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. ...

What Does $100 Buy You in Your Home State?

A new map released by the Tax Foundation shows exactly how far $100 would go in all 50 states. Using recently released data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Tax Foundation was able to show how the varying prices of goods, housing and income taxes in each state can impact consumers’ purchasing power. Southerners and Midwesterners have a serious edge over those along the East and West Coasts. A hundred bucks goes the furthest in Mississippi, where $100 will buy you what would cost $115.74 in another state that's closer to the national average. The next low-price states are Arkansas, Missouri, and Alabama. Ohio comes in at an encouraging $112.11 Meanwhile, $100 would only be worth $84.60 in the District of Columbia, the priciest state, $85.32 in Hawaii and $86.66 in New York. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-much--100-is-worth-in-your-state-152310027.html Click the Map Read More

Medals Per Million

By now, you've seen the final medal count at the London Olympics, and no doubt felt a stirring of national pride.   American athletes took home 104 total gold, silver and bronze medals, comfortably ahead of China (87), Russia (82), Great Britain (65), Germany (44), Japan (38), Australia (35), France (34), South Korea (28) and Italy (28).   Does that mean that we Americans--so often accused of being a nation of couch potatoes--are the most athletic people in the world?   Total medal count is one way to measure, but it may not be the best.   Another measurement would take into account the relative number of medals compared to a country's total population: Olympic medals per capita, or (to avoid many decimal places) the number of medals each nation took home per million people in its population. Medals per million gives us a very different ranking.   By this measure, citizens of the Caribbean island of Granada are by far the most athletic, with 9.5 Ol...