noisy, and it will remain a source of headline risk. But in our base case, the administration is moving toward a more durable version of the current tariff regime, not a materially more disruptive or restrictive one. Section 301 replaces Section 122, the USMCA carve-out stays in place, and selective exemptions continue where the affordability or supply chain costs are too high.
    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.
  • Thoughts on the Market

    Why Oil Supply May Stay Tight for Months

    04-06-2026 | 4 Min.
    Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses why the restart of oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz may be slower and tighter than the market expects.
    Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

    ----- Transcript -----

    Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Today – how fast can Middle East production return?
    It is Thursday, June the 4th, at 3pm in London.
    Every time you pull into a gas station, those prices are staring back at you. What you see at the pump is just the front end of a global system we’ve been watching for months: tankers, storage, insurance, and shipping lanes, all still constrained by the Strait of Hormuz. But while prices at the pump are still high, Brent has actually fallen back to around about $92 a barrel.
    In inflation-adjusted terms, today’s Brent price is actually right at the 50th percentile of the last 20 years – suggesting that the market is assuming a clean, near-term recovery in supply. Yet the disruption continues to be extraordinary. Roughly 11 million barrels per day of Gulf crude remains offline, close to half the region’s pre-conflict output.
    We think the market may be too optimistic. Our working assumption is now that meaningful export recovery through the strait begins only in the second half of July. Even then, normal does not return with the flip of a switch.
    First, ships need to be willing to sail. Owners and insurers need confidence that the waterway is safe. If mines remain in traditional shipping lanes, the strait can be technically open but still operate at reduced capacity. Clearing that risk can take weeks, and potentially several months.
    Second, the tanker fleet is in the wrong place. When ships cannot work in the Gulf, they move elsewhere. Bringing enough empty tankers back to lift crude takes time.
    Third, storage is a limiting factor. Oilfields cannot restart if export tanks are full. For producers that rely heavily on seaborne exports, empty tankers are therefore essential.
    Last, oilfields themselves need restarting. Before the closure, around 36,000 wells were active across six Gulf producers. Roughly 10,000 of those are currently offline. After a shut-in of nearly five months, about 4,000 to 5,000 wells could face restart constraints. Reservoir pressure can decline, equipment can fail after sitting idle, and flowlines need cleaning and safety checks.
    All told, around 75 percent of lost supply can probably come back within four months after flows through the Strait of Hormuz resume. But the final 25 percent may take well into 2027.
    So why have prices not moved more? The market began this shock with buffers. Inventories were elevated, oil-on-water was high, and emergency relief releases helped. The U.S. increased seaborne net exports of crude oil and refined products from roughly 5 million barrels a day to 9 million barrels a day. At the same time, China’s seaborne net oil imports fell from around 13 million barrels a day a year ago to just over 7.5 million a day over the last 30 days.
    But these cushions are thinning. Strategic reserve releases are scheduled to drop from about 2.5 million barrels per day in April through June to about 0.7 million in July and August. U.S. gasoline and diesel inventories are already well below five-year seasonal lows. China is already on track for five consecutive months of unusually low crude buying for April through August delivery. But that starts to raise the probability that Chinese buyers return for September barrels. Buying for September typically starts mid to late June.
    Now, oil is trading like the disruption is nearly over. But at the same time, the physical system is telling a slower story. Prices may look calm on the screen, but the bottleneck is in tankers, storage tanks, wells, and crews.
    Our Brent forecasts remain $110 per barrel for the second quarter and about $100 a barrel for the third quarter. We recently raised our estimates for the fourth quarter to $95 and the first quarter of 2027 to $85 a barrel, and expect a return to $80 eventually thereafter.
    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.
Meer Investeren podcasts
Over Thoughts on the Market
Short, thoughtful and regular takes on recent events in the markets from a variety of perspectives and voices within Morgan Stanley.
Podcast website

Luister naar Thoughts on the Market, Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy en vele andere podcasts van over de hele wereld met de radio.net-app

Ontvang de gratis radio.net app

  • Zenders en podcasts om te bookmarken
  • Streamen via Wi-Fi of Bluetooth
  • Ondersteunt Carplay & Android Auto
  • Veel andere app-functies
Thoughts on the Market: Podcasts in familie