Not one, nor two, but three: three have been the shocks that markets have been experiencing this year. A shock produced by AI, the energy price shock on account of the conflict between Iran and the United States, and, more recently, the sharp correction seen in sovereign debt. Josefina Rodríguez, an economist with Vanguard’s Investment Strategy Group team, recently shared at a media breakfast in Madrid how her firm’s macro vision is articulated around these three shocks. A clue: the central scenario her team’s experts are working with is more optimistic than the consensus, particularly regarding AI.
Artificial Intelligence Shock
Consensus estimates capex spending by major hyperscalers at around 1.3 trillion euros for 2026, a figure that rises to 1.7 trillion looking toward 2027… six times higher than the numbers these companies were handling a year before the pandemic, in 2019. Rodríguez noted that market expectations are high, but added that if these companies actually manage to capitalize on their investments, it will have a direct impact on the real economy and, in turn, drive private investment, particularly in the U.S.
The expert added that Vanguard’s view is that “the investment cycle will be higher and longer than the historical average, and with greater demand.” According to the firm’s calculations, private investment in the U.S. could reach 10%. Considering that investment accounts for 20% of total U.S. GDP, she anticipates that the country will grow next year at a rate of 3%, compared to the 2% anticipated by the consensus.
This optimistic view on AI will obviously be reflected in equities. The economist recalled that the current environment features high valuations backed by solid earnings, “which offer breathing room to face today’s high rates,” and indicated that the consensus forecast for next year is for corporate earnings to grow once again at a double-digit rate.
However, the expert clarified that the trajectory of the AI investment cycle will not be linear. Vanguard’s baseline scenario foresees continued gains at a rate similar to the current one over the next 12 to 18 months, followed by an inevitable market correction triggered by one of these catalysts, or a combination of several:
- Lack of monetization
- Commoditization of competition, with high levels of uncertainty driven by the launch of new models
- Physical bottlenecks
- Potentially stricter regulation
Energy Shock
The expert described the recent surge in gas prices and Brent crude climbing back above $100 as “a second wave,” referring to the initial peak recorded following the outbreak of hostilities between the United States and Iran. The difference is that this time it has been accompanied by a decoupling between refining margins and crude prices, which is also impacting final consumer prices. Furthermore, she highlighted that the spike in natural gas prices has left Europe in a vulnerable position as it entered this autumn with inventories at very low levels.
How is this energy price escalation impacting inflation? Rodríguez asked to frame the data within the context that major central banks have failed to maintain inflation at their 2% target on a sustained basis over the past five years. For her, the issue is that now the base effect of rising prices is also being channeled via goods-related inflation (transportation, for example), which carries a larger weight in the CPI calculation. Thus, Vanguard forecasts that both the ECB and the Bank of England (BoE) will raise interest rates twice each over the next six months.
The expert also detailed another important consideration when approaching inflation under these macro conditions: the possibility that the neutral interest rate could be higher than in the past. Two main factors would press against financial conditions and justify a higher neutral rate: elevated government deficits and an increase in capital demand from both governments and corporations.
Specifically, the thesis Vanguard is working with is that this neutral rate should sit above 4% in the U.S., compared to the Federal Reserve’s estimate that it should lie between 3% and 3.5%. “This could explain why the Fed has not been able to get inflation back down to its target,” commented Rodríguez.
Bond Shock
The third component of the equation is the recent correction in bonds, with the yield curve under particular pressure at the long end. Here, the economist detailed that Vanguard is working with three baseline scenarios, with its central scenario being the most optimistic of the three: a macro environment similar to that experienced in the 1990s during the expansion of telecommunications, with interest rates near 4% and inflation at 2%. This environment would be marked by AI’s ability to meaningfully boost productivity, driving growth and reducing government deficits. Additionally, the firm considers that part of AI’s transformative power could also impact longevity and healthy habits, translating into a reduction in healthcare expenditures.
The second scenario to which the firm assigns a higher probability is similar to the 1980s: AI is not transformative enough to drive productivity demand with a positive impact, leaving interest rates at 5% and inflation between 2% and 3%. It would also be a scenario marked by higher fiscal pressures.
The final scenario, assigned the lowest probability, would resemble the 1970s: a period of fiscal dominance where the Fed’s margin for maneuver would be narrow, as it could not raise interest rates sufficiently due to fiscal risks. In this scenario, rates would sit at 4% with inflation above 3%, pushing nominal rates above 7%.
Which Assets Could Perform Best?
The final part of the presentation revolved around Vanguard’s estimates regarding performance across different asset classes over the coming decade. The firm expressed a preference for fixed income assets, calculating based on its central scenario that annual returns for both equities and fixed income will hover around 5% per year over the next ten years, making fixed income the alternative offering the best risk-adjusted return.
