Thoughts on the Market

Warnings and Winners From the IMF Meetings

April 21, 2026

Warnings and Winners From the IMF Meetings

April 21, 2026

Back from the IMF Spring Meetings in Washington, Simon Waever and Seth Carpenter unpack what policy makers and investors could be underpricing: the growth hit from higher energy costs, the risk of too much tightening by central banks and why emerging markets still look resilient.

TotM

Transcript

Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Emerging Markets Sovereign Credit and LatAm Fixed Income Strategy.

 

Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research.

 

Simon Waever: Today: The key takeaways for investors from the International Monetary Fund spring meetings in Washington, D.C.

 

It’s Tuesday, April 21st at 10am in New York.

 

Every six months, the IMF meetings in D.C. bring policy makers and investors together to take stock of the global economy, and we were both there as part of our IMF policy pulse conference.

 

This time, continuing a pattern of recent years, the backdrop was a bit more complicated. Investors are weighing the economic fallout from the Iran conflict, potentially more persistent inflation pressures, and, as always, rising concerns around global debt and fiscal sustainability. So, the key question coming out of Washington is how do these risks reshape the outlook, and what should investors be paying attention to now with the growth outlook.

 

Seth, when you think about the Iran conflict, what's the single's biggest channel through which it could hit global growth? And is that risk underpriced by markets today?

 

Seth Carpenter: I think it really is underpriced, and not just by markets. I would say I had conversations with investors, but also with policy makers down in Washington. And I would say relative to my views on things, both markets and policy makers are under appreciating how much of a hit to growth this could be. Where is it going to happen? What's the channel?

 

Well, that actually – that differs depending on which economy that you're looking at. I would say here in the U.S., it's primarily the middle- and lower-end of the income distribution. Higher energy prices, gasoline prices going up, taking away discretionary income, especially in what we've been calling this K-shaped economy where the bottom half is already struggling. So, a bit of a hit primarily to consumption spending.

 

I'd say in other parts of the world, it's broader. Asia – we are already starting to see rationing being imposed for production, for public transportation in lots of ways – that really are going to crimp spending both by households and businesses. And then of course Europe.

 

Well, they're still in some ways reeling and adapting from the energy price shock. When Russia invaded Ukraine, natural gas prices went up a lot more then. But I think there's still an adjustment process going on.

 

So, I think the potential hit to growth is real. I think it has spread across economies around the world, but each different economy, each different country has its own sort of nuance and flavor to it.

 

Simon Waever: And what about the central banks? I know you met with quite a few of them as well. Are they at risk of being behind the curve on inflation or is actually the bigger mistake now look like over-tightening?

 

Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I really think the over-tightening is the bigger risk here. It's funny, being behind the curve. That's a phrase that I did hear a lot, especially among some of the European policy makers. And people are feeling scarred, I guess you could say, from the surge in inflation that we got coming out of COVID.

 

But history suggests that these sorts of surges in energy prices tend to be:  one, more focused in headline inflation rather than core; and second, they do tend to revert on time and go away, over time.

 

And I would say the bigger the hit to growth, the more likely it is that the inflationary impulse will start to fade on its own. And so, I do think there's too much reliance maybe on the inflation side of things, maybe not quite enough on the growth. And so, at the end of the day when I weigh the pros and cons, I would say the risk is probably too much tightening rather than not enough.

 

But you know, Simon, I tend to spend more of my time in Washington talking to policymakers and investors who are focused on the developed market economy, EME. So, I talked to people about the Fed, talked to people about the ECB.

 

Morgan Stanley's real strong suit, when we do these conferences of the meeting though, is our EM focus. And I know you and the rest of the team have really over the years ramped up our engagement. So, when you think about the conversations that you had with investors and with officials, what do you think has, sort of, shifted most in recent months. And maybe what's shifted over the past week because the news flow has been going back and forth. What's going on in emerging markets that investors need to know about?

 

Simon Waever: Right. I would say the first, and by far the biggest focus throughout the week was the disconnect between the very positive market sentiment versus actual developments in the Iran conflict. I think many participants believe the mood would be much worse and that the decision coming out of the meetings would be whether to buy into a challenging backdrop or just stay away.

 

But instead, I think they came away thinking that the mood was actually fairly upbeat. But also that markets are pricing in a substantial probability of a resolution already. And that brings me to my second takeaways, and that's around EM resilience. EM’s faced multiple macro shocks in recent years, and I think it's fair to say that EM policymakers, including central banks, have built up their credibility when it comes to responding to such events and the volatility they bring.

 

Several of the EM central banks we met were positively surprised by the resilience of FX markets but also noted that they would still err on the side of caution. EM fundamentals also help in this aspect, which has seen contained external imbalances versus the past and mechanisms to deal with the energy price shock.

Of course, with everything else impacted by the war, duration matters – especially as fiscal buffers are not equal across EM. But I would say in general it reaffirms our view that EM is in a good place to absorb and deal with the uncertainty. And that would actually be my third and final point. That the year as a whole should be good for EM assets, assuming that trajectory remains one of deescalation.

 

And I think that does extend to FX as well, where the market may quickly return to trading U.S. dollar weakness, particularly if the market's priced more of the Fed cuts that you expect.

 

Seth Carpenter: Got it. So, you did say, assuming we return to a theme of deescalation, and I guess we have that built into our forecast. The last four or five, six days has seen lots of back and forth. But if we do assume we end up deescalating the current crisis in the Middle East, looking across EM [be]cause it really is a differentiated, subtly nuanced, broad part of the world. If I had to push you a little bit and say, where do you see the clearest winners? What would you point at?

 

Simon Waever: Sure. I mean, to me, LatAm remains a key winner. We've had this call since the start of the year, but if anything, the Iran conflict and my discussions at the IMF only reinforce this. The region is obviously physically removed from the Middle East, but there are also many large commodity exporters, and a lot of the discussions were around the political realignment with the U.S. and there are several examples.

 

Just to give a few: Argentina as usual, was a key part of the discussions. And compared to the meeting six months ago, they were much more positive given what's been accomplished since, both in terms of the structural reforms and the FX purchases here to date. And I have to mention Venezuela given it was during the meetings last week that the IMF resumed dealing with them, which had been a key positive catalyst that we've been looking for. Brazil is obviously the biggest economy, and I would say sentiment was pretty positive. But also there's an acknowledgement that the elections in October are just too close to call. And that is likely to bring some uncertainty closer to the time.

 

Seth Carpenter: Yeah, those are all super compelling examples [be]cause they mix the economics, the markets with the politics. Obviously you mentioned the elections coming up in Brazil; and then for Argentina it was this real huge landslide shift in what was going on because of an election there a couple years ago. And we're seeing how that's coming out. Alright, so let's go in the opposite direction. And not everything can be rosy, and even if as a class we're pretty optimistic and pretty constructive on EM… Do you think there are some key vulnerabilities across the space that you cover that maybe could surprise us to the downside? Or maybe that markets really aren't appreciating now and might have to rethink?

 

Simon Waever: Yeah, I think to start with, we move outside of LatAm and in all those discussions it was much more about the extent of vulnerability to the conflict and in particular the energy exposure.

 

And I would say in general, an old price of eighties is a sweet spot for EM, sovereign dollar bonds. But differentiation should pick up a lot. I would say the obvious view would be that energy exporters should outperform importers. But what I would highlight is actually more around the differentiation within all the importers [be]cause that's where policy space can differ significantly.

 

And even just within Central America and Caribbean, I would call out countries like Costa Rica and Guatemala as having more policy space than say, El Salvador or Dominican Republic. And within Africa, it really comes down to the energy balance and whether you have alternative financing sources.

 

Seth Carpenter: Got it. Got it. That's really helpful. I will say every day, every week, every month we get new headlines about what's going on. I think you and I are both going to have to be glued to our screens to, sort of, follow what's going on and see how it affects markets. But I guess for here today will call it quits. I really learned a lot from my time down in Washington. It sounds like you had some really good engagement too.

 

Simon Waever: Yep. I agree. Thanks for taking the time to talk.

 

Seth Carpenter: It's always good to talk to you, Simon.

 

Simon Waever: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

 

Hosted By
  • Simon Waever and Seth Carpenter

Thoughts on the Market

Listen to our financial podcast, featuring perspectives from leaders within Morgan Stanley and their perspectives on the forces shaping markets today.

Up Next

Our Head of U.S. Pharma and Biotech Terence Flynn discusses how the rapid pace of adoption of weig...

Transcript

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley’s Head of U.S. Pharma and Biotech Research. Today: the next phase of growth in obesity medicines – the GLP-1 unlock.

 

It’s Friday, April 17th, at 2pm in New York.

 

There are moments in healthcare where innovation, policy, and patient demand all converge. And when they do, the impact can extend far beyond medicine. Now we believe GLP-1 therapies are at one of those moments. We estimate that the obesity medications market could reach around $190 billion at peak across obesity and diabetes. Now, that’s a meaningful step up from prior expectations – and it reflects a shift from early adoption to a much broader, more scalable opportunity.

 

Despite the surge in attention to GLP-1s in the last couple of years, penetration actually remains relatively low today. Only about 6 percent of eligible obesity patients in the U.S. are currently using GLP-1 therapies, and just 2 percent outside the U.S. So, while the growth has been significant, the reality is that we’re still early. And that’s what makes this moment so important.

 

So, we see five drivers that are pushing the next phase of adoption.

 

The first is a shift of oral medications. These therapies have historically been injectables, which limits adoption. But newer oral options are changing that. Notably, just under 80 percent of oral GLP-1 users are new to the category. And this signals real market expansion.

 

Second, expanding access through Medicare. A new U.S. framework is opening these drugs to millions of older patients, with out-of-pocket costs potentially around $50 per month. Now, that’s a meaningful shift, and one that could significantly broaden utilization.

 

Third is lower costs and broader insurance coverage. We’re already seeing progress here. Average monthly out-of-pocket costs have declined to about $120, down from $170 last year. Now, at the same time, employer coverage for obesity treatments is expected to rise from just under 50 percent last year to around 65 percent by 2027.

 

Fourth is global expansion. Outside the U.S., adoption is more price-sensitive, but the opportunity is large. As costs come down and access improves, especially in markets like China and Brazil, we expect uptake to accelerate.

 

And fifth is innovation beyond weight loss. These therapies are increasingly being studied across a range of conditions: from cardiovascular and kidney disease to inflammation and neurological disorders. And that has the potential to further expand the addressable market over time.

 

So how big could the GLP-1 market get? Well globally, we estimate there are about 1.3 billion people eligible for these therapies. Now our base case assumes roughly 12 percent of that population is treated by 2035, including about 30 percent penetration in the U.S. Now, even at those levels, we’re looking at a $190 billion market – with a potential bull case of around $240 billion.

 

But this story doesn’t stop at healthcare. We estimate GLP-1 adoption could reduce U.S. calorie consumption by about 1.6 percent by 2035. Now, that may sound modest, but at scale it has real implications, with ripple effects across consumer behavior and industries like food, retail, and healthcare services.

 

So, stepping back, this is what defines the GLP-1 unlock. We’re approaching a key inflection point that’s driven by oral therapies, broader access, and ongoing innovation. With adoption still low relative to the eligible population, the growth runway remains significant. At its core, this is a long-term structural shift in how chronic disease is treated, and how that reshapes markets.

 

Thanks so much 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.

TotM
Our U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver breaks down the results of a new survey on...

Transcript

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Today, we’re bringing you an update on the U.S. consumer as we try and understand the outlook for the economy.


It’s Thursday, April 9, at 10 AM in New York.


You’ve probably noticed shopping these days feels like a mixed bag. You spend money on your everyday staples like groceries, personal care or clothes. But you might be second-guessing those big ticket items like a new piece of furniture or a new TV. And you're not alone. Our newest AlphaWise survey of U.S. consumers reveals a pretty mixed signal. On the surface, things look solid. Consumers are still spending. We’ve seen that borne out in some of the recent economic data. And our survey work reveals around 34 percent expect to spend more next month, compared to just 15 percent who expect to spend less. That leaves us with a net spending outlook of +18 percent, which is actually above the long-term average.

 

But when we start to dig in and look beneath the surface, the story shifts. Confidence is deteriorating. Nearly half of consumers expect the economy to get worse over the next six months, while only 32 percent expect an improvement. This results in a net outlook of -17 percent, a meaningful drop from what we saw last month.

 

So how do we reconcile that? That spending with that deterioration in confidence. It’s really a balance of timelines. Consumers are spending today, but they’re increasingly worried about tomorrow. And these worries are grounded in very real concerns. Inflation remains the dominant issue, with 57 percent of consumers citing rising prices as a key concern – reversing what had been a fairly short-lived improvement on consumers' view on prices.

 

At the same time, of course, with the tensions in the Middle East, geopolitical concerns are increasing quickly. They’ve jumped to 33 percent from 22 percent just last month. And concerns around the U.S. political environment remain elevated at 43 percent. When you combine all these pressures, it’s not surprising that consumers are becoming more cautious in how they plan to spend.

 

We’re also seeing that caution show up in the mix of expenditures. In the near term, consumers are still increasing spending across most categories – especially the essentials like groceries, gasoline, and household items. But when we look over a longer horizon, the outlook becomes more selective. Discretionary categories are weakening. Apparel spending expectations have dropped to -16 percent, domestic travel to -11 percent, and international travel to -14 percent. That shift – from discretionary to essentials – is something we tend to see when consumers are bracing for a more uncertain environment.

 

Now, one factor that’s supporting the near-term – a brighter spot here – is tax season. This year, 46 percent of consumers expect to receive a larger tax refund compared to last year. And what’s interesting about that is where people are going to put the money. About half of consumers plan to save at least a portion of the refund. About a third plan to pay down debt. And only around 30 percent intend to spend it on everyday purchases. So even when people receive a cash boost, the instinct isn’t to spend freely. It’s to shore up finances.     

 

Putting it all together, the picture of the U.S. consumer today is one of resilience but also rising caution. Spending is holding up in the near term, supported by income and tax refunds. But confidence is weakening, savings behavior is increasing, and discretionary demand is softening. These divergent trends are important. We’ll continue to watch them closely and bring you updates.


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.

TotM

More Insights