Skip to main content

Fed Interest Rate Increases: The Tempest in the Teapot

Anybody who was surprised that the Federal Reserve Board decided to raise its benchmark interest rate in December 2016 probably wasn’t paying attention. The U.S. economy is humming along, the stock market doing well, the unemployment rate has fallen to a low level -- now considered to be 'full employment.' We are more recently seeing evidence of increasing wages as well.

The rate rise is extremely conservative: up 0.25%, to a targeted range from 0.50% to 0.75%—which, as you can see from the accompanying chart, is just a blip compared to where the Fed had its rates ten years ago when it was north of 5%. Keep in mind the prime rate -- more commonly used in consumer finance -- is the federal funds rate plus 3%. So prime was north of 8% in 2007.



The bigger news was the announced intention to raise rates three times next year, moving to a more “normal” 3% by the end of 2019. This is faster than prior market expectations, heading into the meeting, although still somewhat conservative. Whether any of that will happen is unknown. After all, in December 2015, the Fed was indicating two and possibly three rate adjustments in 2016 before backing off until now.

The rise in rates is good news for those who believe that the Fed has intruded on normal market forces, suppressed interest rates much longer than could be considered prudent, and even better news for people who are bullish about the U.S. economy. The Fed's announcement acknowledged the sustainable growth in economic activity and low unemployment as positive signs for the future. However, bond investors might be less pleased, as higher bond rates mean that existing bonds lose value. The recent and quick rise in bond rates at least hints that the long bull market in fixed-rate securities—that is, declining yields on bonds—may be over.

For stocks, the impact is more nuanced. Historically stocks tend to do well and not be impaired by modest interest rate and inflation increases where fast increases tend to hurt. Plus bonds and other interest-bearing securities compete with stocks for your capital investment. As interest rates rise, the see-saw between whether you prefer stability of bonds or higher expected growth of stocks tips a bit, and some stock investors move some of their investments into bonds, reducing demand for stocks and potentially lowering future returns. None of that can be predicted in advance, and the fact that the Fed has finally admitted that the economy is capable of surviving higher rates should be good news for people who are investing in the companies that make up the economy.  

The bottom line here is that, for all the headlines you might read, there is no reason to change your investment plan as a result of a 0.25% change in a rate that the Fed charges banks when they borrow funds overnight. There is always too much uncertainty about the future to make accurate predictions, and today, with the incoming administration, the tax proposals, the fiscal stimulation, and the real and proposed shifts in interest rates, the uncertainty level may be higher than usual.

For those that have trouble sleeping, you may also read the growing body of academic literature that provides compelling evidence that the Fed has little to no effect on real interest rates in the economy. Rather, markets supersede the Fed and determine these. No doubt we saw the same recently.


To Your Prosperity,

Kevin Kroskey, CFP®, MBA

 
This article adapted with permission from BobVerese.com.

Sources:http://www.businessinsider.com/fed-fomc-statement-interest-rates-december-2016-2016-12
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-to-hike-interest-rates-next-week-while-ignoring-the-elephant-in-the-room-2016-12-09
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-idUSKBN1430G4
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/12/15/fed-rate-hike-7-questions-and-answers/95470676/?hootPostID=32175354f7440337d62a767b3db92c68

Popular posts from this blog

Diversification: Disciplinarian of Disciplinarians

Disciplined diversification works when you do and even when you don't want it to. Diversification in effect forces you to sell the thing that has been doing so well in your portfolio and to buy the thing that hasn't. While this makes rational sense, it is emotionally difficult to execute. Think back to the tail end of 2008--were you selling bonds and cash to buy stocks? Most likely you weren't unless your advisor or some sort of automatic trigger did it for you. Carl Richards of www.behaviorgap.com provided a good reminder of how diversification works in a recent NY Times blog post. The diversification he discusses here is more so related to equity asset-class diversification but also touches on the three basic building blocks--equities, bonds, and cash. He doesn't discuss alternative asset classes -- an asset class that doesn't fit neatly into the three basic categories -- being used to further diversification, but that's a detailed topic for another day.

The Value of Double-Checking & Monitoring Your Retirement Strategy

Motivational speaker Denis Waitley once remarked, “You must stick to your conviction, but be ready to abandon your assumptions.” That statement certainly applies to retirement planning. Your effort must not waver, yet you must also examine it from time to time. 1       Perhaps you may realize that you under-estimated your health insurance costs and will need more retirement income than previously assumed. Or perhaps, with today's low interest rates you are not getting the level of investment returns you counted on. With those factors and others in mind, here are some signs that you may need to double-check your retirement strategy.     Your portfolio lacks significant diversification. Many baby boomers are approaching retirement with portfolios heavily weighted in U.S. equities. As many of them will have long retirements and a sustained need for growth investing, you could argue that this is entirely appropriate. Yet, U.S. equities by some measures may be over-valued by

65-80 Year Olds … A New and Exciting Demography

Should today’s 70-year-old American be considered “old?” How do you define that term these days? Statistically, your average 70-year-old has just a 2% chance of dying within a year. The estimated upper limits of average life expectancy is now 97, and a rapidly growing number of 70-year-olds will live past age 100. Perhaps more importantly, today’s 70-year-olds are in much better shape than their grandparents were at the same age. In most developed countries, healthy life expectancy from age 50 is growing faster than life expectancy itself, suggesting that the period of diminished vigor and ill health towards the end of life is being compressed. A recent series of articles in the Economist magazine suggest that we need a new term for people age 65 to 80, who are generally healthy and hearty, capable of knowledge-based work on an equal footing with 25-year-olds, and who are increasingly being shunted out of the workforce as if they were invalids or, well, “old.” Indeed, the a