Thoughts on the Market

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he still believes in a growth cycle for equity markets, even as investors show growing concerns around AI.

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 be discussing recent concerns around AI disruption.
It's Tuesday, February 24th at 1pm in New York.
So, let's get after it.
Last week you could feel it, that anxious undercurrent in the market. The headlines were noisy, volatility ticked higher, and AI disruption, once again, dominated investor conversations. But beneath the surface level unease something important happened. The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index pushed to a new relative high, keeping our broadening thesis alive and well.
On one hand, investors are worried about AI driven disruption, CapEx intensity, and potential labor force reductions. On the other hand, capital is still flowing into formerly lagging areas of the market, just as the median stock is seeing its strongest earnings growth in four years.
Let's unpack this. First, there's concern AI will lead to job losses. But even if that's the case, there's typically a phase-in period. Companies don't just eliminate labor overnight. Importantly, before these productivity gains are fully realized, we need broad enterprise adoption. That means building out the agentic application layer, integrating AI into workflows, retraining systems and processes. That takes time, and it is still early days in that regard.
Second, what we're seeing now is typical of a major investment cycle. Volatility increases as markets challenge the pace of unbridled spending. Dispersion increases as investors debate winners and losers. Leadership rotates, sometimes sharply. There's also something different this time compared to the internet bubble of the late 1990s. Today we're in an early cycle earnings backdrop. We've just emerged from what was effectively a rolling recession between 2022 and 2025. So, as capital rotates out of the perceived structural losers, it's not just chasing long-term AI beneficiaries, it's also finding classic cyclical winners.
On the losing side is long duration services-oriented sectors, particularly software. These areas are more sensitive to uncertainty around longer term cash flows. This area also has a large overhang of private capital deployed over the last 10 to 15 years.
There are other forces at play too. Small cap growth, arguably the longest duration segment of the market, began breaking down in late January around the time Kevin Warsh was nominated as Fed chair. While major indices barely reacted, more speculative areas may be responding to expectations of tighter liquidity given Warsh’s, reputation as a balance sheet hawk. Finally, equity markets are typically more volatile when new Fed chairs assume office.
Bottom line, our broader thesis of an early cycle rolling recovery remains intact. Market internals are supportive even if index level action feels choppy. That said, near term volatility is likely to persist as we enter a weaker seasonal window for retail demand, while liquidity remains ample, but far from abundant.
With this backdrop, a quality cyclical barbell with healthcare makes sense. In small caps, the higher quality S&P 600 looks more attractive than the Russell 2000. And any short-term volatility could present opportunities to add exposure in preferred cyclical areas like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Industrials, and Financials.
Of course, risks remain. AI adoption could accelerate faster than expected, pressuring labor markets more abruptly. Pricing power could erode as efficiency spread, and policy makers could react in ways that slow the CapEx cycle while crowded momentum positioning remains vulnerable.
Nevertheless, the signal from the internals is clear. Beneath the volatility this looks less like a market rolling over, and more like one that is confirming an early cycle economic expansion.
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.

The Supreme Court's latest ruling on tariffs has thrown existing trade agreements into uncertainty. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Arunima Sinha, from the U.S and Global Economics teams break down the fallout.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.
Arunima Sinha: And I am Arunima Sinha on the U.S. and Global Economics teams.
Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about the recent Supreme Court decision on tariffs, what it means for existing trade deals, and where trade policy is headed from here.
It's Monday, February 23rd at 9am in New York.
On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose broad-based tariffs.
The ruling didn't give a clear signal on what it could mean for potential refunds, but the Trump administration said it plans to replace the existing tariffs, which is something that we'd long expected – first leveraging Section 122 to impose 15 percent tariffs for 150 days.
The president is simultaneously going to launch a few new Section 301 investigations to eventually replace those Section 122 tariffs, since they're only allowed to be in place temporarily. So Arunima, let's start by breaking down some of this tariff math. What does this mean for the headline and effective rate given where we are now versus before?
Arunima Sinha: Before the decision, Ariana, we were at a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent. What this decision does is that with the move, especially to 15 percent, for other countries, we think that it takes about a percentage point off of the headline tariff rate. So, we would go to about 12 percent, and then we have another percentage point coming off just because of the shifts in trade patterns. And so instead of a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent, we think that we're going to be at a headline tariff of just about 11 percent.
But that's really just related to the Section 122s. And as you noted, this is only going to apply for the next 150 days. So how should we be thinking about trade policy going forward?
Ariana Salvatore: I think we should view the 15 percent as probably a likely ceiling for these rates in the medium term; in particular because this 150-day period expires some time around the summer, so even closer to the midterm elections. And as we've been saying politically speaking, it's unpopular to impose high levels of tariffs.
We've also been saying that the president will continue to lean on trade policy as his real, only way to address the affordability issue for voters, which is something that we've actually seen on the policy side for the past few months with the imposition of exemptions, more trade framework agreements, et cetera.
So really, I think this is just another way for him to continue leaning on this policy avenue. But in that vein, let's talk about specific pockets of relief. What are we thinking about some of their findings on a sector level?
Arunima Sinha: So, let's tie this into the affordability aspect that you mentioned, Ariana, and specifically using the consumer goods sector. What we think is that with, just in the near-term period, with the Section 122s applying, for different consumer goods categories, we could see tariff rate differentials go down.
So, they could be anywhere between 1 to 4 percentage points lower across different categories. But what we also think could happen is that once we get beyond the 150-day period, and there are no additional sector tariffs that go on. So, the 232s or the 301s, particularly for this particular sector, we could see some of the largest tariff relief that we're expecting to see.
So, for example, apparel and accessories could see something like a 16 to 17 percentage point tariff drop. So that particular part I think is important. Just the upside risks to consumer goods.
But that of course brings us to the question of bilateral trade deals and how they come into play. What do you think about that, Ariana?
Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, I think when it comes to the bilateral deals, as we mentioned, there's some opportunities for relief depending on the sectors and the type of tariff exposure by country. As you mentioned, the consumer goods are a good example of this. So, in general, I think that trading partners will have little incentive to abandon the existing deals or framework agreements, just given that the president and the administration have messaged this idea of continuity. So, replacing the IEEPA tariffs with a more durable, legitimate, legal authority.
But what's notable is that many of our trading partners are actually now facing potentially even lower levels than they were before. Even with the increase to 15 percent on the 122s from 10 percent over the weekend. In particular, many countries in Southeast Asia are actually now facing lower tariff levels since there were somewhere in the range of 20 or maybe even 25 percent before. But as I mentioned, the export composition of these countries matters a lot. So, Vietnam, for example, most exports are subject to the 20 percent tariff because of the IEEPA exposure.
This ruling is more meaningful than somewhere like South Korea, where the exports are more exposed to the Section 232 tariffs. Based on the export composition – and that's a level, remember, that's not changing as a result of this ruling. So that's how we're trying to disaggregate the impact here.
Now, my last question to you, Arunima, what does this all mean for the macro-outlook? As we mentioned, refunds weren't addressed in this ruling. We've sketched out a few different scenarios, most of which leaned toward a long lead time to eventually paying back the money – if and when the administration is actually, in fact, mandated to do that. But safe to say in the near term that we aren't going to see much action on that front. That probably means status quo.
But why don't you put a finer point on what this means for the macroeconomic outlook?
Arunima Sinha: That's absolutely right, Ariana, for the very near term and the second quarter, we don't think we're going to be very different from what our baseline expectation is. In the third quarter and in the last part of this year, there could be some upside risks, especially once the timeline on the 122s run out, they're not extended. And the different sector and country investigations take longer to implement.
So, there could be some upside risks to demand. Consumer goods, for example. If there were to be some sort of an incremental tailwind to corporate margins that might lead to better labor demand from these companies. There could be additional goods disinflation; that would support just purchasing power. So, both of those things could be some incremental uplift to demand, relative to our baseline outlook.
But then the last thing I think just to emphasize from our perspective, is that we do think that there is some sort of a near-term ceiling about how high effective tariff rates can go. We don't think that we're going to be going back to Liberation Day tariff rates in the near-term or even in the latter half of this year. Because if history is any guide, many of these investigations are going to take time and that full implementation may not actually occur before early 2027.
Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. Arunima, thanks for joining.
Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me.
Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of European Sustainability Research Rachel Fletcher talks about how AI’s is quickly reshaping employment and productivity across key industries and regions.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Rachel Fletcher: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Rachel Fletcher, Head of European Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley.
Today, how AI is shaking up the global job market.
It's Friday, February 20th at 2pm in London.
You've probably asked yourself when all the excitement around AI is going to move beyond demos and headlines, and start showing up in ways that matter to your job, your investments, and even your day-to-day life. Our latest global AlphaWise AI survey suggests that the turning point may already be unfolding – especially in the labor market where AI is beginning to influence hiring, productivity, and workplace skills.
Our survey covered the U.S., UK, Germany, Japan, and Australia, across five sectors where we see a significant AI adoption benefit. Consumer staples, distribution in retail, real estate, transportation, healthcare, equipment and services, and autos.
We found that AI contributed to 11 percent of jobs being eliminated over the past 12 months, with another 12 percent not backfilled. These job cuts were partially offset by 18 percent new hires, which results in a net 4 percent global job loss. It's important to note that the survey focused on companies that had already been adopting AI for at least a year. In fact, most of the companies in our survey had been adopting AI for more than two years. So, this is likely the most significant downside case in terms of the impact of AI on jobs, but it is still an early signal of potential job disruption.
In Europe, the picture is nuanced. The UK saw the highest net job loss at 8 percent. This was primarily driven by a lower level of new hires in the UK compared to other countries that we surveyed, as well as a high level of positions not backfilled. This compares to Germany, which posted a 4 percent net job loss in line with the all-country average. There could be some other factors amplifying the impact in the UK. For example, broader labor market weakness driven by higher labor costs and higher levels of unemployment amongst younger workers. Ultimately, disentangling AI from macro forces remains challenging.
Moving to sector impacts in Europe, autos experience the largest net job loss at 13 percent, and this compares to a 10 percent global average for the sector. It's possible these numbers reflect persistent sales weakness, and AI driven cost cutting.
Transportation was least affected at 3 percent, whilst other sectors clustered around 6 to 7 percent. If we look at the top quintile of European companies reducing headcount, they've outperformed other companies that are more actively hiring. This suggests that investors are rewarding efficiency. On the downside, staffing firms face potential growth risks from AI displacement. On productivity, European firms report 10 to 11 percent gains from AI, close to the 11.5 percent global average, and the U.S. at 10.8 percent. It's worth noting that whilst Europe lags the U.S. in exposure to AI enablers, adopters and adopter enablers make up more than two-thirds of the MSCI Europe Index. However, European AI adopters have traded at a material discount versus their equivalent U.S. AI adoption peers. So, turning AI adoption into real ROI and defending pricing power is crucial for European companies.
If we shift our focus to the U.S., there's a contrast. Whilst the global net job change was a 4 percent loss, the U.S. actually saw a 2 percent net gain, driven by AI related hiring. Our U.S. strategists have lifted expectations for S&P 500 margin expansion by 40 basis points in 2026 and 60 basis points in 2027.
In our survey, the most frequently cited goals of AI deployment in the U.S. are boosting productivity, personalizing customer interactions, and accelerating data insights. Other common use cases include search, content generation, dashboards, and virtual agents.
What's becoming clear is AI is no longer theoretical. Our survey data suggests that it is reshaping hiring, productivity and margins. The investor question is not whether AI matters, but who captures the value.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of FX and EM Strategy James Lord and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss what’s driving the U.S. policy for the dollar and the outlook for other global currencies.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

James Lord: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Lord, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy at Morgan Stanley.
Seth Carpenter:  And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research.
James Lord: Today we're talking about U.S. currency policy and whether recent news on intervention and nominations to the Fed change anything for the outlook of the dollar.
It's Thursday, February 19th at 3pm in London.
So it's been an interesting few weeks in currency markets. Plenty of dollar selling going on But then, we got news that Kevin Warsh is going to be nominated to Chair of the Board of Governors. And that sent the dollar back higher, reminding everybody that monetary policy and central bank policy still matter.
So, in the aftermath of the dollar-yen rate check, investors started to discuss whether or not the U.S. might be starting to target a weaker currency. Not just be comfortable with a weaker currency, but actually explicitly target a weaker currency, which would presumably be a shift away from the stronger strong dollar policy that Secretary Bessent referenced.
So, what is your understanding? What do you think the strong dollar policy actually means?
Seth Carpenter: Strong dollar policy, that's a phrase, that's a term; it's a concept that lots of Secretaries of the Treasury have used for a long time. And I specifically point to the Secretary of the Treasury because at least in the recent couple of decades, there has been in standard Washington D.C. approach to things, a strong dichotomy that currency policy is the policy of the Treasury Department, not of the central bank. And that's always been important.
I remember when I was working at the Treasury Department, that was still part of the talking points that the secretary used. However, you also hear Secretaries of the Treasury say that exchange rates should be market determined; that that's a key part of it. And with the back and forth between the U.S. and China, for example, there was a lot of discussion: Was the Chinese government adjusting or manipulating the value of their currency? And there was a push that currencies should be market determined. And so, if you think about those two things, at the same time – pushing really hard that the dollar should be strong, pushing really hard that currencies should be market determined – you start to very quickly run into a bit of an intellectual tension. And I think all of that is pretty intentional.
What does it mean? It means that there's no single clear definition of strong dollar policy. It's a little bit of the eye of the beholder. It's an acknowledgement that the dollar plays a clear key role in global markets, and it's good for the U.S. for that to happen. That's traditionally been what it means. But it has not meant a specific number relative to any other currency or any basket of currency. It has not meant a specific value based on some sort of long run theoretical fair value. It is always meant to be a very vague, deliberately so, very vague concept.
James Lord: So, in that version of what the strong dollar policy means, presumably the sort of ambiguity still leaves space for the Treasury to conduct some kind of intervention in dollar-yen, if they wanted to. And that would still be very much consistent with that definition of the strong dollar policy.
I also, in the back of my head, always wonder whether the strong dollar policy has anything to do with the dollar's global role. And the sort of foreign policy power that gives the Treasury in sanctions policy. And other areas where, you know, they can control dollar flows and so on. And that gives the U.S. government some leverage. And that allows them to project strength in foreign policy. Has that anything to do with the traditional versions of the strong policy?
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think all of that is part and parcel to it. But it also helps to explain a little bit of why there's never going to be a very crisp, specific numerical definition of what a strong dollar policy is.
So, first and foremost, I think the discussion of intervention; I think it is, in lots of ways, consistent, especially if you have that more expansive definition of strong dollar, i.e. the currency that's very important, or most important in global financial markets and in global trade. So, I think in that regard, you could have both the intervention and the strong dollar at the same time.
I will add though that the administration has not had a clear, consistent view in this regard, in the following very specific sense. When now Governor Myron was chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, he penned a piece on the Council of Economics website that said that the reserve currency status of the dollar had brought with it some adverse effects on the U.S., and in terms of what happened in terms of trade flows and that sort of thing.
So again, this administration has also tried to find ways to increase the nuance about what the currency policy is, and putting forward the idea that too strong of a dollar in the FX sense. In the sense that you and your colleagues in FX markets would think about is a high valuation of the dollar relative to other currencies – could have contributed to these trade deficits that they're trying to push back against.
So, I would say we went from the previous broad, perhaps vague definition of strong dollar. And now we're in an even murkier regime where there could be other motivations for changing the value of the dollar.
Seth Carpenter: So, James, that's been our view in terms of the Fed, but let me come back to you because there are lots of different forces going on at the same time.
The central bank is clearly an important one, but it's only one factor among many. So, if you think about where the dollar is likely to go over the next three months, over the next six months, maybe over the next year, what is it that you and your team are looking for? Where are the questions that you're getting from clients?
James Lord: Yeah, so when we came into the start of this year, we did have a bearish view on the dollar. I would say that the drivers of it, we'd split up into two components. The first component was a lot more of the conventional stuff about growth expectations, what we see the Fed doing. And then there was another component to it where – what we defined as risk premia, I suppose. The more unconventional catalysts that can push the dollar around, as we saw, come very much to market attention during the second quarter of last year, when the Liberation Day tariffs were announced and the dollar weakened far in excess of what rate differentials would imply.
And so, I would say so far this year, the majority of the dollar move that we've seen, the weakening in the dollar that we've seen, has been driven by that second component. What we've kind of called risk premia. And the conversations that, you know, investors have been having about U.S. policy towards Greenland, and then more recently, the conversations that people have been having around FX intervention following the dollar-yen rate check. These sorts of things have been really driving the currency up until , when the Kevin Warsh nomination was announced.
When we look at the extent of the risk premia that we see in the dollar now, it is pretty close to the levels that we saw in the second quarter of last year, which is to say it's pretty big. Euro dollar would probably be closer to 1-10, if we were just thinking about the impact of rate differentials and none of this risk premia stuff over the past year had materialized.
That's obviously a very big gap. And I think for now that gap probably isn't going to widen much further, particularly now that market attention is much more focused on the impact that Kevin Warsh will have on markets and the dollar. We also have, you know, the ECB and the Bank of England; , house call for those two central banks is for them to be cutting rates. That could also put some downward pressure on those currencies, relative to the dollar. So all of that is to say for some of the major currencies within the G10 space, like sterling, like euro against the dollar, this probably isn't the time to be pushing a weaker dollar. But I think there are some other currencies which still have some opportunity in the short term, but also over the longer run as well. And that's really in emerging markets.
So all of that is to say, I think there is a strong monetary policy anchor for emerging market currencies. This is an asset class that has been under invested in for some time. And we do think that there are more gains there in the short term and over the medium term as well.
Seth Carpenter: So on that topic, James, would you then agree? So if I think about some of the EM central banks, think about Banxico, think about the BCB – where the dollar falling in value, their currency gaining in value – that could actually have a couple things go on to allow the central bank, maybe to ease more than they would've otherwise. One, in terms of imported inflation, their currency strengthening on a relative basis probably helps with a bit lower inflation. And secondly, a lot of EM central banks have to worry a bit about defending their currency, especially in a volatile geopolitical time. And you were pointing to sort of lower volatility more broadly.
So is this a reinforcing trend perhaps, where if the dollar is coming down a little bit, especially against DM currencies, it allows more external stability for those central banks, allowing them to just focus on their domestic mandates, which could also lead to a further reduction in their domestic rates, which might be good for investors.
James Lord: Yeah, I think there's something to that. given the strength of emerging market currencies. There should be, over time, more space for them to ease if the domestic conditions warrant it. But so far we're not really seeing many EM central banks taking advantage of that opportunity. There is a sort of general pattern with a lot of EMs that they’re staying pretty conservative and more hawkish than I think what markets have generally been expecting, and that's been supporting their currencies.
I think it's interesting to think about what would happen if they're on the flip side. What would happen if they did start to push monetary easing at a faster pace? I'm sure on the days where that happens, the currencies would weaken a little bit. However, if the market backdrop is generally constructive on risk, and investors want to have exposure to EM – then what could ultimately happen is that asset managers will simply buy more bonds as they price in a lower path for central bank policy over time. And that causes more capital inflows. And that sort of overwhelms the knee jerk effect from the more dovish stance of monetary policy on the currency.
You get more duration flows coming into the market and that helps their currency. So, yes, if EM central banks push back with more dovish policy, significantly, it could pose some short-term volatility. But assuming we remain a low-vol environment globally, I would use those as buying opportunities.
Seth Carpenter: Thanks, James. It's been great being on the show with you. Thank you for inviting me, and I hope to be able to come back and join you at some point in the future if you'll have me.
James Lord: Thank you, Seth, for making the time to talk. And to all you listening, thank you for lending us your ears. Let us know what you think of this podcast by leaving us a review. And if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, tell a friend or colleague about us today.

More Americans are blaming the AI infrastructure expansion for rising electricity bills. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explains how the topic may influence policy announcements ahead of the midterm elections.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley.
Today I'll be talking about the relationship between affordability, the data center buildout, and the midterm elections.
It's Wednesday, February 18th at 10am in New York.
Markets and voters continue to grapple with questions on AI, including its potential scope, impact, and disruption across industries. That's been a clear theme on the policy side as voters seem to be pushing back against AI development and data center buildout in particular. In key states, voters are associating the rise in electricity bills with AI infrastructure – and we think that could be an important read across for the midterm elections in November.
Now to be sure, electricity inflation has stayed sticky at around four to 5 percent year-over- year, and our economists expect it to remain in that range through this year and next. Nationally the impact of data centers on electricity prices has been relatively modest so far, but regionally, the pressure has been more visible.
To that point, a recent survey in Pennsylvania found that nearly twice as many respondents believe AI will hurt the economy as it will help. More than half – 55 percent – think AI is likely to take away jobs in their own industry, and 71 percent said they're concerned about how much electricity data centers consume. But this isn't just a Pennsylvania story. In other battleground states like Arizona and Michigan, voters have actually rejected plans to build new data centers locally.
So, what could that mean for the midterm elections? Think back to the off-cycle elections in November of last year. Candidates who ran on this theme of affordability and actually pushed back against data center construction tended to do pretty well in their respective races. Looking ahead to the midterm elections later this year, we see two clear takeaways from a policy perspective.
First, it's important to note that more of the policy action here will actually continue to be at the local rather than federal level. Some states with heavy data center build out – so Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas among others – are now debating who should pay for grid upgrades.
Federal proposals on this topic are still pretty nascent and fragmented. Meanwhile, public utility commissions in states like Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana have adopted or proposed large load tariffs. These require data centers to shoulder more upfront grid costs; or can reflect conditional charges like long-term contracts, minimum demand charges, exit fees or collateral requirements – all of which are designed to prevent costs from spilling over to households.
And secondly, because of that limited federal action, we expect the Trump administration to continue leaning on other levers of affordability policy, where the president actually does have some more unilateral control. We've been expecting the administration to continue focusing on broader affordability areas ranging from housing to trade policy, as we've said on this podcast in the past.
That dynamic is especially relevant this week as the Supreme Court could rule as soon as Friday on whether or not the president has the authority under IEEPA to impose the broad-based reciprocal tariffs. The administration thus far has been projecting a message of continuity. But we've noted that a decision that constrains that authority could give the president an opportunity to pursue a lighter touch tariff policy in response to the public's concerns around affordability.
That's why we think the AI infrastructure buildout debate will continue to be a flashpoint into November, especially in the context of rising data center demand. Next week, when the president delivers his State of the Union address, we expect to hear plenty about not just affordability, but also AI leadership and competitiveness. But an equally important message will be around the administration's potential policy options to address its associated costs.
That tension between AI supremacy and rising everyday costs for voters will be critical in shaping the electoral landscape into November.
Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.