The Fed Cut Brings No Clarity, Just Uncertainty
Wednesday arrived with the Fed’s announcement of a 0.25% rate cut. The markets seemed to be disappointed by the meagerness of the cut.
August 09, 2019 at 12:55 PM
5 minute read
At the beginning of last week, as the Federal Open Market Committee’s meeting approached and a rate cut appeared likely, we began thinking about the implications of a rate cut for the business community in general and our clients in particular.
For example, at a time when the fundamental economics for real estate ownership are strong, a rate reduction could provide a unique opportunity for owners to refinance loans that are either nearing maturity or may have higher rates. For anyone who had been on the fence, the rate reduction could provide the impetus to refinance or could encourage would-be buyers to complete potential acquisitions or development opportunities that were marginal or even infeasible at current market rates.
Similarly, in a period of low unemployment and growing consumer spending, the American economy does not seem to need a boost. Yet, with a cut, businesses contemplating expansion would find their borrowing costs reduced. To the extent they take advantage of the reduced cost of capital, and make further investments or expand, the Fed will have accomplished its goal.
Then Wednesday arrived with the Fed’s announcement of a 0.25% rate cut. The markets seemed to be disappointed by the meagerness of the cut. Moreover, when Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell addressed what the Fed’s next step would be, he cautioned about assuming more cuts were coming, further confusing the markets. We are left, therefore, wondering whether further rate cuts are on the horizon or whether now is the time to act before rates start increasing.
The Fed’s mixed message—a cut to address concerns about the economy, but a warning that the cut should not be interpreted as a change in direction on rates—may reflect the Fed’s uncertainty about what it needs to do and what it can do. Historically low unemployment in the United States should be driving up inflation and signaling a need for interest-rate increases to cool off the economy. Yet, inflation remains at or below the Fed’s target. Consumer confidence remains high, although consumer debt has reached record levels. And, in contrast with the U.S. economy, which is in its 123rd month of expansion, the European, Japanese and Chinese economies are slowing. Recent cuts in interest rates by the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan—coupled with clear messages from both that rates could be cut further—puts upward pressure on the U.S. dollar absent corresponding rate cuts by the Fed. Finally, the trade war with China looms large. It is clearly impacting both the U.S. and Chinese economies, albeit unevenly even within each economy.
The mixed economic messages and the external factors impacting the U.S. economy may be more than the Fed’s tool kit can address. The Fed is charged with promoting stable prices, maximum U.S. employment and moderate long-term interest rates. The tools at its disposal— primarily rate cuts or increases and purchasing debt—are not designed to address a possible breakdown in the inflation/unemployment relationship, conflicting actions by other central banks or the macro-economic impact of a trade war. In other words, if the Fed cuts rates by 25 basis points or raises it by 25 basis points, could the result be more of a psychological impact than a true economic impact because there is so much going on in the world that it cannot control?
What the presidents of the United States and China decide to do during this trade war is having a much greater impact on the economy than 25 basis points. The farmer in Polk County in Florida doesn’t care that he can borrow or refinance for less today. He is wondering where he will sell orange juice. The steel processor in Cuyahoga County in Ohio isn’t impacted by 25 basis points because the tariffs have just made his products so much cheaper to sell and he can raise his prices dramatically.
So, what does this mean for our clients? Unfortunately, in a word: uncertainty. Acting now and taking advantage of lower rates will look wise in hindsight if the U.S. economy continues to expand and interest rates rise (or do not decline further). Conversely, if rates do decline further and the U.S. economy enters a recession, additional debt or higher rate debt will be viewed as a mistake.
We are in unchartered waters. Many of us who have been advising clients on a wide range of restructuring issues since the 1980s have seen so many different ups and downs. We have never, however, experienced anything like this 10-year expansion with a rock-bottom unemployment and minimal inflation. And yet, there is such a sense of foreboding. The truth is that no one knows exactly what is coming next, including the Fed.
John T. Metzger is managing member of the West Palm Beach office of McDonald Hopkins. Shawn M. Riley is the firm’s president.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250