It’s been a wonky year for markets so far—but there may be several stocks to play it.
While the Federal Reserve has yet to give a clear signal it will pause interest rate hikes, many investors believe that rates will moderate in 2023 as the central bank works to fight inflation. As a result, stocks have rallied this year, with the S&P 500 up 9% andBig Tech companies generating stellar earnings results all in the face of bank worries and recession fears.
Several fund managers who attended the Morningstar Investment Conference are still looking for bargains—even though many economists such as Bank of America’s Michael Gapen see a case for a mild economic slowdown in 2023. The managers are focused on players in the aerospace industry, given the healthy outlook for travel, and companies with strong pricing power that can weather big swings in consumer demand.

Fidelity Investments portfolio manager Matt Fruhan during a panel on Wednesday said that he’s bullish on U.S. commercial aerospace firms such as Boeing (ticker: BA) and General Electric Company (GE). Passenger air traffic is growing and “we are still in the recovery phase of covid,” said Fruhan, who has been investing in the theme for the past 12 months to 18 months.
Demand for air travel in February—as measured by revenue and distances flown—rose 55.5% versus a year ago, according to the latest air traffic report from the International Air Transport Association, which represents some 300 airlines. That figure, however, is still lower than pre pandemic levels, matching about 85% of global traffic witnessed in February 2019.
Besides the U.S. names, Fruhan also likes French aerospace supplier Safran (SAF.France). It’s an engine manufacturer that also sells units like seats and lavatories and offers repair services, adding a recurring revenue stream.
Nate Velarde, co-portfolio manager of the Chautauqua International Growth Fund, bought Safran shares in 2022. He sees the proliferation of low-cost airlines as a tailwind—and is impressed by the company’s successive price increases in its spare parts business in 2021 and about 10% in November last year.
“Given the broad environment we are faced in, you need to find companies that have the ability to protect margins [through] pricing power,” Velarde told Barron’s at the conference.

Spencer Adair, a portfolio manager and partner at Baillie Gifford, says luxury cosmetic brand stocks are the best examples of pricing power, given makeup stands as “absolutely critical” in any macro environment.
One of his favourites: Estée Lauder (EL), which was a Barron’s pick last year. Shares are down 0.6% so far this year: Results for the December ended quarter showed prolonged Covid-19 lockdowns affected foot traffic at bricks-and-mortar stores in China. However, Adair expects these headwinds to abate, as China’s reopening gathers steam and Estée Lauder accelerates its direct to consumers sales.
Adair, who manages the nearly $300 billion investment firm, also likes Japanese skincare brand Shiseido (SSDOY), which reported a 6% drop in its China business last year. Adair cited demand from Chinese travellers, who are known for their interest in multi-step skincare regimens, as a tailwind.
Natasha Kuhlkin, a large-cap growth equity portfolio manager at Jennison Associates, sees strength in global luxury consumer brands. While sitting on a panel about the disruption of growth stocks with Adair and Fruhan, Kuhlkin named LVMH Moët Hennessey Louis Vuitton (LVMUY) and athleisure brand Lululemon Athletica (LULU). “There’s a controlled supply” of these companies, she said, adding that they “are starting to appeal to more consumers.”
Lululemon trades at 31.6 times forward earnings, lower than its 40.5 times five-year average. LVMH, meanwhile, is trading at 25.6 times nearly matching its average five-year price-to-earnings ratio.
Ultimately, it’s all about customer demand and how far can people stretch their frugality. Switching to a cheaper laundry detergent may work for some, but quitting on their go-to-gym leggings might be asking too much—giving companies with pricing power a leg up.
Automobili Lamborghini and Babolat have expanded their collaboration with five new colourways for the ultra-exclusive BL.001 racket, limited to just 50 pieces worldwide.
As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.
As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.
For decades, Australia has leaned into its reputation as the lucky country. But luck, as it turns out, is not an economic strategy.
What once looked like resilience now appears increasingly fragile. Beneath the surface of rising property values and steady headline growth, the Australian economy is showing signs of strain that can no longer be ignored.
Recent data paints a sobering picture. Australia has recorded one of the largest declines in real household disposable income per capita among advanced economies.
Wages have failed to keep pace with inflation, meaning many Australians are working harder for less. On a per capita basis, income growth has stalled and, at times, reversed.
And yet, on paper, things still look relatively solid. GDP is growing. Unemployment remains low. But that growth is increasingly being driven by population expansion rather than productivity.
More people are contributing to output, but not necessarily improving living standards.
That distinction matters.
For years, Australia’s economic success rested on a powerful combination: a once-in-a-generation mining boom, a credit-fuelled housing market, strong migration and a property sector that rarely faltered. Between 1991 and 2020, the country avoided recession entirely, building enormous wealth in the process.
But much of that wealth is tied to property. Around two-thirds of household wealth sits in real estate, inflated by leverage and sustained by demand. It has worked, until now.
The problem is the supply side of the economy has not kept up.
Housing supply is falling behind population growth. Rental vacancies are near record lows.
Construction firms are collapsing at an elevated rate. At the same time, massive infrastructure pipelines are competing with residential projects for labour and materials, pushing costs higher and delaying delivery.
The result is a system under pressure from all angles.
Despite near full employment, productivity growth has stagnated for years. In simple terms, Australians are putting in more hours without generating more output per hour. The economy is running faster, butgoing nowhere.
Meanwhile, government spending continues to expand. Public debt is approaching $1 trillion, with spending now accounting for a record share of GDP.
The gap between spending and revenue has been filled by borrowing for decades, adding further pressure to an already stretched system.
This is where the uncomfortable question emerges.
Has Australia become too reliant on a model driven by rising property values, expanding credit and population growth?
As asset prices rise, households feel wealthier and borrow more. Banks lend more. Governments collect more revenue. Migration fuels demand. The cycle reinforces itself.
But when productivity stalls and debt outpaces real income, the system begins to depend on constant expansion just to stay stable.
It is not a collapse scenario. But it is not particularly stable either.
Nowhere is this more evident than in housing.
The National Housing Accord targets 1.2 million new homes over five years, yet current completion rates are well below that pace. With approvals falling and construction costs rising, the gap between supply and demand is widening, not narrowing.
Housing is also one of the largest contributors to inflation, with costs rising sharply across rents, construction and utilities. Yet the private sector, from small investors to major developers, is struggling to make projects stack up in the current environment.
This brings the policy debate into sharper focus.
Tax settings such as negative gearing and capital gains concessions have undoubtedly boosted demand over the past two decades. But they have also supported supply. Removing them may ease prices briefly, but risks deepening the supply shortage over time.
That is the paradox.
Policies designed to make housing more affordable can, in practice, make the shortage worse if they discourage development. The optics may appeal, but the economics are far less forgiving.
It is also worth remembering that most property investors are not institutional players. The majority own just one investment property. They are, in many cases, ordinary Australians using real estate as their primary wealth-building tool.
Undermining that system without replacing it with a viable alternative risks unintended consequences, from reduced supply to higher rents and increased inflation.
So where does that leave Australia?
At a crossroads.
The country can continue to rely on population growth and rising asset prices to drive economic activity. Or it can shift towards a model built on productivity, innovation and sustainable growth.
The latter is harder. It requires structural reform, long-term thinking and political discipline.
But it is also the only path that leads to genuine, lasting prosperity.
The question is no longer whether Australia has been lucky.
It is whether it can evolve before that luck runs out.
Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.
From citrus oils to warming spices, the classic G&T is being reimagined at home as a more thoughtful, seasonal ritual for modern entertaining.
From snow-dusted valleys to festival-filled autumns, Bhutan reveals itself as a rare destination where culture, nature and spirituality unfold year-round.










