Thoughts on the Market

First-time homebuyers may get short windows of relief, but our co-head of Securitized Products Research James Egan and Senior Economist and Strategist in Morgan Stanley's Private Wealth Management Sarah Wolfe say the bigger story is a housing market resetting around a higher bar to entry.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Housing Strategist and Co-Head of Securitized Products Strategy.
Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, Senior Economist and Strategist within Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.
James Egan: And today, why first-time homebuyers are facing a tougher path to ownership.
It's Tuesday, June 23rd at 10am in New York.
Buying a first-time home has always been a big step, but for a growing number of first-time buyers today, the goal can really seem insurmountable.
Mortgage rates might be down from where they were in the second half of 2023, but they're significantly higher than they were for the several years before that. Monthly payments have roughly doubled for a median-priced home. And my colleague Jay Bacow and I have talked several times on this podcast about how many homeowners feel like they're locked into those lower rates.
And they're staying put because they just don't want to give up a two or three-handle mortgage rate for something that has a six in front of it. But Sarah, as we know, this is bigger than just first-time buyers. Now, they often start the housing transaction chain, and when they can't buy, current owners may not be able to sell and trade up.
That slows turnover across the market, and it also reduces activity tied to housing – from mortgages and renovations to moving and furniture. And it can keep would-be buyers renting for longer, which adds pressure to rental demand.
So, how do you see this situation? Is this just another affordability squeeze, or has the housing market reset to a higher barrier to entry?
Sarah Wolfe: I do think that we're on the upper bound of affordability pressures. This is about as bad as it's going to get. But as we discussed in our recent publication of The Economy Explained, unfortunately, we do think that the housing market is resetting at a structurally higher barrier to entry. There's a lot of reasons for that.
The first is higher interest rates. Yes, mortgage rates are sitting around 6.5 percent, and they should come down from here, but maybe not better than 5.5 percent, right, in an optimistic scenario. The second is demographic pressures. Remember, we have this tremendous aging population of baby boomers. All of their children are now entering their prime home-buying years, so there's a lot of demand for ownership.
The third and fourth ones are land regulation and permitting, which is at the state and local level, really hard to change. And the last one is climate risk. It's just raising insurance pricing and making it much more difficult to buy a home.
So overall, we see a world where, yes, mortgage rates come down a bit, improve affordability marginally, but we think neutral and other interest rates at the longer end of the curve are going to be higher than the post-financial crisis period. And what we're going to see is that those forces are going to widen the divide between who can own a home and who cannot. And who gains from that wealth accumulation and who does not.
James Egan: Right. So now, you mentioned where mortgage rates are today, above that 6 percent rate. Rates did briefly – in February, we got below 6 percent before they bounced back up here. Why did that short-lived relief matter so much?
Sarah Wolfe: I think that short-lived relief showed us that moves in the mortgage rate make a difference, but things are so unaffordable that it didn't make that much of a difference.
So, the dip below 6 percent was very exciting. It happened this past February. It was the first time that mortgage rates fell below 6 percent since 2022, and we saw a few things happen. First, it lowered the monthly payment for first-time homebuyers from about two point two thousand dollars a month to one point nine thousand.
So makes a bit of a difference. And it lowered the share of income that goes towards monthly mortgage payments from about 26 percent of income to 22 percent, from peak to trough. So, that is a notable improvement. But what we saw in the new home sales data and the existing home sales data, that it did not drive people back into the housing market.
I want to turn it back to you though, Jim, because you've actually done a lot of interesting work on this. And how this change in mortgage rates has changed the monthly cost that people have to pay for a median-priced home. Can you tell us a little bit more?
James Egan: Sure. So, we talk about the lock-in effect a lot, and it's kind of easy to point to: Well, there are a lot of people with mortgage rates that are around 3 percent or 3.5 percent, and the prevailing rate's at 6 percent, and that's a lot higher, so they're locked in.
But when we look at the actual numbers in terms of what we're asking a homeowner to do – to list their home for sale and move to another home today, pay off that existing mortgage, take out a new one. When you take into account how much higher home prices are today…
You bought a home in 2016, for instance, right? Let's assume you refinanced in 2020 or 2021 if you still live there, right? Most homeowners did. So, you've actually taken your monthly payment, and it is lower today than it was when you bought your home in 2016. If we assume that your income has risen alongside just median household income over that time period, your monthly payment as a share of your income today is probably sub 8 percent.
If you bought over the past three years, your monthly payment is a share of your income. You mentioned some numbers earlier. It's low to mid 20 percent. From a dollar amount perspective, if you were to pay off that 2016 mortgage, as an example, and take out one today, your payment is probably [$]13[00] or $1400 higher. It's like a 200 percent increase. That's very difficult economically for a lot of households, and that's the kind of physical manifestation of that lock-in effect.
Now, Sarah, given this significant change in housing math, what does that mean for who is actually able to buy in this market?
Sarah Wolfe: It's making who's able to buy into the market a lot more selective. So, what we're seeing is that first-time home buyers today are actually not meaningfully older. They're still about 36 years old, but they are a much more selective group financially. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York put out a great analysis on this recently, and they basically found that the first-time home buyer profile today is taking out a mortgage that's nearly $350,000, compared to $240,000 in 2019 and $200,000, a decade ago. So, significant increase in mortgage balances.
At the same time, credit standards have tightened significantly, so that average credit score to get a mortgage has risen quite a bit over the last 5 to 10 years. And what this is doing is it's shifting who can buy and also where they can buy. So, we're seeing higher-quality home buyers moving to lower-income zip codes. So, buying cheaper homes in lower-income metro areas, and so it's wealthier buyers in lower-income areas.
And that's the really big shift that we're seeing. It's a demand resorting story. And what we're also seeing, and we hear this a lot when we talk to our financial advisors and their clients, is that family is increasingly helping their other family members put that down payment down; in particular, parents helping their children buy that first home.
So, we're seeing that first-time buyers may be feeling this pressure, right, when it comes to rates. How much of this affordability issue, though, is being driven by the locked-in effect specifically?
James Egan: So, look, it's clearly playing a role. We just talked about some of the math behind that. But then when you look at what that means on a nationwide basis when it comes to inventory, when it comes to so many other aspects of this, that homeowner who's unwilling to give up that lower mortgage rate, that lower payment, right, their homes are off the market.
Existing inventories for sale, they've picked up from historic lows in 2023, but they're still very, very low on a long-run basis. The fewer homes there are for sale, the more upward pressure or the absence of downward pressure that's going to put on home prices, right?
We saw affordability plummet in 2022 and 2023 when rates backed up. We saw existing home sales really, really come down as a result. But home prices remained at record highs. They continued to set new record highs. For home prices to actually come down, right, you need people who are willing to sell at lower home prices.
Sarah, you just mentioned that lending standards themselves remain tight.
Sarah Wolfe: Mm-hmm.
James Egan: Those forced sales, those tend to be distressed transactions. We don't see that distress in the market providing the inventory and the motivated inventory to lead to softer home prices. So, it's really that lack of inventory which we think is in large part driven by the lock-in effect that's kept home prices. And as a result, that piece of the affordability equation kind of stuck at these higher levels.
Sarah Wolfe: I mean, it's really this vicious cycle, the locked-in effect making it difficult for entry-level buyers to get into the market – and then fewer existing homeowners sell or trade up or relocate. So, on and on it goes.
Are there broader implications of this freeze?
James Egan: Right. So, we just talked about what that means from an inventory perspective. And then if you think about affordability remaining challenged, lending standards themselves remaining tight, inventory remaining as low as it is, you could argue that we're at one of the more difficult times that we've seen for renters to exit rentership and step into homeownership.
Now, there's a lot of different things that drive rent growth, and the fact that you have a stuck renter is just one of them. The other side of that equation can be the supply of rental units, right? So that's just a piece of the equation.
But those are some of the externalities that we think about when it comes to how the tightness of the housing market – what the lock-in effect and what affordability is doing there. But outside of the housing market, Sarah, the wider economy, like how do these housing costs play a role there?
Sarah Wolfe: Massive effect. Some of the work that we've done shows that housing affordability is the number one driver pushing down fertility rates in America. The number one driver. Above childcare costs, above finding a partner, finding a good job. It's housing affordability. So, you could see how that could pretty significantly ripple through the broader economy.
But there's other components, right? So, as we discussed earlier, it's driving migration from unaffordable areas to more affordable regions. That has significant implications. And then putting my consumer economist hat on, as we discussed earlier in the podcast, when people buy a home, they tie themselves to that home. They spend money on couches, on beds, on TVs, right? Durable goods. And if we're going to have more people as renters for longer, that's going to expand the services economy at the expense of the goods economy.
All right. Let's take a step back and think about where this is all going. It hasn't been a very optimistic conversation. Jim, what is the outlook for affordability in your view? Do we get anywhere back to the post-financial crisis period or even the pre-financial crisis period?
James Egan: When it comes to the outlook for mortgage rates, the outlook for affordability, the outlook for the U.S. housing market – look, we just, throughout Morgan Stanley Research and Strategy, published our 2026 major outlook. From now through the end of 2027, we don't have conventional mortgage rates getting below 6 percent.
We do have affordability improving on the margins. We have income growth exceeding home price appreciation that makes it a little bit better, but that doesn't get us back to the post-GFC affordability era, which was very, very affordable. Looking back over the past several decades, it gets us closer to where we were pre-GFC, not all the way back there.
But when we think about how that ripples through the housing market and how we think about that evolving from here, look, we do think that the state of mortgage credit availability means there will be a lack of distress. We think that while affordability itself may be challenged and inventories may be low, there is some level of housing activity that has to occur regardless of where mortgage rates are or affordability is.
We think we found that level. We think there's support for home sales at these current levels, and that combination of support for home sales, lack of inventory, means that home prices, very little room for them to grow from here. But we think they're going to be pretty supported.
So, from a housing market perspective, at a ten-thousand-foot view, we're calling it 1-2 percent growth in sales, in home prices, well-supported. But the affordability outlook that we've outlined throughout this podcast – challenged to see a lot of acceleration.
Now, when we pull it back to the first-time home buyer, based on our conversation, it seems that the key question is becoming less about when to buy, more about who can still afford to enter the market.
But Sarah, it's really been great talking with you about the housing market today.
Sarah Wolfe: It was great speaking with you, Jim.
James Egan: 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.
***
Sarah Wolfe is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson reacts to Kevin Warsh’s first Fed meeting, explaining why the new chair’s credibility may require letting markets experience some short-term pain.
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 my views on the New Fed Chair and how to interpret his FOMC meeting last week.
It's Monday, June 22nd at 11:30 am in New York.
So, let’s get after it.
I want to spend today on what I think was one of the more important market events of the year so far. Kevin Warsh’s first Fed meeting as the Chair. Specifically, he is trying to fortify credibility at a very delicate moment. The economy is stronger than many expected. Inflation is still running above target. And markets have become accustomed to central banks telling them exactly what to think.
Back in February, when Warsh was nominated, I argued that this was the right choice if the goal was to lift market credibility. At that time, precious metals were rising parabolically. To me that was a bad signal that markets were questioning whether policy makers could really run the economy hot without creating a disorderly move in the dollar or a broader inflation problem.
Since Warsh’s nomination, the S&P 500-to-gold ratio is up close to 40 percent, and I view that as a powerful vote of confidence from the markets. It suggests investors are giving Warsh the benefit of the doubt – that he can shake up the Fed, reduce reliance on the balance sheet as a policy tool, and solidify discipline that gives the administration some breathing room.
But here’s the catch. Enhancing credibility is not always painless. In fact, credibility must be earned by doing something markets don’t immediately like. And last week had some of that flavor. Stocks weakened, the yield curve bear-flattened, the dollar strengthened, and precious metals sold off. From my perspective, that is not a failed first meeting. That is a good and necessary first step.
What stood out to me most was Warsh’s emphasis on the inflation mandate. He made it very clear that the Fed’s primary responsibility is price stability – not managing every wiggle in the labor market, not smoothing every risk asset drawdown, and not hand-holding investors through every data point. And frankly, after five years of missing the inflation target, that message was overdue.
The stronger economy and improving private payroll data give the Fed room to lean into that message. I don’t think this means the Fed is about to hike rates immediately, or even necessarily this year. But it does mean the reaction function has changed, and markets do not like uncertainty around the Fed path.
The other major shift was communication. Warsh appears to be moving away from excessive forward guidance, and I think that’s a very healthy development. For years, I’ve argued that the Fed became too influential in shaping not only market behavior, but also how investors interpreted the data. When markets are only trying to guess what the Fed will say next, the Fed loses the value of market prices as an independent signal. That’s backwards. Markets should be reacting to incoming information, and the Fed should be learning from those reactions – not vice versa.
A little less Fed hand-holding may be uncomfortable, but ironically it is necessary to get to a more stable place. Investors may not like it in the short term, but the system works better when market prices are less impeded by policy manipulation. The wisdom of crowds is often better than the wisdom of committees.
The near-term risk for equities is not rate hikes or even uncertainty. It’s liquidity. Balance sheet support has already started to fade. The Reserve Management Program is down roughly 75 percent from its peak, Treasury buybacks have been reduced by 50 percent. And at the same time lending growth is accelerating because the real economy is using more capital. That combination means liquidity is tightening, and our work suggests that could remain a headwind for stocks into July.
Bottom line, the market may test Warsh’s resolve. That’s what markets do. The key question is whether the Fed tolerates some short-term pain in order to strengthen longer-term credibility. My guess is that it tries to do exactly that, until funding markets, credit markets, or bond volatility forces its hand to add more liquidity and loosen financial conditions again. That argues for choppy and even corrective price action in equity markets in the near term until the earnings led bull market has its next leg higher.
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!

As AI investment keeps growing, our strategists Carolyn Campbell and Vishwas Patkar discuss the many ways tech infrastructure gets financed and the opportunities for investors.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Carolyn Campbell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Carolyn Campbell, Morgan Stanley's Asset-Backed Securities Strategist.
Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Corporate Credit Strategy.
Carolyn Campbell: Today, how fixed income markets are helping fund the AI build-out.
It's Thursday, June 18th, at 10am in New York.
Let's get right into it, Vishwas. We've both come on this podcast before to talk about how credit markets are financing the AI build-out. And over the last ten months, I think it's fair to say that things are faster, broader, deeper than we perhaps expected initially.
This investment now spans investment-grade corporate bonds, high yield loans, and a range of securitized products. From your seat in corporate credit, why does AI infrastructure matter so much, to investors right now?
Vishwas Patkar: This is a big talking point in our client discussions. it's also telling that less than a year ago, we wrote about this topic for the first time, identifying a $1.5 trillion financing gap that credit markets could help bridge. At that time, data center debt was not something that investors were really focused on. Yet less than 12 months forward, this, I think, is the number one theme dominating both your and my market.
And why it's important, I would say, is across, three key vectors. First, just the scale. So, if you look at overall AI-related debt issuance so far this year, we're close to $250 billion. For the balance of the year, we expect that number to double, so about $500 billion of total AI debt financing for 2026.
Increasingly the second vector, I think, is around the complexity of deals. So initially, while AI financing was dominated by vanilla investment-grade corporate bond deals, we are now seeing that broaden out into project finance style deals in the high-yield market. We have seen an uptick in chip financing across the different credit silos.
And that's important for investors, as identifying value across these different options does require deep credit expertise. And third, as this investment cycle rolls along, it's also important to be cognizant of risks that are building. Not just from a very broad top-down sense around the demand for compute. But also, what are some of the nuances in these different structures – whether it is in data center construction or is in chip financing that investors will need to monitor.
So, it's across these three themes that we think data center debt financing is gaining importance.
Carolyn Campbell: Now, the underlying demand for AI infrastructure is very strong. That doesn't necessarily mean that every bond tied to this theme is automatically going to be attractive. And as you mentioned, [$]500 billion of supply for the year; a large amount of complexity between those structures.
How should credit investors think about the various risks within these different structures?
Vishwas Patkar: So, in investment grade, the story is a bit simpler. So, we have had unsecured hyperscaler bond issuance. We have had issuance from semiconductor names. And then we've had some, what we call, private style data center deals.
But the vast majority still comes from hyperscaler investment grade rated bonds. For this market, our focus is less on fundamentals because fundamentals are very strong. And then hyperscaler are some of the more most creditworthy companies that we've seen in the history of the market. Our emphasis more is on just the quantum of supply.
So, year to date, we have had north of [$]100 billion of hyperscaler debt in the dollar market. We've had north of [$]50 billion being issued in other currencies. If you look at the overall investment grade market, supply is up almost 25 percent versus last year. That's consistent with our call for a year of record issuance this year.
And increasingly, if you look forward and then map these issuance numbers to our CapEx estimates, where we could very much be on track for another record to be hit next year. So, the issue of the investment grade market is not around the fundamentals of the companies or these deals. It's more about the quantum of supply, which we think eventually will test the demand capacity of this market.
And our base case for the investment grade space is similar to 1997-1998, where credit was starting to finance the business cycle, spreads widened modestly, and IG could underperform other risk assets. But over a longer time horizon, spreads still look historically very low.
Carolyn Campbell: Now, what about further down the credit spectrum into the non-investment grade portion? What about that part of the issuance spectrum for AI?
Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. So, what we're seeing in the sub-investment grade space, especially in high yield, is very different. There, the growth in data center financing has happened around project finance deals for data center construction. In many cases, these have come from crypto miner companies that effectively provide what we call speed to power solutions.
We've also had some unsecured issuance from neo clouds, although that's relatively small. But this sector has expanded from effectively zero billion around the fall of last year to about [$]40 billion this year. We expect to see another [$]20 billion of issuance by the end of 2026.
And the way they fit into this whole ecosystem is – these project finance deals we think are interesting diversifiers for regular credit investors. They do come with construction risks, especially initially for the first two to three years till the data center is up and running.
But on the flip side, you do get a lot of structural enhancements and creditor protections, which is something you don't see in the vast majority of the high yield market. So, I think a key shift in the framework that investors have to do for these deals is focus on asset-level risk, which is again, I think a big divergence from how the vast majority of the credit market trades, which is largely unsecured corporate-level risk that investors have been used to.
Carolyn Campbell: All right. You just brought up construction risks. Do you think that's the biggest risk facing the high-yield investors today?
Vishwas Patkar: Yes. I think for the high-yield deals in particular, construction risk is the dominant vector that investors are focused on. Because it's important to remember a lot of the debt issuers are first-time borrowers. And they have a limited track record of construction in the past. So, you could see potential delays and things like cost overruns that can affect sentiment on the sector. Or at least on specific bond deals.
And this will be especially important to monitor going into the second half of the year, as we have some of the first delivery dates coming up for the deals in the sector that were announced last year. That being said, you know, even though some of the tenants have termination rights, if delays go beyond 180 days, our view is that given the structural power constraints, these termination rights are unlikely to be exercised.
So, while construction milestones can affect sentiment and short-term valuations, we would look at any blips as buying opportunities in the space.
Alright. So Carolyn, let me throw this back to you. So, construction risk clearly very important for the corporate credit market, especially for high yield investors. Is that something ABS investors or commercial mortgage-backed investors care about? And in what other ways are these asset classes different from corporate credit?
Carolyn Campbell: Okay. So first and foremost, the biggest difference is that in securitized products, the assets are stabilized, they're cash flowing, they're online. We don't have that first vector of construction risk in our space.
The second biggest difference is while in high yield and IG we've mostly seen – or we've entirely seen single campus, single tenant data centers; in securitization issuance, it's mostly multi-tenant, multi-asset, multi-regional, deals that have come to market.
And so, it's a very different risk profile. And as a consequence, investors are focused not just on who is behind this one single lease and what are the termination rates, but what does the landscape look like in general for compute? How does that affect vacancy and churn rates?
And then lastly, the issuers themselves are different. You talked about the crypto companies. You get a little bit more of the data center, data center construction. Whereas in securitized products, these are companies that have been around for 5, 10, 20 years. They're accustomed to managing a fleet of assets, dozens if not hundreds of tenants. They've got a little bit more of a track record for the most part, than the types of issuers we're seeing in the credit market.
Vishwas Patkar: Your market post-construction, more leverage to the thematic of demand for compute – and how the AI investment cycle is playing out. Versus the corporate credit market, which is largely exposed to construction risks as the data centers get built out. So that's a very important difference.
That being said, one theme that ties both our markets are just healthy fundamentals, but at the same time heavy supply. So, I talked about how we see that affecting our view on investment grade. How is that same tension showing up in securitized products?
Carolyn Campbell: So exactly as you said, the fundamental story is very strong. We don't see deterioration in performance of the assets either that has happened yet or that we expect to come in the near term. So, it really is a technically driven story. Supply in this space, we're forecasting at around [$]30 billion for year, so smaller in magnitude, but relatively large for the market. That has very elevated supply expectations, and so as a consequence, we've seen spreads back up across the space.
We do think that some of the cross-asset comparisons will help keep spreads contained from here. And so, we do see value in securitized credit across the stack for the rest of the year.
Vishwas Patkar: All right. So, you brought up the cross-asset comparison. And so, we've discussed the fundamental differences in our market, how much issuance we expect. But, you know, just to end on a commercial note – if we are advising investors on where is the best relative value and what's the framework for comparing opportunities, how do you think about that? Where do we see value across the ecosystem?
Carolyn Campbell: I mean, I think this is probably the biggest question that investors that are looking at this space are facing today. And there's... If we're thinking just about the data center backed assets, I think there are two main things.
One is the asset itself, where we're focused on things like the geography, the tenant, the interconnectivity, the flexibility of this asset for multiple uses. And then the second is on the structure of the deal itself. How much leverage is being raised against the asset? How cash flowing is it?
And then of course, the duration as well. But it's a great question. And because of the complexity of this space, it can be really hard to compare one to the other.
Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. And, at the risk of providing a non-answer, I very much think investors are in the process of coming up with a framework because these deals have come very quickly. This is a new sector for most credit investors to analyze. But I think what we can say with a high degree of certainty is this is blurring the lines between corporate credit and securitized credit.
So, you know, this opens up more avenues for us to collaborate on this topic going forward.
Carolyn Campbell: All right. That's a great place for us to leave it today with that nice cross-collaboration. Vishwas, thank you so much for taking the time to talk.
Vishwas Patkar: Great speaking with you, Caroline.
Carolyn Campbell: 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.

AI’s appetite for memory has turned chips into an inflationary factor. Our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore looks at what policymakers could do to reduce that pressure.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist.
Today, I'll be talking about chipflation and what policy tools can or can't be used to address the memory bottleneck.
It's Wednesday, June 17th, at 10am in New York.
Last week, you heard my colleague Shawn Kim talk about chipflation and the surging cost of memory. Today, I'll get into what policymakers can and can't do about it.
As listeners will know, memory chips are becoming an increasingly strategic resource because AI infrastructure depends on them. And when a resource becomes strategic, governments tend to get involved. The challenge is that policy can help at the margin but probably can't solve the problem quickly.
There are three reasons for that. First, many U.S. policy tools all take time. Direct subsidies, tax credits, procurement guarantees, and faster permitting are all things that can support new fabrication plants, packaging facilities, and testing capacity. But memory supply is not going to appear overnight. This new capacity has to be built, equipped, qualified, and ramped – and that process can take years.
Second, China may be able to add some supply in conventional memory markets, but not enough to close the broader gap created by AI demand. That's especially true for high bandwidth memory, the more strategic type of memory for frontier AI systems. Supply there still remains highly concentrated, technically complex, and difficult to scale.
Third, our base case is that U.S. policy remains more restrictive, not less. We don't expect a broad loosening of export controls given the strategic imperative of this technology. Instead, we think policymakers are likely to continue to prioritize supply chain resilience, trusted capacity, and geopolitical de-risking over the near-term price relief.
Now, from a policy perspective, we think it's important to split memory into two categories. The first is AI strategic memory, high bandwidth and advanced DRAM. That's the memory that enables the most advanced AI systems. And for that reason, we think policy here is likely to focus on protecting strategic capability, limiting geopolitical vulnerability, and expanding trusted supply across the U.S. and its allied countries.
The second category is commodity or legacy memory. That's the memory that you can think of as being used in autos, industrial systems, consumer electronics, and other non-frontier applications. Now here, we think policymakers could consider more flexible options, like differentiated licensing or targeted support for critical sectors. But even then, the limits are practical: permitting, workforce, tools, qualification cycles, and production lead times.
China is the other major variable. Chinese producers are expanding in conventional DRAM and NAND. In some consumer-grade applications, that supply could act as a relief valve for buyers that have been crowded out by AI-related demand.
But still, there are limits. Chinese producers face yield and technology gaps, even if policy is supportive. And China alone will not solve the high-bandwidth memory bottleneck. The regulatory backdrop reinforces that point.
Some Chinese memory producers remain subject to U.S. restrictions or even heightened scrutiny. Access to the most advanced lithography tools also remains a hard ceiling. Without that access, scaling leading-edge memory becomes much more difficult.
So, the bottom line is this: policy can mitigate chipflation, but it's unlikely to end it in the near term. For AI strategic memory, policymakers are more likely to defend access, deepen allied coordination, and encourage trusted capacity than to loosen restrictions. For commodity memory, there may be room for some targeted flexibility.
But of course, geopolitics and timing still matter.
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 Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the signals investors will be seeking from the new Fed Chair leading his first monetary policy meeting and possible implications for markets.

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, markets are watching the Fed's next move. Are rate cuts delayed or could hikes possibly be back on the table?
It's Tuesday, June 16th at 8:30am in New York.
So, Mike, the FOMC meeting today and tomorrow is likely more about reading the signal rather than announcing a rate change. Markets will focus on inflation forecasts, the unemployment rate, and the growth outlook. But, of course, this will also be the first meeting after Powell ended his term as Fed chair in May. All eyes will be on Warsh.
So, what are your thoughts before the press conference?
Michael Gapen: A lot of thoughts, actually, before the press conference. I do think it's basically a foregone conclusion that the Fed will be changing its easing bias in favor of more neutral language. Seems clear the committee wants to do that, probably wanted to do that at the last meeting. And it does fit, I think, Warsh's preference for less communication, less guidance from the Fed. So, I do think that's largely a foregone conclusion, although obviously we need to see whether that happens and whether there are dissents.
I think, as you noted, the forecasts will be important, but I think what's really important from my perspective – more than the modal outlook or the baseline that participants have – is their assessment of the balance of risks around the dual mandate. And I say that because obviously a year ago, the Fed eased policy when it felt that there were downside risks to the labor market that outweighed upside risk to inflation.
This year, that seems to have flipped, where the labor market appears to have stabilized, labor demand has picked up a little bit, and it is inflation that looks persistent. So, if the Fed cut last year on downside risk to the labor market, I think the concern for markets is – maybe they hike in 2027 or later this year based on a changing balance of risks in the direction of firmer inflation.
So, for me, that's really kind of key. In addition to what they're saying about growth inflation in the labor market, what is their assessment of the distribution of risks around that modal forecast?
Matthew Hornbach: There's definitely going to be a lot of investor interest in the press conference itself. What exactly may result from the opening statement. Presumably, Chair Warsh will give an opening statement.
How are you thinking about the back and forth between Warsh and the reporters that are asking questions? Are there certain questions that you would anticipate him getting asked, and how do you think he might respond?
Michael Gapen: Well, I think certainly that if we are correct, and I think markets are correct, that they do change forward guidance in the statement to more neutral bias, that certainly opens up the possibility that the Fed will be hiking.
So, the obvious first question is – is this the first step in the direction of hiking? What would get you to raise rates? Should investors be thinking about that? Is that the course of travel here?
Now Warsh may not want to answer that if he, kind of, is consistent in the view of saying the Fed shouldn't give a lot of forward guidance. So maybe get some popcorn, Matt. It could be a situation where he gets asked questions about the future path of monetary policy, and maybe he decides, ‘I don't want to take that up right now. The data will tell us, and we'll do what's necessary.’
And second, I think as you're noting and getting to about the structure of the press conference and what he might say is; past Federal Reserve chairs, let's say from Bernanke on, have found the press conference – the press conference statement, the questions, the format, the venue – as a way to control the narrative. And I think what will be interesting is to see whether Warsh has the same design.
The risk, of course, is perhaps that he doesn't and pulls back the amount of communication guidance that he wants to give. And then we'll see what fills that vacuum. What narrative fills that vacuum? And is he okay with that?
So, it may be that there's a new sheriff in town, and he chooses that there's some questions I'll answer, others I won't. And so, I do think that interaction with the press corps will be interesting. Hard to know exactly where it's going to come down until we see it in real time.
Matthew Hornbach: During Chair Warsh's testimony to Congress, he alluded to the idea that potentially the Fed may not do a press conference at every meeting going forward. How are you thinking about that in the context of this idea that if you leave a void, somebody else may fill it?
Michael Gapen: Obviously, the Fed used to not have press conferences at all, and then they moved to having them quarterly or four times a year. And they found that that was a little suboptimal because it became harder to make decisions and changes in the off-press conference meetings [be]cause they didn't have a venue to explain what they were doing and what they were thinking. So, they migrated to eight meetings.
So, I think it’s kind of twofold. Yes, it would mean that they speak less and therefore maybe their word doesn't carry as much weight. Or there's longer gaps for other narratives to come in. Like, do we lose forward guidance from the Fed, and is that replaced by forward guidance from the Treasury, for example? How do markets weigh those signals?
And but then also I would say would that ultimately box in the Fed to only make decisions on quarterly meetings rather than eight times a year? Would the chair, for example… Let's assume that at some point in the future, the Fed decides it does want to raise interest rates. Historically, the Fed does not surprise on rate hikes. It's perfectly willing to surprise on rate cuts, when it comes to that.
But if there is a world where the Fed does decide, ‘Hey, we do need to raise rates, but we don't have a press conference to explain our view.’ Would they take the decision at that meeting or would they wait? So, does it reduce their opportunity set?
Matthew Hornbach: I think this issue would certainly be an interesting one for investors to think about, which is why I'm bringing it up with you. Because to the extent that the plan going forward is to hold a press conference only once a quarter, as you alluded to – investors may interpret that as the Fed not being willing to raise rates at every single meeting going forward, which would certainly affect the pricing in the very short end of the interest rate market.
But more broadly, on communication strategy, do you think that that would be something that Chair Warsh would take upon himself? Or do you think it would be more likely for him to organize a committee to discuss communications?
Michael Gapen: I think the right thing to do… Again, our job is to say what we think he will do – not what he should do. But I'm going to answer this one in the question of what I think he should do.
I do think he should create, say, a subcommittee on communication and reevaluate what the Fed does. [Be]ause as chair, he has almost unilateral control over communications. But obviously you work within a committee, the committee operates with consensus. So, I do think it would make sense to, kind of, work through a committee and try and get as much consensus as you can.
And, here, what I would hope where they, kind of, ultimately land is – Warsh has been critical in the past of the Fed's forecast, the forecast being incorrect, providing maybe incorrect forward guidance. And I would argue that it's not really the sole job of the SEPs – the Summary of Economic Projections – to provide a forecast.
But what you get out of them is more than just a forecast. You get a hint of the committee's reaction function. That if data are above or below certain thresholds on growth, inflation, and unemplyment, then expect our policy path to look different.
So, is there a way that he could review the communication strategy, tamp down the elements that are, say, a pure forecast, but keep the items that communicate to the market what a reaction function is? That's where I think a review committee could be useful in reforming or revamping what they do.
Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. In terms of the things that are really the purview of the committee, can you walk us through what those are in the context of Chair Warsh coming in having to ultimately make decisions on monetary policy – both interest rate policy as well as balance sheet policy? What are the purview of the committee itself?
Michael Gapen: Yeah. The two main tools of monetary policy, in this case interest rate policy and balance sheet policy, is both of those are under the purview of the Federal Open Market Committee. So, to change interest rates, to reduce the size of the balance sheet, to change the rollover rate, to buy assets, to sell assets – all of that is an FOMC decision. There are subcomponents of that world where the board can make certain decisions.
Now, the Fed views communication broadly as a tool, but in this case, communication is not an FOMC decision. The evolution of the communication strategy grew kind of organically out of '08, '09. Chairman Bernanke kind of started that process. It continued through, through Yellen. And that's been more of what I'll call a consensus operation, but there's no formal vote. So, the chair has a lot of control over how the Fed communicates, how often it communicates. But the policy decisions are from the FOMC.
Matthew Hornbach: I'm often asked about this idea that less communication may end up affecting the bond market in certain ways. And typically, the concern amongst investors is that with less communication from the Fed – whether it be the chair or whether it be from the committee as a whole through the Summary of Economic Projections and its interest rate dot plot – there's concern amongst investors that removing that type of guidance would raise bond yields, essentially through the term premium component of the term structure.
And the way that we think about it is probably in this environment where interest rates have already been inching higher, and investors are concerned about the hiking cycle that may eventuate, it probably would raise term premia initially.
But from a more medium-term perspective, the way I think about it is that, you know, term premia can be positive, it can also be negative. And if we have less forward guidance, I would generally expect that term premium component to be more volatile than it has been in the past. Not necessarily just in the upward direction. But it could also be in the downward direction if the macro environment ends up changing in some way.
Michael Gapen: Yeah, I could see in the current context, the inflation surprises have been to the upside, so less communication may mean more term premium. But we went through almost a decade after '08, '09, where most of those surprises were to the downside. So, you can imagine that it could be a symmetric story rather than an asymmetric one.
Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. Well, thanks Mike. That's very interesting, and thanks for taking the time to talk ahead of this upcoming FOMC meeting. I'm looking forward to our next discussion around the following FOMC meeting.
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.