
3 key money moves to consider while the Fed keeps interest rates higher
In minutes released this week from the Federal Reserve May meeting, central bank policymakers indicated that an interest rate cut isn't coming anytime soon.
Largely because of mixed economic signals and the United States' changing tariff agenda, officials noted that they will wait until there's more clarity about fiscal and trade policy before they will consider lowering rates again.
In prepared remarks earlier this month, Fed Chair Jerome Powell also said that the federal funds rate is likely to stay higher as the economy changes and policy is in flux.
The Fed's benchmark sets what banks charge each other for overnight lending, but also has a domino effect on almost all of the borrowing and savings rates Americans see every day.
Since December 2024, the federal funds rate has been in a target range between 4.25%-4.5%.
Futures market pricing is implying virtually no chance of an interest rate cut at next month's meeting, and less than a 25% chance of a cut in July, according to the CME Group's FedWatch gauge.
It is more likely the Federal Open Market Committee won't lower its benchmark rate until the Fed's September meeting.
With a rate cut on the backburner for now, consumers struggling under the weight of high prices and high borrowing costs aren't getting much relief, experts say.
"You don't have to wait for the Fed to ride to the rescue," said Matt Schulz, chief credit analyst at LendingTree. "You can have a far, far greater impact on your interest rates than any Fed rate cut ever will, but only if you take action."
Here are three ways to do just that:
With a rate cut likely postponed until September, the average credit card annual percentage rate is hovering just over 20%, according to Bankrate — not far from last year′s all-time high. In 2024, banks raised credit card interest rates to record levels, and some issuers said they'll keep those higher rates in place.
"When interest rates are high, credit card debt becomes the most expensive mistake you can make," said Howard Dvorkin, a certified public accountant and the chairman of Debt.com.
Rather than wait for a rate cut that may be months away, borrowers could switch now to a zero-interest balance transfer credit card or consolidate and pay off high-interest credit cards with a lower-rate personal loan, said LendingTree's Schulz.
"Lowering your interest rates with a 0% balance transfer credit card, a low-interest personal loan or even a call to your lender can be an absolute game-changer," he said. "It can dramatically reduce the amount of interest you pay and the time it takes to pay off the loan."
Start by targeting your highest-interest credit cards first, Dvorkin advised. That tactic can create an added boost, he said: "Even small extra payments can save you hundreds in interest over time."
Rates on online savings accounts, money market accounts and certificates of deposit will all go down once the Fed eventually lowers rates. So experts say this is an opportunity to lock in better returns before the central bank trims its benchmark, particularly with a high-yield savings account.
"The best rates now are around 4.5% — while that's down about a percentage point from last year, it's still better than we've seen over most of the past 15 years," said Ted Rossman, senior industry analyst at Bankrate.com. "It's well above the rate of inflation and this is for your safe, sleep-at-night kind of money."
Here's a look at other stories impacting the financial advisor business.
A typical saver with about $10,000 in a checking or savings account could earn an additional $450 a year by moving that money into a high-yield account that earns an interest rate of 4.5% or more, according to Rossman.
Meanwhile, the savings account rates at some of the largest retail banks are currently 0.42%, on average.
"If you're still using a traditional savings account from a giant megabank, you're likely leaving money on the table, and that's the last thing anyone needs today," said Schulz.
Those with better credit could already qualify for a lower interest rate.
In general, the higher your credit score, the better off you are when it comes to access and rates for a loan. Alternatively, lower credit scores often lead to higher interest rates for new loans and overall lower credit access.
However, credit scores are trending down, recent reports show. The national average credit score dropped to 715 from 717 a year earlier, according to FICO, developer of one of the scores most widely used by lenders. FICO scores range between 300 and 850.
Amid high interest rates and rising debt loads, the share of consumers who fell behind on their payments jumped over the past year, FICO found. The resumption of federal student loan delinquency reporting on consumers' credit was also a significant contributing factor, the report said.
VantageScore also reported a drop in average scores starting in February as early- and late-stage credit delinquencies rose sharply, driven by the resumption of student loan reporting.
Some of the best ways to improve your credit score come down to paying your bills on time every month and keeping your utilization rate — or the ratio of debt to total credit — below 30% to limit the effect that high balances can have, according to Tommy Lee, senior director of scores and predictive analytics at FICO.
In fact, increasing your credit score to very good (740 to 799) from fair (580 to 669) could save you more than $39,000 over the lifetime of your balances, a separate analysis by LendingTree found. The largest impact comes from lower mortgage costs, followed by preferred rates on credit cards, auto loans and personal loans.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Stanley Fischer, former Fed vice chair and Bank of Israel chief, dies at 81
By Steven Scheer JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Stanley Fischer, who helped shape modern economic theory during a career that included heading the Bank of Israel and serving as vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, has died at the age of 81. The Bank of Israel said he died on Saturday night but did not give a cause of death. Fischer was born in Zambia and had dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship. As an academic at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Fischer trained many of the people who went on to be top central bankers, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as well as Mario Draghi, the former European Central Bank president. Fischer served as chief economist at the World Bank, and first deputy managing director at the International Monetary Fund during the Asian financial crisis and was then vice chairman at Citigroup from 2002 to 2005. During an eight-year stint as Israel's central bank chief from 2005-2013, Fischer helped the country weather the 2008 global financial crisis with minimal economic damage, elevating Israel's economy on the global stage, while creating a monetary policy committee to decide on interest rates like in other advanced economies. He was vice chair of the Federal Reserve from 2014 to 2017 and served as a director at Bank Hapoalim in 2020 and 2021. Current Bank of Israel Governor Amir Yaron praised Fischer's contribution to the Bank of Israel and to advancing Israel's economy as "truly significant". The soft-spoken Fischer - who played a role in Israel's economic stabilisation plan in 1985 during a period of hyperinflation - was chosen by then Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as central bank chief. Netanyahu, now prime minister, called Fischer a "great Zionist" for leaving the United States and moving to Israel to take on the top job at Israel's central bank. "He was an outstanding economist. In the framework of his role as governor, he greatly contributed to the Israeli economy, especially to the return of stability during the global economic crisis," Netanyahu said, adding that Stanley - as he was known in Israel - proudly represented Israel and its economy worldwide. Israeli President Isaac Herzog also paid tribute. "He played a huge role in strengthening Israel's economy, its remarkable resilience, and its strong reputation around the world," Herzog said. "He was a world-class professional, a man of integrity, with a heart of gold. A true lover of peace."

Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Influential economist Stanley Fischer dies
Stanley Fischer, a former top policymaker at the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of Israel whose thinking was highly influential among Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive
President Donald Trump owes his second electoral victory, in no small part, to voter frustration over the rising cost of living. Over the course of Joe Biden's presidency, the price of a typical American house increased by nearly 40 percent, and rents followed a similar trajectory. As of 2024, approximately 771,480 Americans lack reliable shelter—at once a new high and a new low. All of these issues are most acute in states governed by Biden's fellow Democrats. In California, the median home price is now more than 10 times the median household income. Economists generally view three to five as a healthy ratio. Polling data suggest that many key voting blocs in the 2024 presidential election were primarily motivated by the rising cost of living and by out-of-control housing costs in particular. For all the network news preoccupation with transgender athletes and campus protests, it was mortgages and rents—the single largest line items in a typical household's budget—that moved voters to toss out incumbents. On April 2, after months of empty threats and false starts, the administration finally launched its global trade war, including a 25 percent tariff on various goods from Canada and Mexico. But Canadian softwood lumber and Mexican gypsum used for drywall—the (literal) pillars of a typical American single-family home—would be exempt. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) was quick to celebrate it as a win: Canada accounts for 85 percent of all U.S. lumber imports. If the tariffs had taken effect as planned, the per-unit cost of a home might have increased by as much as $29,000. In a sector characterized by thin margins, that would have meant a lot of idle construction sites. And yet the partial rollback will offer only a temporary reprieve. Tariffs already in effect will increase the cost of a new home by $10,900 on average, according to an April 2025 estimate by the NAHB—an increase of $1,700 over its March estimate. This is on top of a 41.6 percent increase in building materials since 2020, brought on by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. Those cost increases could hit renters hardest. After a decade of underbuilding in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, America is short roughly 5 million homes—most of them apartments. Perhaps the most robust finding in urban economics is that when vacancy rates increase, rents fall. But driving up vacancy rates requires cities to build more housing. Thanks to the YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") movement, a handful of cities—including Austin and Minneapolis—have recently had building booms that have brought prices back down. But those cities have been the exception. Meanwhile, a new wave of tariffs is about to make it a lot more expensive to build. On February 11, the administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum—much of it imported from allies such as Brazil and Germany. On February 25, the administration announced an investigation into copper imports, presumably with future tariffs in the works. Depending on their country of origin, other key inputs like iron and cement are also now subject to steep tariffs. Even if you can get new housing built, the appliances needed to make all these new homes livable could soon cost hundreds of dollars more. Not only are microwaves, refrigerators, and air conditioners now more expensive to import, but tariffs on key inputs mean they are also more expensive to produce domestically. Uncertainty around tariffs has put many construction projects on pause, sending homebuilder stocks plummeting. Many small, local developers are exiting the market altogether. Following in the mold of autarkic Cuba—where international trade is strictly limited and medical doctors drive taxis for a living—your next Uber driver could very well be an out-of-work former developer. Never mind that the typical American city desperately needs them to build. If tariffs weren't bad enough, the administration's program of mass deportations could kick the housing crisis into overdrive. As things stand, the construction industry is already short 250,000 workers. This is partly a legacy of Trump's first term, in which an immigration clampdown suppressed what might have been an overdue housing construction boom. Even today, approximately 30 percent of construction workers are immigrants, many of them undocumented. In California, which is already a basket case on housing affordability, immigrants make up 41 percent of all construction labor. In Texas—one of the few bright spots for housing affordability in recent years, thanks to an ongoing construction boom—nearly 60 percent of all immigrant construction workers are undocumented. If 2024 was any indication, expecting voters to put up with all this in 2026 is a risky gamble. On some level, the Trump administration must appreciate that this is an existential threat. And yet its current proposals are out of sync with the scale of the housing crisis: Releasing more federally owned lands for housing development remains the only proposal the administration has seriously offered up to address the housing shortage. It's a fine enough idea if properly designed. But it would, at best, provide only modest relief to a handful of Western cities. Worse yet, the administration seems to have regressed to the implicitly regulatory "protect the suburbs" rhetoric that so failed Trump in the 2020 election. In February, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) chief Scott Turner announced that he would be scrapping the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule in order to "cut red tape" and "advance market-driven development." Except the rule was essentially just a reporting exercise that required local governments to disclose—and ideally remove—local red tape standing in the way of housing. In 2018, then–HUD Secretary Ben Carson embraced the AFFH rule as a way of nudging cities to remove regulatory barriers to housing production, as part of his brief flirtation with YIMBYism. In a move that would make Orwell blush, Carson joined Trump in a Wall Street Journal op-ed two years later announcing that they would "protect America's suburbs" and scrap the rule if reelected. Trump lost that election. It's all a very strange state of affairs—a developer in chief with evidently little interest in getting America building again. It didn't need to be this way. Over the course of the first Trump administration, housing production recovered at a steady clip, with a muted increase in housing costs as a result. The administration's deregulating zeal could have been focused on unnecessary federal mandates that increase costs. Instead, the United States is poised to experience a run-up in housing prices through 2028 that could make the pandemic-era increases like a minor blip. So what could the federal government do? From a constitutional perspective, not much. The bulk of the blame for America's housing crisis lies with local governments that maintain onerous zoning regulations and unpredictable permitting processes—and the state governments that control them. The federal government has little role to play in zoning, even if it once did a lot of the heavy lifting to promote it. But that isn't to imply there is nothing the federal government could do. In recent years, the idea of tying federal dollars to local deregulation has gained acceptance within the Beltway. Bills with unsubtle names like the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act" or the "Yes In My Backyard Act" would variously condition money for transit or other public facilities on local jurisdictions cutting back on red tape. At the same time, the federal government could turn up the tax pressure. If homeowners in cities with high costs and low production were suddenly ineligible for benefits like the mortgage interest deduction or the state and local tax credit, it would transform the local politics of housing. Homeowners who might otherwise be fully bought into government constraints on housing production could flip their script. More likely, however, the onus will fall on state and local legislators to pull out all the stops on housing production. State and local elected officials can't control tariffs or immigration policy. But they can control "make or break" factors such as zoning regulations, permitting timelines, and impact fees. According to a recent RAND study, variations in these policies explain why it's nearly twice as expensive to build housing in California as in Texas. At least some state legislators are rising to the occasion. In recent months, states as diverse as Republican-supermajority Montana and Democratic-supermajority Washington have moved forward legislation restricting the right of local governments to block housing. Even California is starting to see the light. All these bills will help to get more housing built, no matter what's happening at the federal level. The Trump administration had better hope those state-level efforts are successful—and scrap the trade and immigration policies that could plunge America into another housing crisis. The post How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive appeared first on