Fed Approves Quarter-Point Rate Hike, Signals More Increases Likely
Officials are slowing interest-rate increases as they debate when to pause
Officials are slowing interest-rate increases as they debate when to pause
WASHINGTON—The Federal Reserve approved an interest-rate increase of a quarter-percentage-point and signalled plans to raise rates again next month to continue lowering inflation.
The decision Wednesday followed six consecutive rate rises that were larger, including an increase of a half-point in December and a 0.75-point increase in November.
Officials nodded to recent improvement in inflation readings but didn’t significantly alter their guidance in a policy statement released after the meeting regarding coming rate moves.
“The committee anticipates that ongoing increases” in interest rates “will be appropriate in order to attain a stance of monetary policy that is sufficiently restrictive,” said the statement, using the same language included in policy statements since last March.
The latest increase caps a year in which the Fed lifted its benchmark federal-funds rate from near zero to a range between 4.5% and 4.75%, a level last reached in 2007. That extends the central bank’s most rapid pace of rate increases since the early 1980s to fight inflation, which hit a 40-year high last year.

One big question heading into Wednesday’s meeting was the extent to which recent economic data had given Fed officials more confidence that inflation and wage pressures had peaked.
In December, most of them penciled in raising the fed-funds rate to a range between 5% and 5.25% this year. After the hike they approved Wednesday, that projection would imply additional quarter-point increases at the Fed’s meetings in March and May, followed by a pause in rate rises.
Many officials had repeated in recent weeks that they still saw such a rate path as appropriate given strong wage pressures, a tight labour market and high service-sector inflation. But officials also said they would base their decisions on how the economy performs in the coming months.
“We can now say for the first time, the disinflationary process has started,” said Fed Chair Jerome Powell at a news conference after Wednesday’s meeting. But he added, “The job is not fully done.”
Mr. Powell said the central bank was trying to manage the risk of raising rates too much and causing unnecessary economic harm with that of not doing enough to bring down inflation. In repeating his longstanding view that the latter mistake would be harder to fix, Mr. Powell said he didn’t want to be in a position where six or 12 months from now, after a halt to raising rates, the Fed would belatedly conclude that it hadn’t done enough to bring down inflation this year and would have to raise rates higher.
“We’re going to be cautious about declaring victory and sending signals that we think the game is won,” he said. “Certainty is just not appropriate here.”
The fed-funds rate influences other borrowing costs throughout the economy, including rates on mortgages, credit cards and auto loans. The Fed is raising rates to cool inflation by slowing economic growth. It believes those policy moves work through financial markets by tightening financial conditions, such as by raising borrowing costs or lowering prices of stocks and other assets.
Officials have been guarded in recent weeks about providing any guidance that might ignite market rallies that could undermine their efforts to fight inflation.
In recent weeks, markets have rallied partly because investors anticipated that the Fed would slow its rate increases this week and remove uncertainty over the rate outlook, which reduces interest-rate volatility. Lower volatility can ease financial conditions.
Markets have also been cheered by news that inflation and wage growth might have peaked last year, which could make the Fed more comfortable in pausing rate increases. Since Fed officials met in December, economic activity has been mixed. Consumer spending has moderated, and manufacturing activity has weakened. But hiring has held steady, pushing the unemployment down to 3.5% in December, a half-century low.
Investors in bond markets increasingly expect that the Fed will cut interest rates later this year because of a sharp slowdown in economic activity that lowers inflation faster than policy makers expect.
Fed officials and some economists, meanwhile, are concerned that the recent decline in inflation could reflect the long-anticipated easing of supply-chain bottlenecks—and that might not be enough to bring inflation down to the Fed’s 2% goal.
“I’m somewhat worried that the market view is based more on hope,” said Karen Dynan, an economist at Harvard University who served in the Obama administration. “Labor markets still look really tight.”
Officials’ deliberations over how much more to raise rates this year and how long to hold rates at some higher level could hinge over how much they think their past increases will slow the economy this year. Debates could also turn on the degree to which wage and price pressures might slow without significant weakness in the job market.
Officials agreed to slow rate rises to gain more time to study the effects of their moves.
Inflation fell to 4.4% in December from 5.2% in September, as measured by the 12-month change in the personal consumption expenditures price index excluding food and energy. Though still above the Fed’s 2% goal, it moderated in the October-to-December period to an annualised 2.9% rate.
“Inflation has eased somewhat but remains elevated,” said the Fed’s policy statement.
Overall inflation is slowing largely because prices of energy and other goods are falling. Large increases in housing costs have slowed, but haven’t filtered through to official price gauges yet. As a result, Mr. Powell and several colleagues shifted attention recently toward a narrower subset of labor-intensive services by excluding prices for food, energy, shelter and goods.
Mr. Powell has said prices in this category, which rose 4% in December from a year earlier, offer the best gauge of higher wage costs passing through to consumer prices.
Automobili Lamborghini and Babolat have expanded their collaboration with five new colourways for the ultra-exclusive BL.001 racket, limited to just 50 pieces worldwide.
As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.
As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.
For decades, Australia has leaned into its reputation as the lucky country. But luck, as it turns out, is not an economic strategy.
What once looked like resilience now appears increasingly fragile. Beneath the surface of rising property values and steady headline growth, the Australian economy is showing signs of strain that can no longer be ignored.
Recent data paints a sobering picture. Australia has recorded one of the largest declines in real household disposable income per capita among advanced economies.
Wages have failed to keep pace with inflation, meaning many Australians are working harder for less. On a per capita basis, income growth has stalled and, at times, reversed.
And yet, on paper, things still look relatively solid. GDP is growing. Unemployment remains low. But that growth is increasingly being driven by population expansion rather than productivity.
More people are contributing to output, but not necessarily improving living standards.
That distinction matters.
For years, Australia’s economic success rested on a powerful combination: a once-in-a-generation mining boom, a credit-fuelled housing market, strong migration and a property sector that rarely faltered. Between 1991 and 2020, the country avoided recession entirely, building enormous wealth in the process.
But much of that wealth is tied to property. Around two-thirds of household wealth sits in real estate, inflated by leverage and sustained by demand. It has worked, until now.
The problem is the supply side of the economy has not kept up.
Housing supply is falling behind population growth. Rental vacancies are near record lows.
Construction firms are collapsing at an elevated rate. At the same time, massive infrastructure pipelines are competing with residential projects for labour and materials, pushing costs higher and delaying delivery.
The result is a system under pressure from all angles.
Despite near full employment, productivity growth has stagnated for years. In simple terms, Australians are putting in more hours without generating more output per hour. The economy is running faster, butgoing nowhere.
Meanwhile, government spending continues to expand. Public debt is approaching $1 trillion, with spending now accounting for a record share of GDP.
The gap between spending and revenue has been filled by borrowing for decades, adding further pressure to an already stretched system.
This is where the uncomfortable question emerges.
Has Australia become too reliant on a model driven by rising property values, expanding credit and population growth?
As asset prices rise, households feel wealthier and borrow more. Banks lend more. Governments collect more revenue. Migration fuels demand. The cycle reinforces itself.
But when productivity stalls and debt outpaces real income, the system begins to depend on constant expansion just to stay stable.
It is not a collapse scenario. But it is not particularly stable either.
Nowhere is this more evident than in housing.
The National Housing Accord targets 1.2 million new homes over five years, yet current completion rates are well below that pace. With approvals falling and construction costs rising, the gap between supply and demand is widening, not narrowing.
Housing is also one of the largest contributors to inflation, with costs rising sharply across rents, construction and utilities. Yet the private sector, from small investors to major developers, is struggling to make projects stack up in the current environment.
This brings the policy debate into sharper focus.
Tax settings such as negative gearing and capital gains concessions have undoubtedly boosted demand over the past two decades. But they have also supported supply. Removing them may ease prices briefly, but risks deepening the supply shortage over time.
That is the paradox.
Policies designed to make housing more affordable can, in practice, make the shortage worse if they discourage development. The optics may appeal, but the economics are far less forgiving.
It is also worth remembering that most property investors are not institutional players. The majority own just one investment property. They are, in many cases, ordinary Australians using real estate as their primary wealth-building tool.
Undermining that system without replacing it with a viable alternative risks unintended consequences, from reduced supply to higher rents and increased inflation.
So where does that leave Australia?
At a crossroads.
The country can continue to rely on population growth and rising asset prices to drive economic activity. Or it can shift towards a model built on productivity, innovation and sustainable growth.
The latter is harder. It requires structural reform, long-term thinking and political discipline.
But it is also the only path that leads to genuine, lasting prosperity.
The question is no longer whether Australia has been lucky.
It is whether it can evolve before that luck runs out.
Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.
Now complete, Ophora at Tallawong offers luxury finishes, 10-year defect insurance and standout value from $475,000.
From Italy’s $93,000-a-night villas to a $20,000 Bowral château, a new global ranking showcases the priciest Airbnbs available in 2026.