Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why the legal confusion over U.S. tariffs plus the pending U.S. budget bill equals a revived focus on interest rates for investors. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to revisit a theme that was topical in January and has become so again. How much of a problem are higher interest rates? It's Friday, May 30th at 2pm in London. If it wasn't so serious, it might be a little funny. This year, markets fell quickly as the U.S. imposed tariffs. And then markets rose quickly as many of those same tariffs were paused or reversed. So, what's next? Many tariffs are technically just paused and so are scheduled to resume; and overall tariff rates, even after recent reductions towards China, are still historically high. The economic data that would really reflect the impact of recent events, well, it simply hasn't been reported yet. In short, there is still significant uncertainty around the near-term path for U.S. growth. But for all of our tariff weary listeners, let's pretend for a moment that tariffs are now on the back burner. And if that's the case, interest rates are coming back into focus. First, lower tariffs could mean stronger growth and thus higher interest rates, all else equal. But also importantly, current budget proposals in the U.S. Congress significantly increase government borrowing, which could also raise interest rates. If current proposals were to become permanent. for example, they could add an additional [$]15 trillion to the national debt over the next 30 years, over and above what was expected to happen per analysis from Yale University. Recall that prior to tariffs dominating the market conversation, it was this issue of interest rates and government borrowing that had the market's attention in January. And then, as today, it's this 30-year perspective that is under the most scrutiny. U.S. 30-year government bond yields briefly touched 5 percent on January 14th and returned there quite recently. This represents some of the highest yields for long-term U.S. borrowing seen in the last two decades. Those higher yields represent higher costs that must ultimately be borne by the U.S. government, but they also represent a yardstick against which all other investments are measured. If you can earn 5 percent per year long term in a safe U.S. government bond, how does that impact the return you require to invest in something riskier over that long run – from equities to an office building. I think some numbers here are also quite useful. Investing $10,000 today at 5 percent would leave you with about $43,000 in 30 years. And so that is the hurdle rate against which all long-term investments or now being measured. Of course, many other factors can impact the performance of those other assets. U.S. stocks, in fairness, have returned well over 5 percent over a long period of time. But one winner in our view will be intermediate and longer-term investment grade bonds. With high yields on these instruments, we think there will be healthy demand. At the same time, those same high yields representing higher costs for companies to borrow over the long term may mean we see less supply. 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 tell a friend or colleague about us today.

After the federal court’s ruling against Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, and an appeals court’s temporary stay of that ruling, our analysts Michael Zezas and Michael Gapen discuss how the administration could retain the tariffs and what this means for the U.S. economy. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Today, the latest on President Trump's tariffs. It's Thursday, May 29th at 5pm  in New York. So, Mike, on Wednesday night, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down President Trump's reciprocal tariffs. This ruling certainly seems like a fresh roadblock for the administration. Michael Zezas: Yeah, that's right. But a quick word of caution. That doesn't mean we're supposed to conclude that the recent tariff hikes are a thing of the past. I think investors need to be aware that there's many plausible paths to keeping these tariffs exactly where they are right now. Michael Zezas: First, while the administration is appealing this decision, the tariffs can stay in place. But even if courts ultimately rule against the Trump administration, there are other types of legal authorities that they can bring to bear to make sure that the tariff levels that are currently applied endure. So, what the court said the administration had done improperly was levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). And there's been active debate all along amongst legal scholars about if this was the right law to justify those tariff levies. And so, there's always the possibility of court challenges. But what the administration could do, if the courts continue to uphold the lower court's ruling, is basically leverage other legal authorities to continue these tariffs. They could use Section 122 as a temporary authority to levy the 10 percent tariffs that were part of this kind of global tariff, following the reciprocal trade announcement. They also could use the existing Section 301 authority that was used to create tariffs on China in 2018 and 2019, and extend that across of all China imports; and therefore, fill in the gap that would be lost by not being able to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to tariff some of China's imports. So bottom line, there's lots of different legal paths to keep tariffs where they are across the set of goods that they're already applied to. Michael Gapen: So, I think that makes a lot of sense. And with all that said, where do you think we stand right now with tariffs? Michael Zezas: So, if the court ruling were to stand then the 10 percent tariffs on all imports that the U.S. is currently levying, that would have to go away. The 30 percent tariffs on roughly half of China imports, that would've to go away. And the 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico around fentanyl, that would have to go away as well. What you'd be left with effectively is anything levied under section 232 or 301. So that's basically steel, aluminum, automobile tariffs. And tariffs on the roughly half of China imports that were started in 2018 and 2019. But as we said earlier, there's lots of different ways that the authority can be brought to bear to make sure that that 10 percent import tariff globally is continued as well as the incremental tariffs on China. But Michael, turning to you on the U.S. economy, what’s your reaction to the court's ruling? It seems like we're just going to have a continuation of existing tariff policy, but is there something else that investors need to consider here? Michael Gapen: Well, I'm not a trade lawyer. I'm not entirely surprised by the ruling. It did seem to exceed what I'll call the general parameters of the law, and it wasn't what we – as a research group and a research team – were thinking was the most likely path for tariffs coming into the year, as you mentioned. And as we, as a group wrote, we thought that they would rely mainly on section 301 and 232 authority, which would mean tariffs would ramp up much more slowly. And that's what we had put into our original outlook coming into the year. We didn't have the effective tariff rate reaching 8 to 9 percent until around the middle of 2026. So, it reflected the fact that it would take effort and time for the administration to put its plans on tariffs in into place. So, I think this decision kind of shifts our views back in that direction. And by that I mean, we originally thought most of 2025 would be about getting the tariff structure in place. And therefore, the effects of tariffs would be hitting the economy mainly in 2026. We obviously revise things where tariffs would weigh on activity in 2025 and postpone Fed cuts into 2026. So, I think what it does for the moment is maybe tilts risks back in the other direction. But as you say, it's just a matter of time that there appears to be enough legal authority here for the administration to implement their desires on trade policy and tariff policy. So, I'm not sure this changes a lot in terms of where we think the economy's going. So, I'm not entirely surprised by the decision, but I'm not sure that the decision means a lot for how we think about the U.S. economy. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, the upshot there is – really no change from your perspective on the outlook for growth, for inflation or for Fed policy. Is that fair? Michael Gapen: That's right. So, it's still a slow growth, sticky inflation, patient Fed. It's just we're kind of moving around when that materializes. We pulled it into 2025 given the abrupt increase in in tariffs and the use of the IEEPA authority. And now it probably would come later if the lower court ruling stands. Michael Zezas: Right. So, sticking with the Fed. Several Fed speakers took to the airwaves last week, and it sounds like the Fed is still waiting for some of these public policy changes to have an effect on the real economy before they react. Is that a fair way to characterize it? And what are you watching at this point in terms of what determines your expectations for the Fed's policy path from here? Michael Gapen: Yeah, that's right. And I think, given that the appeals court has allowed the tariffs to stay in place as they review the lower court, the trade court's ruling, I think the Fed right now would say: Okay, status quo, nothing has changed. So, what does that mean? And what the Fed speakers said last week, and it also appeared in the minutes, is that the Fed expects that tariffs will do two things with respect to the Fed's mandate. It'll push inflation higher and puts risks around unemployment higher, right? So, the Fed is offsides, or likely to be offsides on both sides of its mandate. So, what Fed speakers have been saying is, well, when this happens, we will react to whichever side of the mandate we're furthest from our target. And their forecasts seem to say and are pretty consistent with ours, that the Fed expects inflation to rise first, but the labor market to soften later. So, what that means for our expectations for the Fed's policy path is they're likely to be on hold as they evaluate that inflation shock. And we'll keep the policy rate where it is to ensure that inflation expectations are stable. And then as the economy moderates and the labor market softens, then they can turn to cuts. But we don't think that happens until 2026. So, I don't think the ruling yesterday and the appeal process initiated today changes that. For now, the tariffs are still in place. The Fed's message is it's going to take us at least until probably September, if not later, to figure out which way we should move. Moving later and right is preferable for them than moving earlier and wrong. Michael Zezas: Got it. So bottom line, from our perspective, this court case was a big deal. However, because the administration has a lot of options to keep tariffs going in the direction that they want, not too much has really changed with our expectations for the outlook for either the tariff path and it's not going to fix to the economy. Michael Gapen: That’s right. That's, I think what we know today. And we'll have to see how things evolve. Michael Zezas: Yep. They seem to be evolving every day. Mike, thanks for speaking with me. Michael Gapen: Thank you, Mike. It's been a pleasure. And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research & Public Policy Strategy, Michael Zezas, shares the answers to clients’ top U.S. policy questions from Morgan Stanley’s Japan Investor Summit. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research & Public Policy Strategy. Today, takeaways from our Japan Investor Summit.  It’s Wednesday, May 28th at 10:30am in New York.  Last week, I attended our Japan Investor Summit in Tokyo: Two full days of panels on key investment themes and one-on-one meetings with clients from all parts of the Morgan Stanley franchise. During the meeting, Morgan Stanley Research launched its mid year economics and market strategy outlooks. So needless to say there was a healthy dialogue on investment strategy over those 48 hours. And I want to share what were the most frequent questions I received and, of course, our answers to those questions.   As you could guess, U.S. tariff policy was a key focus. Could tariffs re-escalate? Or was the worst behind us; and if so, could investors set aside their concerns about the U.S. economy? It’s a complicated issue so accordingly our answer is nuanced. On the one hand, the current state of play is mostly aligned where we thought tariff policy would be by end of year. It’s just arrived much earlier. Higher overall U.S. tariffs with a skew toward higher tariffs on China relative to the rest of world, as the U.S. has less common ground with them and thus greater challenges in reaching a trade agreement with China in a timely manner. So that might imply we’ve arrived at the end point. But we think that’s too simple of a way for investors to think about it.  First there’s plenty of potential for escalation from current levels as part of ongoing negotiations. And even if it’s only temporary it could affect markets. Second, and perhaps more importantly, even though the U.S. cutting tariffs on China from very high levels recently brought down the effective tariff rate, it’s still considerably higher than where we started the year. So one’s market outlook will still have to account for the pressures of tariffs, which our economists translate into slower growth and higher recession risk this year.   Another key concern – U.S. fiscal policy, and whether the U.S. would be embarking on a path to smaller deficits, in line with campaign promises. Or if the tax and spending bill making its way through Congress would keep that from happening. For investors we think it’s most important to focus on the next year, because what happens beyond that is highly speculative. And we do not expect deficits to come down in the next year. Extending expiring tax cuts, and extending some new ones, albeit with some spending offsets, should modestly expand the deficit next year in our estimates; and some further deficit expansion should come from other factors baked into the budget, like higher interest payments.   It's understandable these two questions came up, because we do think the answers are key to the outlook for markets. In particular, they inform some of the stronger views in our markets’ outlook. For example, slower relative U.S. growth and the related potential for foreign investors to increasingly prefer their portfolios reflect their local currency should keep the U.S. dollar weakening – a key call our team started this year with and now continues. Another example, the shape of the U.S. Treasury yield curve. Higher deficits and the uncertainty about inflation caused by tariffs should make for a steeper yield curve. So while we expect U.S. Treasury yields to fall, making for good returns for high grade bonds including corporate credit, the better returns might be in shorter maturities.   Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And if you like what you hear, tell a friend or a colleague about us today.