Why You Won't Feel the Fed Cut

October 29, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (5)
The Federal Reserve building in Washington, D.C.

The Federal Reserve building in Washington, D.C.

Many consumers are unlikely to even notice today's widely anticipated Fed rate cut, aimed at further encouraging lending and spending. While a Fed cut generally translates into lower rates on credit cards, mortgages, auto loans, and other types of borrowing, analysts say this time will probably be a little different. I spoke with Mike Larson, a real estate analyst at Weiss Research, to get his insight:

First, a Fed cut can't change that banks are nervous about lending to consumers right now because of fears that an extended economic slowdown will make it difficult for them to pay those loans back. "The obstacle is not the price of credit, it's the availability of credit," says Larson. If you don't have a good credit score, down-payment money (in the case of a mortgage), and a reasonable debt-to-income ratio, then it's hard for borrowers to get financing, regardless of the going interest rate.

Second, questions about the effects of the government bailout have been affecting long-term interest rates as well, Larson adds. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's cost of borrowing has gone up, it has helped mortgage rates stay higher than one would expect, given the current yields on 10-year treasury bonds, says Larson. As a result, government intervention, including a Fed cut, isn't working as it normally would to lower rates.

Third, interest rates have not been that volatile in recent years. Over the past 10 years, the high for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage came in May 2000, when it hit 8.66 percent. But over the past four years, the average rate has been 6.07 percent and hasn't strayed too far from that. Today, bankrate.com puts the average at 6.31 percent.

There are some exceptions. Larson says that within a month and a half or so, home equity lines of credit, which are often tied directly to banks' prime rates, will most likely go down in response to the Fed's move. But, he adds: "Anyone who expects to go to a lender tomorrow and get a rate that's 50 basis points lower—that's just not going to happen."

Tags:
loans,
Federal Reserve,
government intervention,
personal finance,
interest rates

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

To be quite honest i think the borrower holds a lot more responsibility than you acknowledge. You never even mentioned them for their sheer stupidity. They took out mortages to property they could not afford to keep up with the Jones's thinking the real estate market would bail them out. These folks should have never got loans, and only got them due to the Fair Housing lending act of 1977 and strengthened in 1998. The banks wanted no part of lending to these folks who were not worthy candidates for mortgages in the first place. The banks are forced by the DOJ to do these stupid transactions and since they have bad scores or other hindrances the banks must charge higher interest. So do not only blame banks, although i have audited some biggies and thought their default models were extremely low. Blame Liberal idealism for most of this, their is a reason these folks could not borrow conventional, they were horrible risks. Your pay model should be around 30% for occupancy and if you pay more, even much more in some cases you should never have moved in. Any time i have bought property in the past i always consult a knowledgable attorney just to catch something i may not. If these borrowers could not afford $350 per hour to understand resets etc, they darn sure had no business buying a house. They are way more than half responsible for this mess.

Dan of TX 1:27PM November 04, 2008

This is a no brainer. Right now, if banks lowered the 30 year interest rate to say 5.0%, EVERY home owner would refinance. That does not mean that screening would now stop based upon ability to pay, credit rating, etc. But it does mean billions of dollars moving in our economy - through the lenders, to the economy from the savings home owners would see monthly, to jobs that the stimulation would create.

The other win is that people on the edge that are in foreclosure would now be able to afford the home which would SAVE the banks money. Another win would be the closing fees that lenders would get up front. Also, no one holds on to their house for 30 years these days, so the banks would not lose with the lower rate; it would be "recouped" on the next purchase when the economy is back up. The only way we will get out of this housing crisis (which affects every segment in our ecomony) is for the banks to start thinking how to supply a competative product the way the market is supposed to work, and quit thinking of ways to milk more blood from a stone.

Steve from Michigan of MI 4:05PM October 30, 2008

I think that this article negates the important fact of the effect of the interest rates on loan risk. If the interest rate is lower on a loan, the borrower will have an easier time paying it back. This is the reason we have so many home foreclosures - when an adjustable rate mortgage goes up and the homeowner can no longer pay, they default.

On the other side, lower rates gives the banks a higher assurance that borrowers will pay back the loan because it will be easier for them too. With this in mind, the lower rates will help unfreeze spending because banks will be at lower risk when they give loans.

If banks aren't lending money, they are losing it, and with lower rates on loans, everybody will start to "feel" it.

Nathan T of WA 12:47PM October 30, 2008

Alpha Consumer

Kimberly Palmer, senior editor for U.S. News & World Report, writes about making smarter financial decisions. She’s the author of Generation Earn: The Young Professional's Guide to Spending, Investing, and Giving Back.

advertisement

Latest Video

advertisement

rounded corners

Slideshows »
10 ‘Digital Utilities’ You Need Every Day