query: What causes US Treasury I bond fixed interest to increase?

positive: The Fed is trying to keep the money supply growing at a rate just slightly faster than the increase in the total production in the economy. If this year we produced, say, 3% more goods and services than last year, than they try to make the money supply grow by maybe 4% or 5%. That way there should be a small rate of inflation. They are trying to prevent high inflation rates on one hand or deflation on the other. When the interest rate on T-bills is low, banks will borrow more money. As the Fed creates this money out of thin air when banks buy a T-bill, this adds money to the economy. When the interest rate on T-bills is high, banks will borrow little or nothing. As they'll be repaying older T-bills, this will result in less growth in the money supply or even contraction. So the Feds change the rate when they see that economic growth is accelerating or decelerating, or that the inflation rate is getting too high or too low.

negative: "Let's talk interest rates on your junk bonds. Even after all that the US has been through (and is still going through), the United States dollar is widely regarded as one of the safest safe havens for your money. As such it serves as a de facto baseline against which all other investments can be measured, the bar everyone has to pass: if you could earn 4% on a 5-year US Treasury bond, or earn 4% on anything else over the next 5 years, you pick the Treasury bond. In many ways this means that the interest rate on a Treasury bond is the closest single measure we have to the price of money all by itself. If someone is loaning you money, they could be loaning it to the Treasury instead; they are losing out by making this loan to you, and must charge you at least this rate just to break even. But most people/governments/countries aren't as credit-worthy as the US Treasury. A few are (the US treasury isn't magical, after all, just really good at what it does), but generally they are not. There is a possibility when loaning money to these entities that you will not get your money back. That is risk. All entities have some risk (even the US treasury!), and some have more than others; ""junk bonds"" have a somewhat elevated level of this risk. Now, you don't just take a risk on for free (unless you're being charitable or something, but I hope you can find better beneficiaries of charity than the average junk bond). You need to be compensated for that risk. Lenders will demand compensation commensurate with that risk - or they will just walk away without making any loans or buying any bonds because it's not worth it. The difference between the interest rate on a US Treasury bond and the interest rate on another bond, such as a junk bond, is the risk premium - the cost of carrying that risk. Therefore you can see that the interest rate on a junk bond is the price of money plus the risk premium. Now, the Federal Reserve adjusts the price of money from time to time, by buying and selling US Treasury bonds until the price is something they like. This means that one component of interest rate on a junk bond is the interest rate on the US Treasury bond, and it is effectively controlled by the Federal Reserve (through that layer of indirection). The other component of the interest rate on a junk bond is the risk premium. It's not generally possible to know in advance whether or not some company will actually default. People have to guess, and decide how comfortable they are taking that risk. This means that risk is more expensive (and interest rates are higher) when they think the companies in question are going through some hard times, and risk will also be more expensive when people decide that they can't take as many risks (perhaps they've already lost some money and need to take additional steps to protect the rest). It's definitely very hard for an individual to decide what the risk on a particular bond is. The good news is that you generally don't have to. There are a bunch of rich jerks, hedge funds, retirement funds, insurance companies, and other investment entities out there who spend all day looking at things like bonds, trying to estimate the risk. Their willingness to exploit minuscule differences between the interest rate on a bond and the real risk means that the average bond on the market will be fairly priced, according to what all those people think. Plenty of them can still be wrong, mind you (cf. mortgage-backed securities) but in the general case the price of any security reflects all the information everyone in the world has on it on average, so if you're wrong you're in good company. When you buy a nice diversified bond fund, you have access to a bunch of bonds at a pretty-standard price.  So that's interest rates for you. But you asked about prices. As it turns out, they're the same thing! - just expressed slightly differently.  One way or another a bond is essentially meant to be a stream of payments worth a certain amount in the end - this is why you'll hear them referred to sometimes as a ""fixed-income security"". The interest rate is essentially the difference between the price you pay now, and the value you receive later, except expressed as a rate. Technically, you could structure the bonds differently (e.g. does the bond pay little bits of interest as you go along, or just pay one big lump sum in the end?) but you can use Math to convert between these two situations, and figure out how much money is worth which when, so it doesn't really matter. Anyway. This means that rising interest rates means lower bond prices on bonds you already own (and falling interest rates means higher bond prices). So if the Federal Reserve increases interest rates, the face value of your bond funds will fall. Also, if people think that the companies issuing the bonds are too risky, the face value of those bonds will also fall. (You were probably expecting the latter effect, though.) Mind you, you will still get the same amount of future money out of them as you would otherwise: that's why they're fixed-income securities. However, a higher interest rate means ""I can get more money in the future for less money now"", and so people will be willing to pay you less for your bond in the present. This is known as interest rate risk. It is higher on longer term bonds, because those have more time to earn interest."

negative: "So ""Operation Twist"" is actually a pretty simple concept. Here's the break down: The Fed sells short-term treasury bonds that it already holds on its books. Short-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in less than three years. Then: Uses that money to buy long term treasury bonds. Long-term treasury bonds refer to -  bonds that mature in six to 30 years The reason: The fed buys these longer-term treasuries to lower longer-term interest rates and encourage more borrowing and spending. Diving deeper into how it works: So the Fed can easily determine short-term rates by using the Federal funds rate this rate has a direct effect on the following: However this does not play a direct role in influencing the rate of long-term loans (what you might pay on a 30-year fixed mortgage). Instead, long-term rates are determined by investors who buy and sell bonds in the bond market, which changes daily. These bond yields fluctuate depending on the health of the economy and inflation. However, the Fed funds rate does play an indirect role in these rates. So now that we know a little more about what effects what rate, why does lower long-term rates in treasuries influence my 30yr fixed mortgage? Well when you are looking for a loan you are entering a market and competing against other people, by people I mean anyone looking for money (e.g: my grandmother, companies, or the US government). The bank that lends you money has to decide weather the deal you are offering them is better then another deal on the market. If the risk of lending to one person is the same as the risk of lending to another, the bank will make whichever loan yields the higher interest rate. The U.S. government is considered a very safe borrower, so much so that government bonds are considered almost “risk free”, but because of the lower risk the rate of return is lower. So now the bank has to factor in this risk and make its decision weather to lend you money, or the government. So, if the government were to go to the market and buy its own long-term bonds it is adding demand in the market causing the price of the bond to rise in effect lowering the interest rate (when price goes up, yield goes down). So when you go back and ask for a loan it has to re-evaluate and decide ""Is it worth giving this money to Joe McFreeBeer instead and collecting a higher yield?"" (After all, Joe McFreeBeer is a nice guy). Here's an example: Lets say the US has a rating of 10 out of 10 and its bonds pay a 2% yield. Now lets say for each lower mark in rating the bank will lend at a minimum of 1% higher and your rating is 8 of 10. So if you go to market, the lowest rate you can get will be 4%. Now lets say price rises on the US treasury and causes the rate to go down by 1%. In this scenario you will now be able to get a loan for 3% and someone with a rating of 7 of 10 would be able to get that 4% loan. Here's some more info and explinations: Why is the Government Buying Long-Term Bonds? What Is 'Operation Twist'? A Q&A on US Fed Program Federal Reserve for Beginners Federal Open Market Committee"

negative: I'll get to my answer in a moment, but first need to put focus on the two key components of bond prices: interest rates and credit risk. Suppose that the 10-year treasury has a coupon of 2% per year (it would be paid as 1% twice per year, in reality). If you own one contract of the bond which we suppose has a so-called face-value of $100, then this contract will over the ten years pay you a total of $20 in coupons, then $100 at redemption. So $120 in total. Would you therefore buy this 10-year treasury bond for $120, or more, or less? Well, if there were bank accounts around which were offering you an interest rate of 2% per year fixed for the next 10 years, then you could alternatively generate $120 from just $100 deposited now (if we assume that the interest paid is not put back in the account to earn 2% per year). Consequently, a price of $100 for the treasury would seem about right. However, suppose that you are not very confident that the banks that offer these accounts will even be around in 10 years time, maybe they will fail before that and you'll never get your money back. Then you might say to yourself that the above calculation is mathematically right, but not really a full representation of the different risks. And you conclude that maybe treasuries should be a bit more expensive, because they offer better credit risk than bank deposits.  All of this just to show that the price of bonds is a comparative valuation of rates and credit: you need to know the general level of interest rates available in other investment products (even in stocks, I'd say), you need to have a feel for how much credit risk there is in the different investment products. Most people think that 'normally' interest rates are positive, because we are so familiar with the basic principle that: if I lend you some money then you need to pay me some interest. But in a world where everyone is worried about bank failures, people might prefer to effectively 'deposit' our savings with the US treasury (by buying their bonds) than to deposit their savings in the local bank. The US treasury will see this extra demand and put up the prices of their  bonds (they are not stupid at the US treasury, you know!), so maybe the price of the 10-year treasury will go above $120. It could, right? In this scenario, the implied yield on the 10-year treasury is negative. There you go, yields have gone negative because of credit risk concerns.

negative: "The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average ""spread"" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more.  How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now. Furthermore, there are issues of liquidity. What if you need more capital? Can you just sell a property or can you buy now property to draw equity against? What if the market is moving too fast for you to take advantage of. Don't ignore transaction costs and taxes either.  Overall, there are a lot of ways that your idea can go wrong, and not many ways it can go right."

negative: You’ve really got three or four questions going here… and it’s clear that a gap in understanding one component of how bonds work (pricing) is having a ripple effect across the other facets of your question. The reality is that everybody’s answers so far touch on various pieces of your general question, but maybe I can help by integrating. So, let’s start by nailing down what your actual questions are:  1. Why do mortgage rates (tend to) increase when the published treasury bond rate increases? I’m going to come back to this, because it requires a lot of building blocks. 2. What’s the math behind a bond yield increasing (price falling?)  This gets complicated, fast. Especially when you start talking about selling the bond in the middle of its time period. Many people that trade in bonds use financial calculators, Excel, or pre-calculated tables to simplify or even just approximate the value of a bond. But here’s a simple example that shows the math.  Let’s say we’ve got a bond that is issued by… Dell for $10,000. The company will pay it back in 5 years, and it is offering an 8% rate. Interest payments will only be paid annually. Remember that the amount Dell has promised to pay in interest is fixed for the life of the bond, and is called the ‘coupon’ rate. We can think about the way the payouts will be paid in the following table:   As I’m sure you know, the value of a bond (its yield) comes from two sources: the interest payments, and the return of the principal. But, if you as an investor paid $14,000 for this bond, you would usually be wrong. You need to ‘discount’ those amounts to take into account the ‘time value of money’. This is why when you are dealing in bonds it is important to know the ‘coupon rate’ (what is Dell paying each period?). But it is also important to know your sellers’/buyers’ own personal discount rates. This will vary from person to person and institution to institution, but it is what actually sets the PRICE you would buy this bond for.  There are three general cases for the discount rate (or the MARKET rate). First, where the market rate == the coupon rate. This is known as “par” in bond parlance. Second, where the market rate < the coupon rate. This is known as “premium” in bond parlance. Third, where the market rate > coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond.  But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is:  Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is:  Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) **cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 * (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82.  Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding.  So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end.  If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000].  It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae.  Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question.  Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values.  To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations.  Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future.  That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity.  3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate.  Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time.  Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields.  At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you.  4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates?  When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk.  When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments.  5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan.  So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government.  And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates.

negative: "Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return?  With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. ""Risk"" is just a fancy word for ""Will I make money in the near/ long future."" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking.  There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up.  ""Tremendous Losses"" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis.  As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income."

negative: "The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less.  The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea.  Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall.  You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds.  After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive.  Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls.  So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government).  Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point.  If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in.  Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes?  If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going.  Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged.  That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (""convenience yield"").  In general, treasuries just don't pay much.  Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia."

negative: "A paper EE series US Savings Bond is what is called a zero-coupon bond: you buy it at a discount from the face value (50% discount for US Savings Bonds), and it earns interest though you don't get the interest as cash (that you could invest elsewhere). Instead, the interest earned increases the  redemption value of the bond -- the money that you will receive if you take the bond to your bank to cash it in before the maturity date. When the bond finally matures, its redemption value has increased to the full face value.  The maturity date for paper EE series US Savings Bonds issued in May 1995 is 17 years. Now, with zero-coupon bonds in general, the IRS requires that the interest earned each year be reported as interest income even though you did not receive any cash income, and tax is due on the interest (unless it is a tax-free municipal bond or the bond is held in a tax-deferred investment such as an IRA or 401(k) plan). However, there is a special exemption for EE Series US Savings Bonds in that the owner has the option of not declaring the interest each year but instead reporting all the accumulated interest as interest income in the year of redemption. (Most people choose this option). It is not capital gains as you would like to be.   So, if your grandfather paid $11K$ for EE series US Savings Bonds in May 1995, the face value of the bonds he received was $22K, and, assuming that your grandfather followed typical practice, the bonds were worth $22K in May 2012, and $11K interest income needed to be declared that year.  This matches up pretty well with the amount the IRS told him was interest income on which he had to pay income tax (though the year is off by 3).  Now, your grandfather died in 2008, and what happened to the bonds depends on in whose name(s) the bonds were registered (e.g. was your father named as the survivor on the bond), or, if your grandfather was the sole owner, how your grandfather's estate was handled (the interest accrued till your grandfather died belonged to the estate). Note also that EE series bonds continue to earn interest in years 18 through 30 after they mature, but at maturity, the interest rate is reset by the Treasury, usually to the long-term interest rate which has been very small over the past many years. So, the interest earned in 2012-2015 when your father effectively redeemed the bond is small enough that the ""approximately $11K"" could be construed as covering $11.3K consisting of $11K of interest before maturity and $300 interest (at about 1% per annum) over the three-year post maturity period. The $100 interest earned by you for the current year sounds about right too. All in all, it might be the case that your grandfather bought the bonds in his name, your father's name, and your name (were you very young in 1995?), your father and you inherited the bonds in 2008, and then your father removed your grandfather's name from the bonds in 2015, thus transferring the bonds to his name and yours in 2015, and soon thereafter removed his name, transferring the bonds into your name alone. As to why 2015 and not 2008 when your grandfather passed away, did you turn 21 in 2015 (twenty years after the bonds were bought)?"

negative: "My question boiled down: Do stock mutual funds behave more like   treasury bonds or commodities? When I think about it, it seems that   they should respond the devaluation like a commodity. I own a quantity   of company shares (not tied to a currency), and let's assume that the   company only holds immune assets. Does the real value of my stock   ownership go down? Why? On December 20, 1994, newly inaugurated President Ernesto Zedillo   announced the Mexican central bank's devaluation of the peso between   13% and 15%.  Devaluing the peso after previous promises not to do so   led investors to be skeptical of policymakers and fearful of   additional devaluations. Investors flocked to foreign investments and   placed even higher risk premia on domestic assets. This increase in   risk premia placed additional upward market pressure on Mexican   interest rates as well as downward market pressure on the Mexican   peso.  Foreign investors anticipating further currency devaluations   began rapidly withdrawing capital from Mexican investments and selling   off shares of stock as the Mexican Stock Exchange plummeted. To   discourage such capital flight, particularly from debt instruments,   the Mexican central bank raised interest rates, but higher borrowing   costs ultimately hindered economic growth prospects. The question is how would they pull this off if it's a floatable currency.  For instance, the US government devalued the US Dollar against gold in the 30s, moving one ounce of gold from $20 to $35.   The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing   individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in   United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The   act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce   to $35. But now, the US Dollar is not backed by anything, so how do they devalue it now (outside of intentionally inflating it)?  The Hong Kong Dollar, since it is fixed to the US Dollar, could be devalued relative to the Dollar, going from 7.75 to 9.75 or something similar, so it depends on the currency. As for the final part, ""does the real value of my stock ownership go down"" the answer is yes if the stock ownership is in the currency devalued, though it may rise over the longer term if investors think that the value of the company will rise relative to devaluation and if they trust the market (remember a devaluation can scare investors, even if a company has value). Sorry that there's too much ""it depends"" in the answer; there are many variables at stake for this.  The best answer is to say, ""Look at history and what happened"" and you might see a pattern emerge; what I see is a lot of uncertainty in past devaluations that cause panics."

negative: Rates are a complex field. I will assume that context wise you are talking about rates for a individual saver quantities. The two rates you are asking about are personal bank saving account and exchange traded bonds. The points you want to compare between them are. In general, a bond is what we called a fixed rate instrument. This means that for the life of the product, it will yield a fixed percentage of its face value at a regular period. Baring any extreme circumstances (such as bankruptcy), no external factors will change the payment schedule on a bond. Conversely, by placing your money into a bank, you will accrue interest rate at some value related to some published interest rate. For example, if tomorrow, the Treasury decided to try to stimulate the economy, they could slash the interest rate, this would directly affect the rate at which your savings account would accrue interest. In general, a bond has a maturity date, where the capital is finally released from the bond. Until such date, you cannot access the money directly (you can however sell the bond, but it would likely be at a discounted value). Therefore, in general, you cannot get access to the money whenever you want it. As for a saving account, normally one can access the funds instantly, if not within a few days. This seems to the reason people seem to be focusing on. For each bond, the issuer of the bond is obligated to pay you the holder of the bond fixed payments at an interval, plus the capital at the maturity. However, obligation does not mean guarantee. If the issuer, is unable to make the payments, they may go into bankruptcy to avoid paying you. There are companies setup to advise people on the likelihood of each bond issuer on their ability to honour their debts. For example Standard and Poor issues a rating which goes all the way up to AAA for bonds. Recently, many sovereign countries have lost their AAA rating from S&P. Meaning that S&P feel that the possibility of these countries going bankrupt is non-zero. Conversely, banks may also be unable to give you your money when requested. In the US, the reserve requirements means that at any one time it only holds 10% of the money it owes to its customers. This can mean that if every customer turns up to the bank to demand their money, that bank would be unable to pay. This situation is called a Bank Run. During such a situation, the bank would likely collapse and default. In many modern countries, the government put into place guarantees on the first xxx amount in saving accounts, but otherwise, your savings could be lost. There are many complex reasons to choose one instrument over another (including some I have avoided), even if at the outset, they could appear to have the same rates.

negative: You must mean the current debt ceiling debacle. The meaning of it is: US government is constantly borrowing money (by issuing treasury bonds) and constantly repaying some of the bonds that come to maturity, and also has other obligations it has to meet by law all the time - such as Social Security checks, bonds interest, federal employees' salaries and pensions, etc. By law, total amount of money that can be borrowed at the same time is capped. That means, there can be situation where the government needs to borrow money to pay, say, interest on existing bonds, but can not, since the limit is reached. Such situation is called a default, since the government promised to pay the interest, but is unable to do so. That does not mean the government has no money at all and will completely collapse or couldn't raise money on the market if it were permitted by law to do so (currently, the market is completely willing to buy the debt issued by US government, and with interest that is not very high, though of course that may change). It also does not mean the economy ceases to function, dollars cease to have value or banks instantly go bankrupt. But if the government breaks its promises to investors, it has various consequences such as raising the costs of borrowing in the future. Breaking promises to other people - like Social Security recipients - would also look bad and probably hurt many of them. Going back to your bank account, most probably nothing would happen to the money you store there. Even if the bank had invested 100% of the money in US treasury bonds (which doesn't really happen) they still can be sold on the open market, even if with some discount in the event of credit rating downgrade, so most probably your account would not be affected. As stated in another answer, even if the fallout of all these calamities causes a bank to fail, there's FDIC and if your money is under insured maximums you'll be getting your money back. But if your bank is one of the big ones, nothing of the sort would happen anyway - as we have seen in the past years, government would do practically anything to not allow any big bank failures.

negative: This is exactly what they are doing.  Examples would be the BRICS trading bloc and the ASEAN equivalent.  Along with the trade agreements that many countries have made with Iran, all of which completely bypass the American Dollar.    America needs to recognize that for many countries in the world, dumping their excess reserves in US Treasury Bonds is not in their best interest any longer.  Especially considering the fiscal situation in the US, and the policies that are used to manipulate bond rates.  (These policies are cross aisle, this is not a political statement)  American Imperial might is finite.  Americans ignore this at their own peril.  Edit: I would also add the regulatory and legal uncertainty in the US is also a problem.  By that I mean things like MF Global, Peregrine Financial, Knight Capital among others.

negative: I'm a bond trader and we stayed away from this Tesla deal. Tesla is cash flow negative which is a terrible sign for a bond investor and is still relatively young and changing constantly. When assessing fixed income investments you want steady predictable cash flows and positive credit metrics. Tesla has none of that despite the run up in the stock. Even after taking all of these things into consideration the yields aren't even very high reflecting a compression in the amount of spread to treasuries investors are asking for taking on the risk in this kind of name. It speaks to an overvalued high yield market in general.  Ford on the other hand is a mature business with much more favorable credit metrics (debt interest coverage, consistent management, a credit history of borrowing and repaying their loans, etc.). All of these things are reflected in the yield that investors require when buying bonds.

negative: The literal answer to your question 'what determines the price of an ETF' is 'the market'; it is whatever price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept. But if the market price of an ETF share deviates significantly from its NAV, the per-share market value of the securities in its portfolio, then an Authorized Participant can make an arbitrage profit by a transaction (creation or redemption) that pushes the market price toward NAV. Thus as long as the markets are operating and the APs don't vanish in a puff of smoke we can expect price will track NAV. That reduces your question to: why does NAV = market value of the holdings underlying a bond ETF share decrease when the market interest rate rises?  Let's consider an example. I'll use US Treasuries because they have very active markets, are treated as risk-free (although that can be debated), and excluding special cases like TIPS and strips are almost perfectly fungible. And I use round numbers for convenience. Let's assume the current market interest rate is 2% and 'Spindoctor 10-year Treasury Fund' opens for business with $100m invested (via APs) in 10-year T-notes with 2% coupon at par and 1m shares issued that are worth $100 each. Now assume the interest rate goes up to 3% (this is an example NOT A PREDICTION); no one wants to pay par for a 2% bond when they can get 3% elsewhere, so its value goes down to about 0.9 of par (not exactly due to the way the arithmetic works but close enough) and Spindoctor shares similarly slide to $90. At this price an investor gets slightly over 2% (coupon*face/basis) plus approximately 1% amortized capital gain (slightly less due to time value) per year so it's competitive with a 3% coupon at par.  As you say new bonds are available that pay 3%. But our fund doesn't hold them; we hold old bonds with a face value of $100m but a market value of only $90m. If we sell those bonds now and buy 3% bonds to (try to) replace them, we only get $90m par value of 3% bonds, so now our fund is paying a competitive 3% but NAV is still only $90.  At the other extreme, say we hold the 2% bonds to maturity, paying out only 2% interest but letting our NAV increase as the remaining term (duration) and thus discount of the bonds decreases -- assuming the market interest rate doesn't change again, which for 10 years is probably unrealistic (ignoring 2009-2016!). At the end of 10 years the 2% bonds are redeemed at par and our NAV is back to $100 -- but from the investor's point of view they've forgone $10 in interest they could have received from an alternative investment over those 10 years, which is effectively an additional investment, so the original share price of $90 was correct.

negative: Sure thing -  Treasuries Bonds/Bills are what the US Gov uses to borrow. However it's slightly different than taking out a loan. It's basically an agreement to give (repay) a set sum of money at a certain time in the future in exchange for a sum of funding that's determined by market forces (supply & demand). The difference between today's price and the payment in the future is the interest.   For example (completely made up numbers):  - Today is 08/05/2017 - The government issues a bond that say it will pay who ever owns this bond $105 on 08/05/**2018** - The market decides that $105 from the US government paid a year from now is worth $100 today.   In other words the US Government is borrowing for one year at a rate of 5%       (105 - 100) / 100 = .05 = 5%  Now consider Saudi Arabia's petroleum company, Aramco.  Because petroleum is traded in dollars, when Aramco makes a sale, its paid in USD. Some of that is going to be reinvested into the company, some paid out in dividends to share holders but inevitably some of that will be saved someplace where it can make interest. Because treasuries are traded/issued in dollars and because Aramco's businesses deals primarily in dollars, treasuries are the natural place to store that savings, especially because the market considers them extremely safe.   If they exchange the USD into the Saudi currency to store the money in Saudi assets, Aramco is subject to  *exchange rate risk*. If the riyal depreciates relative to the dollar, Aramco will lose wealth on the exchange back to dollars when they go to move those funds back into their business. It's in their interest to deal with assets denominated in USD (i.e. T-Bonds) in order to avoid this.  So now because the Saudis want T-Bonds as well, the additional demand pushes the market price of our bond from $100 to $102. And the effective one year borrowing rate for the Government goes from 5% to 2.9%.      (105 - 102)/102 = .029411 = 2.9%  And there you have it, cheaper borrowing. It's also worth noting how this encourages business around the world to deal in dollars which are directly controlled by the federal reserve. This makes the US's position extremely powerful.

negative: "you want more information on what? The general bond market? This article is getting at something different, but the first several pages are general background info on the corporate bond market.  http://home.business.utah.edu/hank.bessembinder/publications/transparencyandbondmarket.pdf  If you are trying to relate somehow the issue of federal debt ( a la treasuries) to corporate debt you will find that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions.   Debt is not exactly currency, only the promise of repayment at a certain date in the future. The only reason that U.S. treasuries ( and those of certain other highly rated countries ) is interchangeable is because they are both very liquid and have very low risk.   There is very little similarity to this in the corporate bond market. Companies are no where near to the risk level of a government (for one they can't print their own money) and when a corporation goes bankrupt it's bondholder are usually s.o.l (recovery rates hover at around 50% of the notional debt amount). This is why investors demand a premium to hold corporate debt. Now consider even the best of companies, (take IBM ) the spread between the interest the government must pay on a treasury bond and that which IBM must pay on a similar bond is still relatively large.   But beyond that you run into a liquidity issue. Currency only works because it is highly liquid. If you take the article about Greece you posted above, you can see the problem generated by lack of liquidity. People have to both have currency and be willing to accept currency for trade to occur. Corporate bond are notoriously illiquid because people are unwilling to take on the risk involved with holding the debt (there are other reasons, but I'm abstracting from them). This is the other reason treasuries can be used as ""currency"" there is always someone willing to take your treasury in trade (for the most part because there is almost zero risk involved). You would always be much more willing to hold a treasury than an equivalent IBM bond.   Now take that idea down to a smaller level. Who would want to buy the bonds issued by the mom and pop down the street? Even if someone did buy them who would in turn take these bonds in trade? Practically speaking: no one would. They have no way to identify the riskiness of the bond and have no assurance that there would be anyone willing to trade for it in the future.   If you read the whole post by the redditor from your first link this is precisely why government backed currency came about, and why the scenario that I think you are positing is very unlikely."

negative: "Others have given some good answers. I'd just like to chime in with one more option: treasury I-series bonds. They're linked to an inflation component, so they won't lose value (in theory). You can file tax returns for your children ""paying"" taxes (usually 0) on the interest while they're minors, so they appreciate tax-free until they're 18. Some of my relatives have given my children money, and I've invested it this way. Alternatively, you can buy the I-bonds in your own name. Then if you cash them out for your kids' education, the interest is tax-free; but if you cash them out for your own use, you do have to pay taxes on the interest."

negative: "Interesting question.   How is social security funded? The social security system works by using current payroll taxes as funding to pay benefits to retirees.  Historically there was always more money coming in then what was being paid out in benefits.  This changed at the beginning of March, 2010 when social security started paying out more than it was taking in (this article estimates the exact date to be around March 3 or March 4 - the chart below has the approximate date highlighted with the red circle).  Due to the baby boomer generation it is estimated that social security will now be perpetually in the red unless changes are made.  The recent reduction in payroll taxes will not help social security solvency.  What was done with all the extra money social security collected over the last three decades? The Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) was required to purchase special-issue US government bonds with the excess funds.  The SSTF was essentially purchasing US government debt with the excess funds.  This allowed congress to spend the excess funds.  The special-issue funds are different then normal US treasuries in that the SSTF can redeem special-issue bonds at face value at any time (even before maturity).  The SSTF is currently holding $2.5 Trillion of these special-issue bonds as assets.  What next? Hell if I know.  The SSTF was a major purchaser of US debt over the last few decades (to the tune of $2.5 trillion).  That changed in 2010.  The SSTF is no longer purchasing US debt at the same time the US government is issuing record amounts of debt.  The SSTF could begin redeeming its bonds to meet payment obligations.  When it redeems the bonds the US treasury must cough up the funds.  Where is it the US government going to get the money especially when it is currently borrowing money at record levels? I read many articles that say that we don't have to count SSTF bond holdings as debt since we owe it to ourselves.  That always makes me chuckle.  The US government owes the SSTF $2.5 Trillion.  I'm not the US government so don't count me in the ""we"" part of ""we owe it to ourselves"".  I'm also fairly certain I will never see a dime of social security so don't count me in the ""ourselves"" portion either. Charts were obtained from here."

negative: Interest rates do generally affect house prices but other factors do too, especially the unemployment rate. However, everything else being equal, when interest rates drop, it makes the borrowing of money cheaper so tends to stimulate the economy and the housing market, increasing the demand for houses and generally causes house prices to increase (especially if the supply of new housing doesn't increase with the demand). When interest rates go up the opposite happens. Usually interest rates go down in order to stimulate  a slowing economy and interest rates go up to slow down an overheated economy. Regarding your situation you are able to get a 30 year fixed rate at today’s interest rates (in Australia the longest fixed rate you can get is for 10 years and the rate is usually 1 or 2 percent higher than the standard variable rate. Most people here go for the variable rate or a fixed rate of between 1 to 3 years). This means that even if rates do go up in the future you won't be paying a higher rate, which is a positive for you. You are buying the house to live in so as long as you can keep making the repayments you should not be too worried if the price of the house drops sometime in the future, because if your house has dropped and you want to sell to buy another house to live in, then that house would have also dropped relative to yours (give or take). So your main worry is that rates will go up causing both house prices to fall and unemployment to rise, and you yourself losing your job and eventually your house. It is a risk, but what you need to consider is if you can manage that risk. Firstly, I believe rates won't be going up in the US for a number of years, and if and when they do start going up they will most probably start going up slowly. So you have some time on your side. Secondly, what can you do between now and when interest rates do start going up in a few years: Try to put more saving away to increase your safety net from 6 months to 12 months or more, or make extra repayments into your home loan so that you are ahead if things do go wrong. If you are worried that you could lose your job, what can you do to reduce your chances of losing your job or increasing your chances of getting a new job quickly if you do lose it? Improve your current skills, get new skills, become an invaluable employee, or look at possible opportunities to start your own business. Do your own research on the types of houses you are looking at buying, the more houses you look at the better prepared you will be when the right house at the right price comes along, and the less chance that you will be rushed into buying what might be an overpriced house. So to sum it up; do as much research as you can, have an understanding of what your risks are and how you are going to manage those risks.

negative: "The first thing that it is important to note here is that the examples you have given are not individual bond prices.  This is what is called the ""generic"" bond price data, in effect a idealised bond with the indicated maturity period.  You can see individual bond prices on the UK Debt Management Office website. The meaning of the various attributes (price, yield, coupon) remains the same, but there may be no such bond to trade in the market.  So let's take the example of an actual UK Gilt, say the ""4.25% Treasury Gilt 2019"".  The UK Debt Management Office currently lists this bond as having a maturity date of 07-Mar-2019 and a price of GBP 116.27.  This means that you will pay 116.27 to purchase a bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00.  Here, the ""nominal price"" is the price that HM Treasury will buy the bond back on the maturity date.   Note that the title of the bond indicates a ""nominal"" yield of 4.25%.  This is called the coupon, so here the coupon is 4.25%.  In other words, the treasury will pay GBP 4.25 annually for each bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00.  Since you will now be paying a price of GBP 116.27 to purchase this bond in the market today, this means that you will be paying 116.27 to earn the nominal annual interest of 4.25.  This equates to a 3.656% yield, where 3.656% = 4.25/116.27.   It is very important to understand that the yield is not the whole story.  In particular, since the bond has a nominal value of GBP100, this means that as the maturity date approaches the market price of the bond will approach the nominal price of 100. In this case, this means that you will witness a loss of capital over the period that you hold the bond.  If you hold the bond until maturity, then you will lose GBP 16.27 for each nominal GBP100 bond you hold.  When this capital loss is netted off the interest recieved, you get what is called the gross redemption yield.  In this case, the gross redemption yield is given as approximately 0.75% per annum. NB.  The data table you have included clearly has errors in the pricing of the 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month generics."

negative: During the hyperinflation of the Wiermer republic, corporate stocks and convertible bonds were thought second only to the species (gold, silver etc) as the only secure currencies.  As Milton Friedman proved, inflation is caused solely by the monetary token supply increasing faster than productivity.  In the past, days of species of currency, it was caused by governments debasing the currency e.g. streatching the same amount of silver in 50 coins to 100 coins. Sudden increases in the supply of precious metals can also trigger it. The various gold rushes in 19th century and later, improvements in extraction methods caused bouts of inflation. Most famously, the huge amounts of silver the Spanish extracted from the New World mines, devastated the European economy with high inflation. Governments use inflation as a form of stealth flat tax. Money functions as an Abstract Universal Trade Good and it obeys all the rules of supply and demand. If the supply of money goes up suddenly, then its value drops in relation to real goods and service. But that drop in value doesn't occur instantly, the increased quality of tokens has to percolate through the market before the value changes.  So, the first institution to spend the infalted/debased currency can get the full current value from trade. The second gets slightly less, the third even less and so on. In 2008, the Federal reserve began printing money and loaning at 0% to insolvent backs who then used that money to buy T-Bill. This had the duel effect of giving the banks an (arbitrary) A1 rated asset for their fractional reserve while the Federal government got full pre-inflation value of the money paid for the T-bills. As the government spent that money, the number of tokens increased fast than the economy.  In times of inflation, the value of money per unit drops as its supply increases and increases The best hedges against inflation are real assets e.g. land, equipment, stocks (ownership of real assets) and convertible bonds which are convertible to stock.  It's important to remember that money is, of itself, worthless. It's just a technology that abstracts and smilies trading which at the base, is still a barter system. During inflation the barter value of money plunges owing to increased supply. But the direct barter value between any two real assets remain the same because their supplies have not changed.  The value of stocks and convertible bonds is maintained by the economic activity of the company whose ownership they represent. Dividends, stock prices and bond equity, as measured in the inflated currency continue to rise in sync with inflation. Thus they preserve the original value of the money paid for them. Not sure why you expect more inflation. The only institution that can create inflation in the US is the Federal Reserve which Trump has no direct control off. Deregulation of banks won't cause inflation in and of itself as the private banks cannot alter the money supply. If banks fail, owing to deregulation, unlikely I think given the dismal nearly century long record of regulation to date, then the Federal Reserve might fix the problem with another inflation tax, but otherwise not.

negative: I can think of three things you might do: Talk to a fee-only adviser. As the comments suggest, this would only be one or two sessions to lay out what all you have, establish what you want it to do, and write a plan that you are comfortable carrying out yourself. What do your 401k and Roth IRA look like? If you mean for this money to be long-term, then your retirement portfolio might be a good place to start. I don't currently own them, but one of my personally hobby horses is I-Series Savings Bonds, commonly called I Bonds. Even in the current low interest rate environment, they are a good deal relative to everything else out there. I summarized this more fully in my answer to another question. You can invest up to $10,000 per SSN per year, and the interest rate is the sum of a fixed rate plus a floating rate based on CPI. Currently the fixed rate is 0%, but the floating rate is better than what you can get from most other cash-like instruments.

negative: "There are a couple of misconceptions I think are present here: Firstly, when people say ""interest"", usually that implies a lower-risk investment, like a government bond or a money market fund. Some interest-earning investments can be higher risk (like junk bonds offered by near-bankrupt companies), but for the most part, stocks are higher risk. With higher risk comes higher reward, but obviously also the chance for a bad year. A ""bad year"" can mean your fund actually goes down in value, because the companies you are invested in do poorly. So calling all value increases ""interest"" is not the correct way to think about things. Secondly, remember that ""Roth IRA fund"" doesn't really tell you what's ""inside"" it. You could set up your fund to include only low-risk interest earning investments, or higher risk foreign stocks. From what you've said, your fund is a ""target retirement date""-type fund. This typically means that it is a mix of stocks and bonds, weighted higher to bonds if you are older (on the theory of minimizing risk near retirement), and higher to stocks if you are younger (on the theory of accepting risk for higher average returns when you have time to overcome losses). What this means is that assuming you're young and the fund you have is typical, you probably have ~50%+ of your money invested in stocks. Stocks don't pay interest, they give you value in two ways: they pay you dividends, and the companies that they are a share of increase in value (remember that a stock is literally a small % ownership of the company). So the value increase you see as the increase due to the increase in the mutual fund's share price, is part of the total ""interest"" amount you were expecting. Finally, if you are reading about ""standard growth"" of an account using a given amount of contributions, someone somewhere is making an assumption about how much ""growth"" actually happens. Either you entered a number in the calculator (""How much do you expect growth to be per year?"") or it made an assumption by default (probably something like 7% growth per year - I haven't checked the math on your number to see what the growth rate they used was). These types of assumptions can be helpful for general retirement planning, but they are not ""rules"" that your investments are required by law to follow. If you invest in something with risk, your return may be less than expected."

negative: In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock.  Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.

negative: At the area where I live (Finland), banks typically charge a lot more for additional mortgage credit taken after purchasing the house. So, if you are planning to purchase a house, and pay it with a mortgage, you get a very good rate, but if you pay back the mortgage and then realize you need additional credit, you get a much worse rate. So, if this is applicable to your area as well, I would simply buy stocks after you have paid enough of the mortgage that it is only 50% of the house price or so. This is especially good advice if you are young. Also, if your mortgage is a fixed rate and not an adjustable rate mortgage, you probably have a very low permanent interest rate on it as interest rates are low currently (adjustable rate mortgages will also have a low rate but it will surely go up). Some people say there's a bubble currently in the stock market, but actually the bubble is in the bond market. Stocks are expensive because the other alternatives (bonds) are expensive as well. Paying back your mortgage is equivalent to investing money in bonds. I don't invest in bonds at the current ridiculously low interest rates; I merely invest in stocks and have a small cash reserve that will become even smaller as I discover new investment opportunities. I could pay back a significant percentage (about 50%) of the loans I have by selling my stocks and using my cash reserves. I don't do that; I invest in stocks instead, and am planning to increase my exposure to the stock market at a healthy pace. Also, consider the fact that mortgage is cheap credit. If you need additional credit for consumption due to e.g. becoming suddenly unemployed, you will get it only at very expensive rates, if at all. If you're very near the retirement age (I'm not), this advice may not be applicable to you. Edit: and oh, if your mortgage is fixed rate, and interest rates have come down, the bank will require you to pay the opportunity cost of the unpaid interests. So, you may need to pay more than you owe the bank. Edit2: let's assume the bank offered you a 4% fixed rate for a 10-year loan, which you agreed to. Now let's also assume interest rates of new agreements have come down to 2%. It would be a loss to the bank to pay back the amount of the loan (because the bank cannot get 4% by offering somebody else a new loan, only 2%), unless you paid also 10 years * (4% - 2%) * amount = 20% * amount of lost interest income. At least where I live, in fixed rate loans, one needs to pay back the bank this opportunity cost of unpaid interests.

negative: "I can, but it takes a significant amount of time.   I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for ""coupons"" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers.  Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run.   If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes.  Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods.  The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.).   Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good.  Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now.  So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading.  But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system.  One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system.  This does not change the money supply very much.  Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier.  Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This ""liquidity"" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good.  Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not ""spendable"" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some.  So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy.  Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain.  However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement.  Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the ""liquidity crisis"".   Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons.  Cheers."

negative: They are wrong. Agreed. The problem I have is that sooner or later you get in so much debt no one will lend money to you anymore. At that point austerity is forced on you. The increased spending comes from domestic and foreign investors. We all know how fickle the financial markets can be. If our debt gets too high and they cut off the tap, we are fucked. I don't think we are anywhere near that point now. However, things can change dramatically in the course of a few months. Political tensions, global uncertainty and social unrest could all cause enough of a panic that people start questioning the safety of U.S. treasuries. We could also see the day where everyone collectively demands the U.S. stop ripping them off with negative bond yields. Like I said, I see no indication of that now, but who knows how long it will take?  I know this is a bit of a tangent, but it is clear. My solution: borrow money to improve the economy while you can but make sure that your dollars count to fixing the economy. Otherwise, you are going to be stuck with a stagnant economy  AND at a serious risk of bankruptcy when the financial markets no longer see you as a wise investment. You can't save yourself from falling off of two cliffs at the same time so our politicians should stop dicking around and start looking for real solutions with the money they are borrowing instead of pissing it away on useless shit.

negative: ">If mounting debt is such an issue, why do all the markets act as though the US is perfectly solvent?   They don't. China, Russia and most emerging markets are selling U.S. treasuries faster and faster. They have started doing so a couple years ago and are doing so at a higher pace now. They sold record numbers of U.S. treasuries in June. Many countries are forging trade partnerships with each other to get away from U.S. debt and even the U.N. and IMF are calling for an end to the dollar as the global reserve currency because it no longer deserves that status, largely due to increasing debt. By the way, the Fed is owning a larger and larger portion of U.S. debt these days.  >Why is our interest rate so low, and why do investors around the world continue buying Treasury bonds?   The federal reserve keeps rates low. Investors speculate about the future of the market all the time, but they are starting to dump them now http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-15/u-s-investment-outflow-reaches-record-as-china-sells-treasuries.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/15/usa-economy-capital-idUSL2N0QL0T520140815  http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eaccbe18-aea6-11e3-aaa6-00144feab7de.html  >The total net outflow of long-term U.S. securities and short-term funds such as bank transfers was $153.5 billion, after an inflow of $33.1 billion the previous month, the Treasury Department said in a report today. The June figure, and $40.8 billion in net selling of Treasury bonds and notes by private investors in June, **were the largest on record, the Treasury said.**  >""This is a disappointment and is a negative for the dollar. Clearly, the United States is having a hard time attracting investments to offset its current account deficit,"" said Michael Woolfolk, global market strategist at BNY Mellon in New York.  >Central banks sold US Treasury debt at the start of the year, according to the latest official data released on Tuesday, as stress among emerging market countries intensified. Declines in Treasury holdings were seen for Thailand, Turkey and the Philippines, which sold $3.9bn, $3.3bn and $1.5bn respectively during January.   Wow look at that. Did you just dismiss all evidence that proves you wrong? I think so!"

negative: "QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged.  This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs.  This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs.  Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become ""upside-down,"" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income.  Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates.  Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank.  Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate.  In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to ""eat"" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method. ========== Interestingly, and on the flip side, this is one of the quirks in finance where an accounting liability can become, at least in part, an economic asset.  If a landlord borrows at a high loan-to-value ratio for a fixed interest rate for the life of the mortgage and rates, variable and fixed, were to increase substantially, the difference between his original rate and the present rates accrues to him. If he's able to sell the property with the loan attached (which is not uncommon for commercial, industrial and sometimes municipal real estate), the buyer will be assuming a liability with a lower carrying cost than his present alternatives and will hence pay a higher price for the property than if it were unleveraged. With long-term rates in many economically advanced countries at historic lows, if a borrower today were to take a long-term fixed rate loan and rates shortly after increased substantially, he may have an instant profit in this scenario even if his property hasn't increased in value."

negative: "Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here.  I can, but it takes a significant amount of time.   I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for ""coupons"" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers.  Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run.   If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes.  Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods.  The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.).   Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good.  Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now.  So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading.  But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system.  One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system.  This does not change the money supply very much.  Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier.  Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This ""liquidity"" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good.  Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not ""spendable"" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some.  So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy.  Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain.  However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement.  Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the ""liquidity crisis"".   Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons.  Cheers."

negative: "At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, ""agents"") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility.  All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future.  Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth.  Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets."

negative: "Scenario 1 is typically the better description. If commercial banks were allowed to simply ""create"" money, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now. In the U.S., the central bank is the Federal Reserve or Fed, and is the only entity (not the government, not the banks, not the people) that is allowed to create money ""out of thin air"". It does this primarily by buying government debt. The government spends more than it takes in, and so to come up with the deficit, it issues bonds. The Fed buys a certain amount of these bonds, and simply prints the money (or more realistically authorized the electronic transfer of $X to the Treasury) which the government then spends. That places money in the hands of corporations and the people, who turn around and spend it. However, long-term, the interest charges on money borrowed from the Fed will actually remove money from the economy. The central banks, therefore, have to constantly make marginal changes to various monetary policy tools they have when the economy is just humming along. If they do nothing, then too much of a short-term increase in money supply will result in there being ""too much money"" which makes an individual monetary unit worth less (inflation), while making money too hard to get will reduce the rate at which it's spent, reducing GDP and causing recessions. The exact scenario you describe is typically seen in cases where the government is running with a balanced budget, and the central bank thus can't give its ""new money"" to the government to spend when it wants to increase the money supply. In that situation, the central bank instead lowers its lending rate, the percentage interest that it will charge on loans made to other banks, thereby encouraging those banks to borrow more of the money created by the central bank. Those banks will then use the money to make loans, invest in the market, etc etc which puts the money in the economy.  In the U.S., the Fed does have this tool as well, but increases or decreases in the ""Federal Funds Rate"" are typically used to influence the rate that banks charge each other to borrow money, thus encouraging or discouraging this lending. A lowering in the interest rate makes banks more likely to borrow from each other (and from the Fed but the amount of money ""created"" this way is a drop in the bucket compared to current ""quantitative easing""), and thus increases the ""turnover"" of the existing money in the economy (how many times a theoretical individual dollar is spent in a given time period)."