Thoughts on the Market

AI is becoming a matter of national strategy, as countries seek more control over their own technology. Our Heads of U.S. Public Policy Ariana Salvatore and Global Thematic Research Stephen Byrd look at the race for AI sovereignty and its implications for investors.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley.
Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Head of Global Thematic Research at Morgan Stanley.
Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be talking about AI sovereignty, what it means, what countries around the world are doing to advance their own goals, and what a more fragmented AI ecosystem could mean for investors.
It's Thursday, August 20th at 2pm in New York.
Stephen Byrd: And it's 9pm in Helsinki.
Ariana Salvatore: As AI becomes more powerful and therefore more important to the global economy, countries are asking a basic question: How much of it do we need to control ourselves? That's at the heart of AI sovereignty, making sure governments around the world can access the computing power, data, energy, and technology they need even as geopolitical tensions may rise.
Stephen Byrd: And that seems to fit into a broader trend we've been talking about for some time, a more multipolar world where governments are increasingly willing to intervene in markets around strategically important technologies.
Ariana Salvatore: Exactly. We describe this as a potential ‘two worlds dynamic.’ The U.S. and China have been gradually de-risking from one another, particularly in advanced technology.
We've already seen policy tools, including export controls, tariffs, and incentives for domestic manufacturing. And as AI becomes more strategically important, our expectation is for policy intervention to increase rather than decrease. But what's interesting is that the U.S. and China aren't necessarily pursuing sovereignty in the same way.
Stephen Byrd: So, let's unpack that. Can you start with the U.S.? What does the American approach look like?
Ariana Salvatore: Yes. We think the U.S. is trying to do two things at once, basically. On one hand, it wants to preserve national security guardrails around some of the most sensitive AI capabilities. But on the other hand, it has an incentive to make sure the American AI tech stack is broadly available to allies and partners.
So, there's an inherent tension there between those two objectives. Obviously, if you restrict access too much, you can encourage other countries to develop alternatives,. But if you allow unrestricted access, policymakers may begin to worry about losing control over strategically important technology.
So, the way that we chart this is through a middle path. We think the direction of travel looks less like complete technological separation and more like selective access – tighter controls around sensitive capabilities alongside an effort to maintain the global reach of the U.S. AI ecosystem.
Stephen Byrd: Whereas China's approach is more focused on building out an indigenous ecosystem. Specifically, we see policymakers in China pursuing greater self-sufficiency across the AI stack, from chips and computing infrastructure to cloud and models.
Our China strategists argue that bifurcation could actually increase China's incentive to build a larger China-compatible AI ecosystem abroad, particularly across the Global South and other markets that aren't firmly aligned with the U.S. ecosystem.
China's model emphasizes lower-cost models, open weight ecosystems, subsidized compute, cloud partnerships and infrastructure exports. So, the competition could increasingly be about not only which country has the most advanced model, but which ecosystem can achieve the widest adoption.
Ariana Salvatore: That's right, and that brings us back to this idea of two worlds.
So, Stephen, is the implication here that we're going to be heading toward two completely separate AI systems?
Stephen Byrd: Not necessarily, I'd say. You know, the supply chains are still deeply interconnected, so our research does not suggest a sudden decoupling. But we could see greater duplication and less globally fungible infrastructure.
Countries may increasingly want compute located domestically or regionally. Sensitive data may need to stay within particular jurisdictions, and companies may need different cloud cybersecurity or distribution arrangements in different markets. And that means the same global level of AI demand could require more physical infrastructure than it would in a completely integrated world.
Ariana Salvatore: So, fragmentation, like other themes within multipolarity, are more economically inefficient. But potentially pretty important for the investment cycle. We think sovereign AI can make the system more redundant and more capital-intensive as a result. Our research teams think there are potential beneficiaries from that across semiconductors, data centers, networking, power, cloud, cybersecurity, and infrastructure software.
Let's look at data centers specifically. If governments and enterprises increasingly require local hosting and greater control over sensitive data, you will inevitably need more geographically distributed infrastructure. Colocation operators, we think, can benefit because they provide the power, cooling, space, security, and interconnection that can allow customers to keep workloads in specific jurisdictions.
So, the fragmentation we're talking about may introduce inefficiency at a system level while simultaneously creating incremental infrastructure demand.
Stephen Byrd: And there's another constraint here that we probably shouldn't overlook, which is energy. Compute ultimately needs power. So, access to reliable, affordable electricity becomes part of a country's competitive position in AI, which ties into our politics of energy theme that we outlined in January of this year.
But as we've also noted, that creates a political constraint. Our thematic work has highlighted rising concern around the impact of data center growth on power prices and on local infrastructure. This has really shown up in a big way in the U.S. And that can mean more pressure to protect existing rate payers, more emphasis on low-cost power. And greater interest in behind-the-meter or off-grid power solutions that allow data centers to secure electricity without putting the same pressure on the grid.
Ariana Salvatore: Which suggests that there's a cost, in fact, to AI sovereignty as well.
Stephen Byrd: Absolutely. And if countries want more domestic compute, duplicated infrastructure, localized supply chains, and greater redundancy, the system may become more resilient, but potentially more expensive – and we're certainly seeing signs of it being more expensive.
Compute and power are already constrained in many markets. Add to that regulatory requirements, localization, and potential restrictions on technology transfer, and reducing dependence can carry an inflationary cost. So, for investors, I think the question isn't simply whether sovereign AI increases spending. It's also where that spending has to occur, what gets duplicated, and which parts of the stack become strategically indispensable.
Ariana Salvatore: So, Steven, to frame this for investors, the way we see this theme unfolding suggests that sovereign AI reinforces rather than undermines the broader AI CapEx cycle. We think competition between the U.S. and China is intensifying. Countries outside those two ecosystems increasingly will want greater national resilience and flexibility. And that combination can support additional spending on compute, data centers, networking, and power for years to come.
Lastly, an increasingly important question is who controls and supplies that infrastructure, energy, standards, and supply chains that will allow those models to operate at scale?
Stephen Byrd: And that may ultimately be the most important thing to watch. Sovereign AI is another example of geopolitics moving directly into the technology investment cycle and potentially changing not only where AI gets built, but how much infrastructure the world needs to build it.
Ariana Salvatore: Steven, we'll leave it there. Thanks so much for joining me.
Stephen Byrd: Great to be here, Ariana.
Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

From chocolate and sugar prices to energy markets and inflation, El Niño’s impacts may soon reach far beyond the weather forecast. Our Latin America Agribusiness Analyst Julia Rizzo maps out where the pressure could emerge first.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Julia Rizzo, Latin America Agribusiness Analyst at Morgan Stanley.
Today: how El Niño could move from the Pacific into commodity markets, grocery prices, and investor portfolios.
It’s Wednesday, August 19th, at 10am in Sao Paulo.
You may not follow rainfall patterns in Brazil or cocoa-growing conditions in West Africa. But you immediately notice when chocolate, groceries, or electricity cost more. And you can connect the dots to El Niño -- a warming cycle in the Pacific Ocean that disrupts weather globally. It changes where rain falls and shapes the outlook for crops, power markets, transportation, and inflation.
There is now a 95 percent chance of a very strong El Niño in the fourth quarter of 2026. It could end up being among the most powerful events in more than 75 years of recorded history. Timing and location matter greatly. Crop damage often depends on whether heat or heavy rain arrives during a narrow planting, flowering, or harvest window.
The most direct effects are likely to appear first in commodities. Sugar is on the list of commodities most exposed to favorable price dynamics from weather conditions. Cocoa also looks tight. Grains are more complicated. Soybeans need evidence of a net South American production loss. Problems in northern Brazil may be offset by stronger crops in Argentina or Brazil south. Corn is even more dependent on timing. The key near-term catalyst remains U.S. weather and crops.
What happens next matters well beyond agricultural markets. Food is the main channel through which El Niño reaches the broader economy, and the effect usually appears after a one-year lag. That makes inflation primarily a 2027 story.
In Latin America, the largest incremental inflation risks are concentrated in Peru, Brazil, and Colombia, with most of the pressure arriving in 2027. That matters for central banks. Weather shocks can fade. So, policymakers often look through an initial rise in food prices. The greater concern is that higher food costs may begin to influence inflation expectations, wages, rents, or other prices across the economy. Colombia stands out as the clearest case where those second-round effects could complicate monetary policy.
India and Indonesia also face meaningful economic exposure. Agriculture accounts for a large share of output and employment in these countries. India is especially sensitive. Agriculture represents about 18 percent of the GDP, 43 to 45 [percent] of jobs, while food makes up roughly 36 percent of the consumer price basket. Record food reserves may provide some protection, though a poor growing season could still weigh on rural incomes and keep food inflation elevated.
The economic consequences will vary widely. Higher agricultural prices can support farmer income and benefit some parts of the food and agricultural supply chain. They can also raise costs for households, food producers, and businesses that depend on grains and sugar. Utilities may benefit in markets where hotter or drier conditions lift electricity prices, while heavy rainfall could disrupt transport routes and airports in those exposed regions.
Historical asset-price signals are limited, so this is less of a broad macro trade than a detailed assessment of local exposure. Rainfall, crop timing, inventories, and the ability to pass higher costs on to consumers will determine where the pressure lands.
El Niño may begin in the Pacific, but its market footprint can travel from cocoa farms in West Africa to a grocery aisle, a power grid, or a central bank meeting.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

After a historic rally and a sharp correction, South Korea’s equity market may be approaching a turning point. Our Chief Korea Equity Strategist, Joon Seok, explains that the next cycle will need stronger foundations and more sectors joining in.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Joon Seok, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Korea Equity Strategist.
Today: Why Korea’s equity market may be moving from a sharp reset toward a broader and more sustainable recovery.
It’s Tuesday, August 18th, at 2pm in Seoul.
South Korea’s stock market has delivered the kind of ride that makes even long-term investors check their phones more often than they would like. The KOSPI surged 101 percent in the first half of 2026, then fell more than 38 percent from its peak by July 30th. But the market now appears to be moving toward a more durable recovery.
The first reason is valuation. Take the KOSPI’s forward price-to-earnings ratio, which compares share prices with expected profits over the next year. It fell below five times, its lowest level since 2004. Our capitulation index also dropped to minus 2.53. This index combines market momentum with the breadth of the sell-off, so it helps show whether fear has become widespread. Readings below minus two have often marked troughing territory outside the major crises.
The second reason is that forced selling appears to be easing. Now, we have seen leverage as a double-edged sword as leverage helped fuel the rally, but it also made the decline sharper as investors were forced to cut positions. Assets in leveraged single-stock ETFs have fallen about 70 percent from their June peak, and margin lending has also come down. Now, hedge funds have completed roughly three quarters of a typical risk-reduction cycle. Put simply, the most intense selling may already be behind us.
Still, a healthier recovery needs more than a rebound by the tech sector. Tech remains central because AI infrastructure continues to drive demand for advanced memory. Morgan Stanley Research expects global spending by large tech platforms to reach 805 billion U.S. dollars in [20]26 and 1.2 trillion dollars in [20]27. That creates a lot of opportunity – but it also keeps markets sensitive to any change in capital spending, chip pricing or competition.
The broader Korean economy offers support. Real GDP growth has exceeded 3 percent for two consecutive quarters, up sharply from 1.1 percent in 2025. Full-year growth is now likely to land in the mid-3 percent range; and generally, Korea’s growth is around 2 percent. Importantly, the improvement is spreading beyond exports. Consumption is recovering, tourism has surpassed pre-pandemic levels, and the government is targeting 23 million foreign tourists this year.
There are trade-offs. Inflation reached 3.2 percent in June, and the Bank of Korea raised its policy rate to 2.75 percent. A measured hiking cycle could take rates to 3.5 percent by the first quarter of 2027. Higher rates may help financial-sector earnings, but they also raise financing costs for households and businesses.
The source of market liquidity is changing as well. Domestic retail investors drove much of the first-half rally, but tighter leverage rules mean foreign investors are likely to determine the next leg higher. Corporate-governance reforms and better capital management could also encourage broader international participation.
We continue to see a path toward a KOSPI target of 9,000 by June 2027, with a bull case of 10,500 and a bear case of 5,500. The next phase should be steadier and more balanced. Industrials, financials, healthcare, communications, and consumer staples should also contribute alongside technology.
Korea still has room to run. But the stronger signal may be quality – meaning earnings resilience, disciplined capital management and broader participation. The stock market’s initial rally was fueled by speed and concentrated leadership. The next phase will require wider and more durable support.
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 analysts Andrew Ruben and Nathan Feather discuss how AI shopping agents could transform how consumers discover, compare and buy products and the implications for eCommerce.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Ruben: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Ruben, Latin America Retail and E-commerce Analyst at Morgan Stanley.
Nathan Feather: And I'm Nathan Feather, U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst at Morgan Stanley.
Andrew Ruben: Today, what happens when the shopping cart starts thinking for itself and maybe even for you?
It's Monday, August 17th at 10am in New York.
As we think about trends that are driving e-commerce, which remains a share gainer within the overall retail landscape, it seems that there's a transformation that's quickly building around agentic e-commerce.
So, Nathan, I think it's timely for us to talk today as agentic seems like it could be the next catalyzer of growth and innovation within the e-commerce landscape.
Nathan Feather: How much bigger do we think agentic commerce could make the global e-commerce market?
Andrew Ruben: Global e-commerce as we see it is a nearly [$]5 trillion market today. That implies 22 percent of retail sales. The way we see over the next five years is a $7 trillion opportunity, with growth accelerating to a 9 percent compounded rate, up from about 7 percent over the past four years. And this is partly on the tailwinds from agentic.
What we see here is this broad arc of reducing friction with e-commerce over time.
Think about how easy it is now to pick up your phone, search for some inventory, click, and the goods can be here within one, two days, if not same day. That's reduction of friction that we think physical retail can't match, and the improvements of agentic commerce. Having this agent that can help you search, help you discover – that should further the e-commerce opportunity.
We think agentic alone could add about 6 percent to the five-year e-commerce addressable market, with about 20 percent of industry volumes having some material agent influence.
So, within this opportunity, Nathan, agentic isn't one size. How should investors distinguish between AI influence shopping and fully autonomous purchasing?
Nathan Feather: To your point, there's a wide different flavors that we're calling agentic commerce. And it starts really at the top of the funnel with, you know, you could go to your chatbot of choice and say, ‘I want a hiking backpack with a water bottle slot and a place to hold my keys,’ right? ‘Show me the best options in a certain price range.’
And there you're capturing the top of the funnel, but as you click in, you may bounce out to a retailer and purchase on there. Or it could go even further, and maybe you complete your entire checkout within that specific chatbot.
Now, right now what we're seeing is about half of consumers are starting the top of the funnel at least sometimes with a chatbot, but a very small portion are actually completing purchases. And so, as time evolves, we expect that funnel to widen and start to see a little bit more of this fully autonomous purchasing; although for the most part, we think it's really going to remain top of funnel and mid-funnel.
Now, adoption does look very different across regions, partially because of different consumer behaviors. Why has AI shopping gained more traction in some markets than in others?
Andrew Ruben: I think that's right, and what we see is so far to date, agentic shopping has been led by the U.S. and China. These are the two largest e-commerce markets globally, also among the highest penetration. Some data to support it: We have proprietary Morgan Stanley AlphaWise survey that show about 30 percent of China consumers shopping using AI tools over the past month. And that compares to about 12 percent in Brazil.
Now, we do see some barriers in terms of the pace of companies' innovation, but I think this is more a matter of time. The example you give of that shopping journey, that does seem like it should be applicable globally.
There is also a second barrier, and that would be trust. We do see that consumers are using AI search, using AI discovery, and as they get more comfortable with agentic, we think the use cases can increase over time. But as we see consumers today, they're comfortable with search, but not many are willing to let AI do the full end-to-end checkout.
Ultimately, as we see it, the companies will drive the innovation, but it's consumers who determine uptake.
And that raises the question of who owns the customer journey. Do retailers keep control, or do the general AI agents take the lead?
Nathan Feather: To be frank, this is one of the major unanswered questions within this market. And, you know, we can speculate, but we're not going to know for a few years. So, let's go through the potential paths here.
I think the first goes within the customer journey. Where does the customer want to check out? Who has the best experience as you go through that journey? And early on, it's retailers. They have your purchase history. They have your payment information. They have your shipping.
To your point, they're trusted. You know if you're going to shop at one of these large retailers, you're going to get what you want. And if you don't, you're going to be able to get that refunded.
And so, we think at least early on, retailers will likely keep control of that purchase journey and actually be able to innovate a lot on site. Launch on-site agents that are able to get you to the inventory they have even faster.
But retailers could gain control over time. They can shop across multiple websites. They can price match. And so, it is going to be a question over time which of these ends up taking the lead. And the economics will change as a result of that.
And Andrew, what determines whether agentic commerce ends up generating purchases that wouldn't have happened otherwise rather than simply shifting existing sales to a new channel?
Andrew Ruben: It's a good point on the economics because let's say an agentic transaction happens on a company's site. You do still have costs, and that relates to the large language model. The conversation query going back and forth, that's going to be more expensive than a traditional keyword search.
So, here's where incrementality comes in. If you're a consumer that's having this transaction on the site, we think that gives better targeting, better information, and should ultimately put the product in front of you that you want to buy. And what this translates to is incremental sales, a sale that wouldn't have happened if you only had traditional search or an experience that you couldn't match in the physical channel.
So, we do think that if the sale is incremental and those model costs eventually come down, then that's the setup for an agentic sale to be profitable. I'd also mention the advertising business. It's important for e-commerce having suppliers that will pay to be one of the product listings up front.
Our view is that if you're searching better, then you should get better discovery, and the value of that top real estate should hold. That should be more important for the supplier with better targeting, and they can pay up for that.
But there is the risk on the other side. How real do you think the risk is that external agents divert traffic and advertising dollars away from e-commerce platforms?
Nathan Feather: Well, the risk is real, and it's really dependent on the customer journey. You know, if you go to a chatbot today, you're expecting when you type in your query, you're going to get the most accurate result that they can offer. The issue with advertising is people are paying for that top slot. It's not inherently maybe the best product. It's the person who wanted to pay the most to get that top slot.
When you go to, you know, a search website, it's not necessarily the expectation, right? You know that the first few results are going to be paid, and then there's going to be organic after that. And so, from a customer side of things, there's going to be a question of whether there's the permission to see advertising within that flow.
If there's not, you could see advertising dollars get diverted, and that is a risk. If you look at large e-commerce retailers, especially marketplaces today, a majority or sometimes all of their profits actually come from the on-site advertising that exists. And so, it's something worth watching. Although we note early on, this ended up being less of a risk than people initially expected.
Now, zooming out here, we've covered a lot of ground. So, as we think about it broadly, what are the likely factors that separate the winners here? In other words, what are the capabilities that matter most as we move into an agentic world?
Andrew Ruben: Right. And to get to those capabilities, I think agentic commerce is going to improve e-commerce as a digital service. But this still surrounds the movement, the sourcing, the pricing of physical goods.
So, I believe that the rules of retail and e-commerce should still hold. That's the fundamentals of do you have the broad selection, the right inventory at the right location that can get to the right consumer? Second, the ability and willingness to innovate. That's companies that have their own agents, that have partnerships, that are developing these tools we think will be better positioned.
And then third, thinking about some complementary assets. If you're a marketplace platform with logistics, with loyalty, with financial services, this should support the positioning depending on how the customer journey evolves. Each of these factors we think will matter in an agentic world.
And then finally, what evidence should investors watch to see whether agentic commerce has moved from experimentation to a durable growth driver?
Nathan Feather: There's a couple of different factors we're looking for here, and it's important to note we're looking for leading indicators. Given agentic is still a relatively small portion of purchases, we're trying to find those things that could identify where you're going to hit inflection points. So, a few things I'd call out.
The first are company disclosures. What are the actual retailers in this industry saying about experimentation? And are the products that they're testing actually moved into production?
Second, looking at consumer surveys and whether people are starting to use these AI tools more at the top of the funnel, we think will filter down more to the bottom of the funnel over time as additional things are launched.
And last, how is your own search behavior changing? Are you starting to see you gravitate more towards an AI chatbot as you're going through your shopping journey? Oftentimes, you'll start to see the behavior start to shift, and then the dollars flow over time.
Andrew Ruben: That's it. The shopping cart may become smarter and ultimately grow faster. But for investors, the defining question remains the same: Who owns the customer journey? Nathan, thanks for speaking with me today.
Nathan Feather: Great to be here with you, Andrew.
Andrew Ruben: 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

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets examines why investors might be overlooking the stability and performance of UK assets, despite persistent negative sentiment.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.
Today, why the UK may need better PR.
It's Friday, August 14th at 2pm in London.
The last decade has been rough for the United Kingdom. Brexit was a true economic earthquake, and the subsequent weakening of economic ties to mainland Europe, the UK's largest trading partner, made economic activity weaker and more complicated.
Then COVID hit the economy hard. So did spiking energy prices when Russia invaded Ukraine. Political volatility has been high, with seven prime ministers in the last 10 years. And at present, UK growth is weak, inflation is too high, and debt to GDP is rising.
Moreover, in a post-COVID world that's increasingly driven by the profit and power of technology, including AI, the UK market seems almost stuck in another era. Of the 10 largest companies in the U.S. stock market, eight are in technology. In the UK, none of the 20 largest companies are in tech.
Safe to say, being downbeat on the prospects for the UK is one of the most consensus views that I encounter. But it can also be deceiving. Simple stories in the market rarely are.
Let's start with the argument that UK markets are boring, stagnant, and being left behind by their lack of technology. It's just not true. Through early August, the S&P 500 has returned 85 percent over the prior five years. The UK market? It's returned 82 percent. And over the last twelve months, the performance of the UK and U.S. markets are also similar. In short, don't judge a book by its cover.
The UK's currency, meanwhile, shows no sign of global investors shunning the island. Over the last 10 years, the UK pound has actually gained value against the U.S. dollar. Notable given how strong the performance of the U.S. economy and markets have been over that time. And that's also pretty impressive relative to its peers. Over this same timeframe, the value of the Japanese yen, the Brazilian real, the Indian rupee, and the Korean won have all fallen significantly. The UK's currency, on a relative basis, has outperformed.
Now, the UK's growth is weak. Morgan Stanley forecasts growth of just 1 percent this year versus a bit over 2 percent for the United States. But it's notable just what sort of headwind the country has been dealing with. The UK household and corporate sectors are both increasing their savings rates and doing so at the same time; and more savings means less spending and economic activity.
To put some context around this, U.S. households are currently saving only about 3 percent of their disposable income. In the UK, it's over 9 percent. And so, if that UK savings rate can just simply stop moving higher – or even fall – well, it would represent a big support to growth going forward.
But aren't we avoiding the big question, the fiscal question? After all, we at Morgan Stanley forecast that general UK government debt to GDP will be about 96 percent this year, some of the highest levels since World War II. But this is a global market, and I do think that the relative picture matters.
So, when thinking about the UK's 96 percent debt to GDP ratio, let's consider what the numbers are elsewhere. That ratio is 120 percent in China. It's 120 percent in France. It's 125 percent in the U.S. It's 138 percent in Italy, and it's 208 percent in Japan. And out of all of these countries, the UK is the only one where we think the government deficit is materially smaller in 2027 than it was in 2025. Also, year-to-date, 10-year bond yields in the UK have risen less than yields in the U.S. or Japan.
A new UK Prime Minister does raise the potential for new policy, something investors will need to watch closely. The country remains sensitive to swings in global energy prices. Yet we think the underlying story is more nuanced and positive than often gets discussed.
Market performance has been bearing this out, and in many cases, the bar is low.
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.