August 13, 2026
Robotaxis are accelerating along the road to commercial viability. Auto and Shared Mobility Analysts Andrew Percoco and Tim Hsiao discuss what this rapid development means for global investors.
Listen to our financial podcast, featuring perspectives from leaders within Morgan Stanley and their perspectives on the forces shaping markets today.
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of US Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, the latest on US Iran tensions, talks, and the path to a deal.
It's Wednesday Aug 12th, at 2 p.m. in New York.
The diplomatic picture in the Middle East has shifted yet again.
Last week, there was growing optimism that the U.S., Iran and Oman could reach an arrangement to improve commercial passage through the Strait of Hormuz. But the two sides have since hardened their positions. This week, we've seen some bouts of escalation, and headlines have been mixed over the past few days.
At the same time, the energy security picture remains complicated. The U.S. administration says the seven-day average of oil leaving Hormuz has risen to almost 9 million barrels per day. But traffic remains well below normal conditions, and the risks we think are no longer limited to the Strait. We’re beginning to see potential for disruption across multiple regional chokepoints and alternate shipping routes.
That brings us back to the framework negotiated nearly two months ago. The U.S. and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding in mid-June. It was intended to create a 60-day window for negotiating a more durable agreement. That framework addressed commercial passage through Hormuz, the US naval blockade, sanctions relief and frozen funds – as well as longer-term negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. But the implementation has proven much harder than agreeing on the framework itself.
So where are negotiations getting stuck?
First, there's the Strait itself. Iran has tied a full reopening of the Strait to a broader package that includes an end to the U.S. blockade, sanctions relief and compensation. Washington, in turn, is trying to preserve economic leverage and appears unwilling to provide those concessions upfront.
Second, sanctions sequencing: The U.S. wants relief tied to clear signs of progress, while Iran is seeking confidence that any relief is durable and not easily reversed.
And third, there’s the nuclear question: enrichment levels, Iran’s existing stockpile, and a longer-term verification framework. These are still to be negotiated. That’s likely to take longer than the 60-day time period.
So, what’s the right framing here for investors?
We think it’s not necessarily a deal or no deal binary. It’s more so a series of partial agreements, implementation tests, setbacks, and renewed negotiations. After the June deal was signed, we flagged several live paths to re-escalation: execution risk around sanctions and Strait control, a potential divergence between the U.S. and Israeli objectives, domestic political pressure in Washington, and the basic challenge of resolving core nuclear questions within such a short time frame. We think those risks are now becoming more visible, but we think both sides have strong incentives to avoid a return to a full conflict, like the type of engagement we saw back in March of this year.
Moving forward, the signposts we laid out in June—maritime normalization, access for the International Atomic Energy Agency, sanctions implementation, military restraint, and rhetoric—all remain the right trackers to watch. But expect the bargaining process itself to be noisy, unstable, and non-linear. Rather than a clean transition from conflict to ceasefire to final deal, the more likely path will have fits and starts.
So what should investors do with that information?
On oil, our commodity strategists remain constructive on prices, given the ongoing supply uncertainty and the emergence of new chokepoints across the region. Altogether, they see those constraints keeping the market relatively tight compared to the levels we briefly saw in June when the MOU was signed.
If there’s another sharp rise in oil prices, our U.S. equity strategists think that could be a key risk to the near-term outlook. Our US economists agree, but also think the Fed would need a bigger shock than markets previously expected to resume hiking. As a result, we expect the Fed to stay on hold this year.
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.
Mike Wilson: 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 look at an important shift in what the market wants to see from companies going forward.
It's Tuesday, August 11th at 11:30 am in New York.
So, let’s get after it.
This week I am going back to our broadening thesis – but with a slightly different twist.
Earlier in the year, broadening was about beta. It was about the market moving beyond a narrow set of mega-cap winners and rewarding economically sensitive areas as the rolling recovery took hold.
In the last few episodes I’ve talked about how that phase is now over. And we’re moving from an early-cycle broadening into a mid-cycle quality rotation. In short, the market is no longer demanding just growth – but growth with durable earnings, strong margins, and free cash flow.
To be clear, the broadening in earnings is still very much alive. Russell 3000 median stock earnings growth is running at 15 percent, the strongest since 2021; while median sales growth is at 8 percent, the best since 2023. At the same time, 87 percent of S&P 500 companies are beating earnings expectations this quarter, and earnings revisions breadth has rebounded to 23 percent, with 76 percent of industry groups showing positive revisions breadth.
However, headline earnings are no longer enough for stock outperformance. The market is saying, ‘Show me the money’— and that’s exactly what should happen in a mid-cycle transition. When companies raise both earnings and free cash flow estimates, they are rewarded. When they only raise earnings and not free cash flow, the market is much less forgiving. Investors are no longer paying indiscriminately for growth. They want cash conversion.
This is also why I think AI adoption remains such an important theme. The market is increasingly rewarding companies that can demonstrate real efficiency gains from AI, not just talk about the open-ended opportunity in abstract terms.
That is a very different phase for the AI cycle. The first phase was about building the infrastructure. The next phase is about who uses it well. Companies that can translate AI adoption into better margins, better productivity, and better free cash flow should continue to be rewarded. In other words, AI is becoming less about the promise and more about the evidence.
That framework tells us where to be positioned. I continue to favor quality and AI adopters. Within Financials, I prefer large-cap Financial Services, particularly Insurance and Capital Markets exposed businesses, where earnings revisions are inflecting and our regime analysis remains supportive. Within cyclicals, I like Discretionary Goods, where the wallet-share shift from services to goods, improved pricing, and better earnings revisions all point to catch-up potential.
In Tech, I continue to prefer hyperscalers over semis. Semis can still participate tactically, especially after recent momentum unwinds, but the hyperscalers offer a better multi-month risk-reward. They have resilient core businesses, attractive relative valuation, and underappreciated optionality around AI-related ROI and adoption. Just as important, they are not only enablers of AI, but they are early adopters. They have the flexibility to spend less if the market becomes more demanding about capex discipline.
In terms of remaining market risks for this year, I’m still watching interest rates and oil very closely. A gradual rise in nominal yields alongside strong economic and earnings data is not necessarily bearish. In fact, historically, that has been one of the better environments for equities because it brings back my ‘run it hot’ theme. Stronger nominal growth supports revenues and earnings. The problem is not the level of rates. It is the pace of change. If back-end yields rise too quickly, the cost of capital becomes a headwind for stock valuations.
Bottom line, the broadening is still happening, but the market is raising the bar. Early-cycle beta is giving way to mid-cycle quality. Earnings are broadening, but free cash flow is also necessary to be fully rewarded. AI is still an important market driver, but the market wants measurable benefits and the leadership is becoming more selective within sectors rather than across them.
This shift may make the market feel less euphoric in the short term, but also healthier and more sustainable in my view. This is not a market that is simply chasing momentum any more.
It is starting to separate the companies that can simply talk about growth from the companies that can convert it into durable free cash flow and longer-term value.
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!
Sign up to get Morgan Stanley Ideas delivered to your inbox.
Thank You for Subscribing!
Would you like to help us improve our coverage of topics that might interest you? Tell us about yourself.