Thoughts on the Market

As the Strait of Hormuz continues to be a chokepoint for oil, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and our Head of Commodity Research Martijn Rats discuss possible outcomes for the interconnected market.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.
Martijn Rats: I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley.
Andrew Sheets: And today in the program: Oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz remain restricted. The implications for global energy markets and what may lie ahead.
It's Wednesday, April 1st at 2pm in London.
So, Martijn, it's great to sit down with you again. Three weeks ago, we were having this conversation; a conversation that was a little bit alarming about the scale of the disruption of the oil market with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and how that could have ripple effects through the global economy.
Three weeks later, oil is still not flowing. What is happening? And what has maybe surprised you? Or been in line with expectations over the last couple of weeks?
Martijn Rats: Yeah. Many things have been in line with expectations, in the sense that we're seeing the effects of the closure of the strait the earliest in regions that are physically the closest to the strait. So, we saw the first examples of physical shortages in, say, the west coast of India. Then we saw examples from the east coast of India From there on it's reverberated throughout Asia, where now governments have announced a whole host of. Effectively, energy demand, uh, management measures, uh, work from home, kids staying at home from school, um, cancellation of flights.
There are quite many through, through Asia Also in Asia, we're seeing the type of prices that you would expect with this situation. Bunker fuel for shipping, somewhere between $150 to $200 a barrel. Jet fuel over $200 a barrel. Naphta going into Japan; naphta normally trades well below the headline price of Brent. Now $130 a barrel, that's more than double what it was in February.
So, those things tell the story of this historic event. What has been surprising on the other end is how slow the reaction has been in many of the oil prices that we track the most. Like…
Andrew Sheets: The numbers people will see on the news. You know, it's $100 a barrel maybe as we're talking.
Martijn Rats: Yeah. It's strange to see jet fuel cargoes in Rotterdam more than $200 a barrel, but then the front month Brent future only trading at [$]100. That spread is historically wide and very surprising. But look, there are some reasons for it. The crude market had more buffers. There are a few other things. But how slow Brent futures have rallied? That has been somewhat surprising.
Andrew Sheets: But you know, from those other prices you mentioned, those prices in Asia, those prices in Rotterdam that are maybe higher than the numbers that people might see on the news or on a financial website. Is it fair to say that in your mind that's sending a signal that this is a market that really is being affected by this? And being affected maybe in a larger way than the headline oil price might suggest?
Martijn Rats: Oh, clearly. Look, the oil market is full with small price signals that tell the story of the underlying plumbing of the oil market. So, you can look at price differential. So, physically delivered cargoes versus financially traded futures. West African oil versus North Sea oil. Brazilian oil versus North Sea oil. Oil for immediate physical delivery versus the futures contract that trades a month out. And many of those spreads have rallied to all time highs. That is no exaggeration.
And so, in an underlying sense, the stress in the market is clearly there. It is just that in front of Brent futures, which is the world's preferred speculative instrument to express a financial view on oil. Yeah, there the impact has been slower to come. But you're now seeing a lot of Asian refineries bidding for crudes that are further away in the Atlantic basin.
So, demand is spreading to further away regions. And that should over time still put upward pressure on Brent.
Andrew Sheets: In our first conversation, you know, you had this great walkthrough of both just putting the scale of this disruption in the Strait of Hormuz into the global context. How many barrels we're talking about, how that's a share of the global market.
Maybe just might be helpful to revisit those numbers again. And also, some of the mitigation factors. You know, we talked about – well maybe we could release reserves, maybe some pipelines could be rerouted. Based on what you're currently seeing on the ground, what is this disruption looking like?
Martijn Rats: Yeah, so to put things in context, global oil consumption is a bit more than 100 million barrels a day. That number lives in a lot of people's heads. But if you look at the market that is critical for price formation, that's really the seaborne market. You can imagine that if, say you're in China, and you have a shortage. But there is a pipeline from Canada into the United States – that pipeline's not really going to help you.
What you need is a cargo that can be delivered to a port in Shanghai. So, the seaborne market is where prices are formed. That is roughly a 60 million barrel a day market, of which 20 million barrels a day flows through the Strait of Hormuz. So, for the relative market, the Strait of Hormuz is about a third. It's very, very large.
Now, out of that 20 million barrel a day that is, in principle, in scope, there is still a little bit of Iranian oil flowing through. That continues. They let their own cargo through. Then Saudi Arabia has the East-West pipeline. They can divert some oil from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. That's about 4 million barrels a day, incremental on top of the flow that already exist on that pipeline. The UAE has a pipeline that can divert half a million barrel a day.
But you are still left with a problem that is in the order of 14-ish million barrels a day. You're going to have some SPR releases to offset that a little bit. But global SPRs can flow maybe 1 to 2 million barrels a day. You're very quickly left with a double digit shortage – and that is historically large…
Andrew Sheets: And just to take it to history, I mean, again, if we were placing a 14 million barrel a day disruption in the context of some of these historical oil disruptions that people might have a memory of – what is the relative scale?
Martijn Rats: Yeah. This is at the heart of why this is such a difficult period to manage. Like, normally we care about imbalances of 0.5 to 1 million. That gets interesting for oil analysts. At a million, you can expect prices to move. If you have dislocations in supply and amount of, say, 2 to 3 million barrels a day, you have historically epic moves that we talk about for decades, literally.
Like in 2008, oil fell from $130 a barrel to [$]30 on the basis of two to three quarters of 2 million barrel a day oversupply. In 2022, around the Ukraine invasion, oil went from 60-70 bucks to something like [$]130 at the peak on the basis of the expectation, but not realized. This was just an expectation that Russia would lose 3 million barrels a day of productive capacity. And so, 2 to 3 million barrels a day normally already gets us to these outsized moves. And so, this event is four, five times larger than that. That means we don't have historical reference for what's currently happening.
Andrew Sheets: I guess I'd like to now focus on the future and maybe I'll ask you to summarize two highly complex scenarios in a[n] overly simplified way. But let's say tonight we get an announcement that hostilities have ceased, that the strait is open, that oil can flow again. Or a second scenario where it's another three weeks from now, we're having this conversation again, and the strait is still closed. Could you just kind of help listeners understand what the energy market could look like under each of those scenarios?
Martijn Rats: Yeah. So maybe to start off with the latter one. Because from an analytical perspective, that one is perhaps a bit easier. Look, if the Strait stays closed, at some point, consumption needs to decline.
Andrew Sheets: Significantly.
Martijn Rats: Yeah, significantly. We need demand destruction. Now that's easier said than done. Who gets to consume in those type of environments – are those who are willing to pay the most. And that means that certain consumers need to be priced out of the market.
We tried to answer this question in 2022, and the collective answer that we all came up with is that you need prices for Brent – in money of the day – $150 or something thereabouts. That is not an exaggeration. Now, let's all hope we can avoid that scenario because that is… You know, that looks like a spectacular price. But that is not a beneficial scenario for anybody in the economy.
The other scenario is more interesting, and it can actually be split in sort of two sub scenarios…
Andrew Sheets: And this is the scenario where actually stuff starts flowing tomorrow.
Martijn Rats: Exactly, exactly. If it completely flows like it always did – sure, we go back to the situation we had before these events. Brent can fall substantially – 70 bucks. Before these events we thought the oil market would be oversupplied. Who knows? True freedom of navigation may be even lower. But, at the moment, that doesn't quite look like that will be the scenario that's in front of us.
What seems to be emerging is an outcome whereby this could deescalate but leave the Iranian regime structurally in control of the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. And if the Iranian regime continues to manage the flow as they currently do – cargo by cargo. Because there are some cargoes trickling out and there is a process that seems to be established for it. There seems to be a toll that seems to be paid. And if it remains that sort of relatively heavy handed -- This cargo goes, that cargo doesn't.
Given that that will then manage 20 percent of global oil supply, that is not the same oil market that we had before. Like all of OPEC spare capacity would be behind this system. Would that spare capacity be available in the case of an emergency? Maybe, maybe not. This is only one of many questions. But if the Iranians stay in control of the strait, we will not return to the oil market that we once knew.
Andrew Sheets: And is that fair to say we might need a higher, long-term oil price? A higher risk premium in future oil prices to offset some of that?
Martijn Rats: Yes. I would say that that is very likely. First, a lot of the supply would be fundamentally less reliable. Second, we would have de minimis effective spare capacity in the system. Thirdly, if this is the scenario we are left with, that creates an enormous incentive for countries to start expanding their strategic storages. And building strategic inventories is like exerting demand. China has built a lot of strategic storage over the last two years. They are now in a better shape than if they hadn't. In the west, we've historically had strategic storage. But India for example, has none. And so, the rest of Southeast Asia, no strategic storage; a lot of strategic storage buying that will is price supportive.
And also, look, the prices that we care about are the price of Brent and WTI, and they are not behind the Strait of Hormuz. They have higher security of delivery. You can totally see how refineries would be willing to pay premium for those crudes relative to others. So, when you add all of that up, it leaves you with a higher risk premium. That people would pay particularly for the crudes that form our perceptions about the oil market,
Andrew Sheets: Martijn, one final question I'd love to ask you about is how the U.S. fits into all of this. You know, you do encounter this perception that the U.S. is energy independent. It produces a lot of oil. It's net energy neutral in terms of its imports-exports. You can correct me to the extent that's correct.
But to what extent do you think it's true that the U.S. is more isolated energy wise from what's going on? And to what extent do you think that that could be a little bit misleading given a global interconnected market?
Martijn Rats: Look, the United States is in a better position than many other countries, that's for sure. China, it's a very large importer of oil Europe, very large importer of oil, uh, and at least the United States has, has a much bigger base of its own production. Um, But the practical reality is also that that is, I would just say, mostly sort of a volume argument, but not a price argument. The United States is a net exporter of oil. But that is a net effect after very large imports and very large exports. It's just that the exports are a little bit bigger than the imports…
Andrew Sheets: So, it's a lot of flow in both directions…
Martijn Rats: There is an enormous flow in both directions and that connects the United States with the rest of the world. In the end, in the seaborne market, there really is only one oil price and we all pay it, including the United States. But nevertheless, relative to other parts of the world, yeah, better positioned,
Andrew Sheets: But still not immune from what’s going on.
Martijn Rats: No, no. We're all connected.
Andrew Sheets: Martin, it's been wonderful talking with you and while I hope to catch up with you again soon, if we're not talking again in three weeks, it maybe is a good sign.
Martijn Rats: Might be. Thank you, Andrew.
Andrew Sheets: And thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also, tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and Morgan Stanley Investment Management’s Global Head of Private Credit & Equity David Miller discuss the recent pressure on the private credit market, potential risks and opportunities that remain in that space.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.
David Miller: And I'm David Miller, Global Head of Private Credit and Equity within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.
Vishy Tirupattur: Today – the evolving risks and opportunities in private credit.
It's Tuesday, March 31st at 10 am In New York.
Until recently, private credit was among the fast-growing parts of the financial system. In just over a decade, it went from a niche strategy to a market that's well worth over a trillion dollars. After years of outsized inflows and unusually smooth return, private credit is now in focus, and investors are asking tough questions about liquidity, transparency, and valuation.
David, you manage private credit and equity portfolios within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Do you think the industry is facing its first real stress test? And how do you think the industry is faring?
David Miller: So, I think private credit has been tested before, you could go back to the GFC. And I know that was a long time ago and the industry was quite a bit smaller. But you could certainly look to the pandemic and the rate shocks of [20]22 - [20]23 as a stress test. And I think private credit performed, you know, quite well through that, despite the initial volatility. We saw some of that recently last year with Liberation Day; and the current environment from a fundamental perspective doesn't feel as bad as those times, and the industry does not feel under that stress.
I think the current situation is more of a test of the non-traded BDC structure where roughly 20 percent of direct lending assets sit. And the liquidity provisions in those vehicles are designed to provide some liquidity, but not total liquidity. And so, while I think the vehicles are working as intended, obviously there's been a lot of noise.
Vishy Tirupattur: So, I totally agree with you, David. The liquidity provisions that are in these structures are there for a reason; are designed to be that. It’s part of the feature and not a bug, precisely to prevent a fire sale of assets. And that really would hurt the overall system. So, we think that there’s a greater understanding of this is very much required.
David Miller: I think that's right. The limitations on liquidity are there so that the vehicles can operate properly over the long run. When you have illiquid assets, you maintain some liquidity. But clearly those protections are in place so that the vehicle continue to run in ordinary fashion.
I think there is a bit of a disconnect, you know, in the media between the sentiment and the fundamentals that are underlying private credit. And yeah, there are concerns about software, and macro, and unseen future risks. But right now, private credit portfolios are performing pretty well. And actually, if you look at 2025 versus [20]24, the metrics were actually improving…
Vishy Tirupattur: Absolutely. I mean, we look at across various metrics, you know, in leverage and coverage metrics, we see overall trends are actually improving. Software [is] very much in focus. Fitch reported, yesterday that, uh, in the last, uh, you know, year to date there have been no software defaults. Another point I would make is there are about 5 percent defaults in – generally speaking – in the private credit space. And the default rates within the software sector is a little bit less than half of that.
So, that's an important distinction to make.
David Miller: Yeah, I think software is a very interesting and long topic. But generally, our view is: we think that AI is going to be a net tailwind overall for software over time. You know, even factoring in some of the erosion to the SaaS business models, I think well positioned incumbents will get their share of the upside. And so there will be some losers. We think that'll be pretty narrow. But overall, we feel very good about our software book.
We've been looking at AI risk for at least three years, when we made loans. And we think that a lot of the embedded enterprise software platforms are going to be net beneficiaries of AI.
Vishy Tirupattur: I have slightly different take on the software exposure and all the discussion points on this. The way I think about it is the market assumption is that AI disruption is necessarily going to disrupt all of software companies. And that disruption is imminent. I would push back on both of those points.
You know, you could easily imagine that AI will lead to some disruption at some point in the future. But a necessary thing for that to happen is a significant amount of CapEx related to infrastructure to enable AI from innovation to adoption that needs to take place. That will take some time.
So, this potential disruption is not imminent. It's potentially coming in the future. But all in, disruption is also not going to be negative. You know, we will have some companies whose business models, who don't have the moats and may not be able to benefit. But on the other hand, as you point out, there will be a number of business models which will actually flourish because of AI adoption and see their margins expand.
So, I think I would push back on this notion that's prevalent in the media narrative here. That all AI disruption is imminent and it is all bad.
David Miller: I think that's a very good point, and we do believe that there will be dispersion and outcome in private credit portfolios because of some of those facts. And it's really important for managers to have deep experience, not just in software, but any industries that they participate in. And really do very strong credit selection.
Vishy Tirupattur: So, another thing that's happening in the private credit space is really the advent of the retail investor into the private credit. What do you think the advent of retail investors had done to the portfolio selection, portfolio construction and credit selection in your portfolios?
David Miller: So, for us, we haven't changed our portfolio construction or credit selection process for retail portfolios. They're virtually the same as our institutional portfolios. And that's, you know, based on a lot of diversification, limiting borrower concentration, avoiding cyclicals, et cetera.
The one difference that's important for our non-traded BDC is we do have about 10 percent of the portfolio in broadly syndicated loans, to add a little bit more liquidity to the portfolio. But otherwise, they're pretty much the same.
I think the biggest impact that we've witnessed over the past few years, where there's been a large inflow of retail capital, has been to push spreads tighter. And weaken some of the terms than they would've otherwise been. There was a lot of capital that needed to be deployed quickly, so we saw that and we're quite cautious. You're seeing that trend reverse now as flows have moderated, and we expect that those trends will result in better pricing and better terms going forward.
So, Vishy, how are you thinking about risk in the system now? Are you seeing signs of systemic risk? Or is the pressure more isolated?
Vishy Tirupattur: I think the pressure is really more isolated, more focused on the software sector. As we just discussed, it will take time to figure out the winners and losers coming out of this. But that process is really; we think will result in some pickup in default rates. But we think it'll be very concentrated within the software sector.
So, when I look back at the systemic risks, the echoes of the financial crisis of 2008 come back, you know. We both have gone through that in different roles, you know. I used to be tall and good looking is before the financial crisis. So, the scars of financial crisis are clearly on upon me now.
But I compare these two time periods – and I say in any metric, the risks in the system today are nowhere comparable to the kind of systemic risk that existed back then. You look at the risks, the leverage at the company level. You look at the leverage; the vehicles where credit risk is sitting. Look at the risks and the leverage within the banking system. And the links of the non-banks to banks. All of them put together make us think that the systemic risks are very, very contained. And any allusion to that ‘We are back in 2008,’ I would very strongly push back against that illusion.
So, David, let me ask you one final question here. If we had to highlight one risk or one opportunity in private credit for investors over the next year, what would it be?
David Miller: I think the headlines have covered most of the risks, so I'll go with an opportunity.
So, we believe spreads on private credit loans have widened quite a bit for direct lending. Both for non-software and software names. So, for investors looking to deploy new capital or investors who are underweight their target allocations, we think it's an interesting time. But we believe there's also a really nice opportunity in opportunistic or hybrid private credit.
And that's coming from borrowers who need more flexible solutions, and that can come from M&A activity, non-dilutive growth capital. Or balance sheet rationalizations where one can inject junior capital to good businesses that have over-levered balance sheets. And you can get paid well for the flexibility and the optionality that's providing equity holders. There's been far less capital raised for these types of opportunities over the last few years, and they're pretty favorable dynamics going forward as demand increases.
Vishy Tirupattur: That's very insightful. David, thanks for taking the time to talk.
David Miller: Great speaking with you, Vishy.
Vishy Tirupattur: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

David Miller is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research department. Unless otherwise indicated, his views are his own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

The stock market has already discounted many disruptions, including geopolitics, oil and AI. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why investors are now focused on one thing: whether monetary policy stays too tight for too long.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.
Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why the balance between the upside and the downside is actually better than at the start of the year.
It's Monday, March 30th at 11:30 am in New York.
So, let’s get after it.
Everyone I’ve been speaking with lately is focused on the same things: the conflict in Iran, oil prices, and of course, AI—whether it’s CapEx, disruption of labor markets, and efficiency. When I look at how markets are trading, I come away with a different conclusion than the consensus.
First, the U.S. equity market is far less complacent about growth risks than people think.
Consider this: more than half of the Russell 3000 stocks are down at least 20 percent from their highs, while the S&P 500’s Price/Earnings multiple is down 17 percent. That’s not complacency. That’s a well advanced correction consistent with prior growth scares, if not an outright recession.
Second, let’s talk about oil, everyone’s top concern.
Historically, oil spikes have often ended business cycles. However, recessions only occurred when earnings growth was decelerating or outright negative. Today, it’s accelerating and running close to 14 percent while forward earnings growth is north of 20 percent. Meanwhile, the magnitude of the oil move, on a year-over-year basis, is only about half of what we saw in the recession outcomes.
In other words, the market isn’t pricing in a recession because the odds of that happening appear low. Instead, we believe it’s pricing in continued uncertainty about oil and other key resources until there is ultimately a resolution where tanker flows resume and prices stabilize or come back down.
From my observations, I think interest rates are weighing more heavily on U.S. stocks rather than oil. Specifically, the correlation between equities and yields has flipped deeply negative. Stocks are extremely sensitive to moves in higher yields—more so than they’ve been in years. This is mainly due to the recent hawkish pivot by the Fed and other central banks.
As a result, we’re also approaching the 4.5 percent level on 10-year Treasury yields, a point where we typically observe further equity valuation compression.
Finally, bond volatility is also rising, and equity valuations are always sensitive to that. The good news is that the Fed is more sensitive to bond than stock volatility and any further rise could likely lead to a Fed pivot back to a more dovish stance.
In short, the tightening in financial conditions driven by rates and bond volatility is the bigger near-term risk, not the geopolitical backdrop. Ironically, it’s also what could provide relief. At the end of the day, I still think we’re getting closer to the end of this correction; and when I look at the next 6 to 12 months, the risk-reward looks better today than it did at the start of the year.
On the positioning side, I’m also seeing some interesting shifts.
Defensive stocks and Gold had a strong run from early January right up until tensions in the Middle East began at the end of February. But they have underperformed significantly since. Meanwhile, some of the better-performing sectors recently have been the more cyclical ones. That tells me the market got ahead of these concerns and may be ready to look past it, sooner than most investors.
As for AI, there’s still a lot of focus on disruption, but I think the near-term story is more about efficiency and margin expansion. We’re not seeing a demand shock that would trigger a traditional labor cycle. Instead, we’re seeing companies use AI to right-size costs and improve productivity.
Bottom line, the market has already done a lot of the heavy lifting of this correction by discounting the war, higher oil prices, AI, and credit risks. What it’s wrestling with now is the risk of a monetary policy mistake with central banks staying too tight for too long.
If that hawkish bent starts to ease, which it probably will if bond volatility rises much further, the resumption of the bull market is likely to arrive faster than most expect.
Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets and Head of U.S. Credit Strategy Vishwas Patkar discuss what’s driving record debt issuance and growing worries about private credit.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.
Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley.
Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, we're going to talk about two of the biggest questions facing global credit markets. A rush of issuance and questions around private credit.
It's Friday, March 27th at 2pm in London.
Vishwas, it's great to have you in town, talking over what I think are two of the biggest questions that are hanging over the global credit market. A large wave of issuance and a lot of questions around a segment of that market, often known as private credit.
So, let's dig into those in turn. I want to start with issuance. You know, you and your team had a pretty aggressive forecast at the start of the year, for a significant level of supply. How's that going? How is it shaping out? We're now almost through the first quarter…
Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. So, we came into the year expecting a record, [$]2.25 trillion of gross issuance in investment grade. That's 25 percent higher than last year. That would mark a record one year number for investment grade. And for the high yield market, we expected about [$]400 billion of issuance; up roughly 30 percent.
If I were to mark to market those, the forecast is roughly playing out as expected through mid-March. IG issuance is up about 21 percent. High yield issuance is up about 25 percent. So far at least, it's along the lines of what we'd call for. More importantly though, when I think about the drivers of the issuance, that I think in some ways is a little more validating. Because there were two big components of what was going to drive the issuance.
One was AI related issuance from the large hyperscalers, and the second was a decent uptick in M&A. And we've seen both of those. So, year-to-date, we've had north of [$]80 billion of issuance from hyperscalers alone in the dollar market. That's on top of significant non-USD issuance that we've had this year.
So, I think this idea of AI CapEx investments and by extension issuance being somewhat agnostic to macro, that seems to be playing out so far.
Andrew Sheets: So, let's talk a little bit more about that – because, you know, this is a new development. This kind of is a new regime to have this much supply, sort of, somewhat independent of a very volatile macro backdrop.
And you know, maybe if you could talk just a little bit more about what we're learning about the issuers. What do they care about? What is bringing them to market? And then maybe what would cause them to slow down or speed up?
Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, I think we've learned a couple of things, right? First is – this issuance is being driven by investments that are not opportunistic, right? They are competitive in nature. Clearly there is an arms race to figure out who will win the AI race.
I think a second leg of it is the issuance is somewhat spread agnostic. So, you know, in credit we look at this metric called new issue concessions, which is effectively how much is a company paying in terms of excess funding costs relative to their bonds outstanding. And what we've seen with some of the larger deals is that new issue concessions are well above average.
And that's pretty important in the grand scheme of things because, you know, we're talking about one sector that is driving AI infrastructure. But when you have issuance that comes in size, and it comes wide to where existing bonds are, we think that has knock-on effects repricing other companies that are downstream of those names.
Andrew Sheets: So, we have a market for issuing corporate debt that's pretty wide open. You know, as you mentioned, very high levels of issuance and supply going through, despite what would've been a lot of concerns. And one of those concerns is the conflict in Iran.
But another concern that's been cropping up is a concern around this market often known as private credit where you've seen a lot of focus, a lot of headlines, volatility in some of the managers of private credit. But also, I think this is an area where less is known. And where there's still a lot of confusion about what it is and how it's performing.
So, for the second set of questions, Vishwas, maybe we could just start with, you know, when you think about private credit, what is it to you? And how do you break up the market?
Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, so I think at a very high level, you can think about private credit as capital that is provided by non-bank lenders. And in some ways – that is not broadly syndicated. So it's different from investment grade bonds or high yield bonds or leverage loans in that respect. You know, the second factor I laid out.
You know, private credit overarchingly is a big umbrella term. It includes direct lending to businesses. It includes infrastructure finance, project finance, the private placement market, asset-based finance. So, there are a lot of subcomponents.
Now, you know, to your point where the market's a little worried and there is growing anxiety is around the direct lending portion of private credit. That segment of the market has grown substantially over the last decade. It was about [$]500 billion or so 10 years ago. It's about [$]1.3 trillion right now.
Andrew Sheets: And this is lending directly to companies?
Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. This is lending directly to companies. Leverage typically tends to be higher than what you see in the public market. So, one of the challenges around navigating the risks are, you know, when you get a bunch of negative headlines that isn't necessarily the readily available information to either disprove or validate it.
So, I think that's some of the anxiety, which is building among the investor base. Our view is, you know, these risks are significant and investors should be cognizant of what's happening.
Andrew Sheets: So maybe just to take a step back a little bit there. Why have investors been more worried about the private credit space?
Have we seen particular events? Or is it more, kind of, other factors that you think have driven this increased focus?
Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, I think it's been a rolling set of factors. This year the whole story has really been about software and concerns about AI disruption. But before I get into that, I think it was a process that really began, I would say, second half of last year.
So, private credit really had its moment in the sun a few years ago where inflows were massive. The public market was choppy while the Fed was hiking rates, and a lot of stressed issuers were choosing to raise capital via direct lenders. And at that time, spreads in the private credit market were also very attractive.
What you've seen last year is private credit AUM was effectively flat. The fee income being generated on the loans has come down as the Fed has eased policy and the spread on private credit versus the public market has also narrowed. So, what started off, I think, was more macro. It was driven more by what was happening on the policy front…
Andrew Sheets: More yield compression. Less yield for investors, which caused them to be just a little bit less attracted to the space…
Vishwas Patkar: Absolutely, yeah. And I think that was largely the driver of, you know, the correction in some of these asset manager stocks to begin with. Then you had some of the headlines around specific single name headlines. Double pledging of collateral, some accounting malpractices, which, you know, I think we can say with the benefit of hindsight, those were idiosyncratic. Those were one offs. But again, you know, doesn't make for a positive headline when you get news flow to that effect.
And then this year, as I said, it's really been about concerns around the software sector…
Andrew Sheets: Which is a very big part of the private credit market.
Vishwas Patkar: It is a very big part of the private credit market. It made up for almost a third of all LBOs that were originated between 2018 through 2022. And in fact, really if you look at 2021, when interest rates were very low, a lot of the outstanding software loans were originated in those really weak vintages.
And so, you know, I think AI disruption has maybe been the catalyst to drive some of this price action. But that's on top of software, where a lot of loans were originated with high leverage. But now that, you know, you have a very disruptive force around margins, potentially looming, the concern has now shifted towards what do balance sheets look like. And the software sector is very levered. In the bank loan market, for example, more than 50 percent of software loans outstanding are rated B- or lower.
And one extension of that is that, you know, you have a non-trivial amount of debt that is maturing in the next few years. So, through 2028, we see about [$]65 billion of software loans maturing largely in that lower quality cohort.
So, you know, even before we get clarity around how AI will diffuse and disrupt or will not disrupt these names, the issue is really refinancing. In this period of uncertainty, will all these software loans over the next 12 to 18 months – will they have the capital to term out their maturities?
Andrew Sheets: So, Vishwas, maybe just in closing, as you're going around and talking to credit investors at the moment, what do you think are the two or three biggest, kind of, high level takeaways and views that you're trying to get across?
Vishwas Patkar: A few things I would say. So, specifically on private credit, we are saying that, you know, I think we are in for a period where returns might be subpar. It is possible that private credit sees AUM growth that is sluggish, maybe even down year-over-year this year. But we would not conflate that with something that's systemic. And I think it's very important to lay that out. But importantly, some of the linkages to the banking system are through, you know, leverage that is significantly lower in this cycle than what we've seen in the past, say prior to the GFC. So that's one.
Second, I continue to think that the aspect of issuance being very high and somewhat agnostic to macro conditions, that's been validated so far. And when I look at what credit markets are priced for, in aggregate, we think valuations are still too tight. And that's not withstanding everything that's going on in the Middle East.
You know, we clearly have a commodity price shock to navigate. And that can have a feedback loop via what central banks will do. And the U.S. consumer. But I would say just the convexity of credit is very weak. If, let's say, we get a…
Andrew Sheets: Limited upside versus relative to more downside…
Vishwas Patkar: Very limited upside. And downside, if we get both a technical and a fundamental – and why it is, is significant.
And the third thing I would say is it makes sense to own hedges here. You know, again, hedges can be expensive, can lead to loss of carry. But they can also be a very efficient way to protect yourself. And if you look at this time last year in the lead up to Liberation Day, credit had held up really well for the first, say, five or six weeks of that sell off.
But then when it moved, it moved very quickly. And in some ways, you know, if you; if investors were able to protect themselves through that last leg of volatility, that effectively provided a very good entry point to capture the rally that played out thereafter.
Andrew Sheets: Vishwas. I think that's a great thing to keep in mind. Thanks for taking the time to talk.
Vishwas Patkar: Alright. Thank you for having me, Andrew.
Andrew Sheets: And thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss how oil prices, tariffs and inflation expectations are raising the bar for rate cuts by the Fed, and markets’ response to the new scenario.
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, the outcome of the March FOMC meeting and what it means for our economic and rates outlook for the rest of the year.
It's Thursday, March 26th at 8:30am in New York.
So, Mike, as we expected, the Fed stayed on hold last week at the FOMC meeting and retained its easing bias. But what do you think the heightened macro uncertainty means for rate cuts this year?
Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think the answer is caution and probably rate cuts come later than earlier. So, we've changed our view on the back of the FOMC meeting. We previously thought rate cuts would come in June and September. We've slid those back to September and December. The short answer here is I think with the rise in oil prices and at least some renewed upward pressure on headline inflation – it will likely take the Fed longer to conclude that disinflation is occurring. So, I think they need more time, and that obviously means the Fed pushes rate cuts out.
Matthew Hornbach: Is there anything about the press conference that struck you as being interesting?
Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think the almost near singular focus on inflation. So, after the meeting was over and the press conference was done, we did a little deep dive into the transcript. Because that's what we do as economists who follow the Fed. And there were about 18 questions on inflation or prices. There were only five on labor markets. And if you do, kind of, a word count on inflation- and oil-related terms, that would've popped about 200 answers. If you looked at labor market terms, you would've gotten about 40.
So, by a five-to- one ratio, the press conference was dominated by fears or concerns around inflation, inflation expectations, and oil prices. And, you know, whatever message the Fed was trying to send, I think it's hard to send either a neutral or a dovish message when nearly every question was about inflation. So, for me, I think the singular focus on inflation was what surprised me.
Matthew Hornbach: And one of the questions that I think market participants, and I'm sure you yourself expected Powell to be asked, was about how the Fed would respond to this supply side energy shock that would raise inflation. And whether or not the Fed would look through that type of supply side effect.
How did you interpret his answer?
Michael Gapen: His answer was, for me, a little more complicated than I thought it would be. You're right that it is, kind of, traditional monetary policy knowledge or views that you're supposed to look through an increase in headline inflation from oil prices. History says in the U.S., they have little effect on core inflation. Very little second round effects.
So, you do, I think, want to come into this event thinking we're primed to look through. But what he said was, ‘Well wait. First of all, what we have to do is get through this tariff pass through to core goods first that I can't even tell you…’ I'm paraphrasing here. ‘That I can't even tell you whether or not we want to look through an increase in headline inflation until we get greater clarity that tariff pass through to core goods has ended.’
So, this, I think, contributes to our view that it's going to take a longer time until the Fed's comfortable easing, because I think that raises the bar for a conclusion that disinflation is happening.
Matthew Hornbach: Right. So, they want to first check the box on being past the tariff-related inflation before they start to consider whether or not they look through the energy-related inflation. And as a part of that question, the reporter, sort of, framed it as: Well, in the context of missing your inflation target for five years – how are you going to think about it? And he layered that into his answer as well.
Michael Gapen: They've missed their target for five years? I wasn't aware. Yes. No. That was the additional context, which is to conclude that you can look through increases in headline inflation from oil, one of the conditioning factors there is – that long run inflation expectations remain stable and well anchored around the Fed's 2 percent target.
So, short run inflation expectations have moved higher. Just as they did when tariffs were implemented, just as they did during COVID. So yes, there's a multiple kind of step box checking – to use your term – that the Fed needs to go to before it can say, ‘Okay, fine. We think disinflation is in place.’ I still think they can get there this year. But obviously that's a later than sooner kind of decision.
Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely, and I think in terms of the market response to the FOMC meeting and the press conference, it was that exchange with that reporter that was concerning to investors. And they said, ‘Well, if the Fed first needs to see tariff related inflation pass, and then they're going to consider whether or not to look through energy related inflation in the context of having missed their inflation target for five years.’ Market participants said, ‘Well, gosh, that really increases the chance the Fed doesn't ease at all this year.’ And so, at the end of that trading day, the market had been pricing about a 50 percent probability that the Fed would deliver its only rate cut in December. And of course, the market has moved since the FOMC meeting. But that was my takeaway, at least.
In terms of inflation expectations… Because this is so critical in terms of how the Fed and other central banks around the world – who have slightly different mandates than the Fed does – how do you expect the Fed to think about inflation expectations later this year; when perhaps they're actually considering whether or not to look through the energy price inflation in the context of what happened to longer run inflation expectations in the wake of the pandemic?
Michael Gapen: So, my view on this, and at least my takeaway from listening to Powell in prior press conferences – and hearing other FOMC members. I think they feel that coming out of COVID, yes, long run inflation expectations moved up. But they actually moved up for a good reason. I think they felt that long run inflation expectations were a little low going into COVID. So, still generally consistent with 2 percent outcomes. But kind of on the downside. So, a little increase in long run inflation expectations coming out of COVID, I think they were okay with.
The risk now will be, COVID has been followed by a tariff price shock and an oil price shock. And in theory, these are supply side shocks that shouldn't result in long run inflation. But you never know, business and consumers may feel differently. So, I think as long as they – they meaning long run inflation expectations – are about where they are, I think the Fed's okay with that.
Matthew Hornbach: Right. You did mention that the labor market didn't come up all that much. What’s your view on the labor market going into the end of the year?
Michael Gapen: Well, I think that; I think it's pretty similar to the way Powell characterized it. Which is: it is abundantly clear that immigration controls have had a strong effect on the labor market and reduced growth in labor supply.
It's obvious also, we've had a year now where hiring has come down. So, on one hand the labor market… I'm an economist, so I have to say on the one hand, and on the other hand. On the one hand, the labor market's generally in balance – low labor supply, low labor demand. The unemployment rate has been, you know, broadly unchanged, pretty stable since September.
That's what Powell in the past has characterized as “the curious balance.” So yes, the labor market is in balance. But what concerns me and concerns us is – it's not a very dynamic labor market. An economy the size of the U.S., about 360-ish million people or so. We're basically not adding many jobs every month. 20,000 to 30,000, if you, kind of, take a six month or so average is about all we're adding every month. That doesn't feel very robust. Rates of turnover, movement in and out of the labor market have slowed down. And so, I think you can say ‘Yes, the labor market is in a general equilibrium.’ But payroll growth close to zero doesn't feel good.
This is also why I think it's reasonable to expect rate cuts out of the Fed in the second half of the year. It can come either because disinflation happens. Or higher oil prices can weigh on demand, slow consumer spending, delay business spending plans. If that happens, I think it'd be reasonable to think the unemployment rate may drift up a little. Not a lot, but enough to get the Fed thinking maybe we should give it some more support.
Matthew Hornbach: And I think if that's what we end up seeing out of the economy and out of the Fed, then the U.S. Treasury market is set up for a decent run into the end of the year. The market today isn't pricing many rate cuts at all to speak of. And in fact, at one point after the FOMC meeting for a moment in time, we were pricing rate hikes. But I think if we get that outcome for the U.S. economy and for Fed policy, I think investors in U.S. treasuries will be rewarded. And even if they're not rewarded in the way that they might expect or hope – the U.S. Treasury market itself and the correlations that it has delivered vis-a-vis riskier assets like the equity market, suggest that U.S. Treasuries, despite the recent sell off, have been behaving as good hedge securities for broader risky asset portfolios. So, we certainly would expect the U.S. Treasury market to perform quite well in this scenario.
And so, with that, Mike, I am afraid I will have to bid you adieu until the next FOMC meeting.
Michael Gapen: Thanks for having me on, Matt. It's great speaking with you.
Matthew Hornbach: Likewise, 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.