Higher Interest Rates Not Just for Longer, but Maybe Forever

On Wednesday, Federal Reserve officials surprised markets by signalling interest rates won’t fall as much as previously planned.

The tweak might be more important than it looks. In their projections and commentary, some officials hint that rates might be higher not just for longer, but forever. In more technical terms, the so-called neutral rate, which keeps inflation and unemployment stable over time, has risen.

This matters to any investor, business or household whose plans depend on interest rates over a decade or longer. It could explain why long-term Treasury yields have risen sharply in the past few months, and why stocks are struggling.

The neutral rate isn’t literally forever, but that captures the general idea. In the long run neutral is a function of very slow moving forces: demographics, the global demand for capital, the level of government debt and investors’ assessments of inflation and growth risks.

The neutral rate can’t be observed, only inferred by how the economy responds to particular levels of interest rates. If current rates aren’t slowing demand or inflation, then neutral must be higher and monetary policy isn’t tight.

Indeed, on Wednesday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell allowed that one reason the economy and labor market remain resilient despite rates between 5.25% and 5.5% is that neutral has risen, though he added: “We don’t know that.”

Before the 2007-09 recession and financial crisis, economists thought the neutral rate was around 4% to 4.5%. After subtracting 2% inflation, the real neutral rate was 2% to 2.5%. In the subsequent decade, the Fed kept interest rates near zero, yet growth remained sluggish and inflation below 2%. Estimates of neutral began to drop. Fed officials’ median estimate of the longer-run fed-funds rate—their proxy for neutral—fell from 4% in 2013 to 2.5% in 2019, or 0.5% in real terms.

As of Wednesday, the median estimate was still 2.5%. But five of 18 Fed officials put it at 3% or higher, compared with just three officials in June and two last December.

In 2026, officials project the economy growing at its long-term rate of 1.8%, unemployment at its long-run natural level of 4%, and inflation at its 2% target. Those conditions would normally be consistent with interest rates at neutral. As it happens, officials think the fed-funds rate will end the year at 2.9%—another hint they think neutral has risen.

There are plenty of reasons for a higher neutral. After the global financial crisis, businesses, households and banks were paying down debt instead of borrowing, reducing demand for savings while holding down growth and inflation. As the crisis faded, so did the downward pressure on interest rates.

Another is government red ink: Federal debt held by the public now stands at 95% of gross domestic product, up from 80% at the start of 2020, and federal deficits are now 6% of GDP and projected to keep rising, from under 5% before the pandemic. To get investors to hold so much more debt probably requires paying them more. The Fed bought bonds after the financial crisis and again during the pandemic to push down long-term interest rates. It is now shedding those bondholdings.

Inflation should not, by itself, affect the real neutral rate. However, before the pandemic the Fed’s principal concern was that inflation would persist below 2%, a situation that makes it difficult to stimulate spending and can lead to deflation, and that is why it kept rates near zero from 2008 to 2015. In the future it will worry more that inflation persists above 2%, and err on the side of higher rates with little appetite for returning to zero.

Other factors are still pressing down on neutral, such as an aging world population, which reduces demand for homes and capital goods to equip workers.

So neutral has probably risen since 2019, but not to its pre-2008 level. Indeed, futures markets peg rates a decade from now at around 3.75%.

Of course, this is all just a forecast. If inflation comes down painlessly in the next year, if growth slows abruptly, or if Treasury yields drop, then estimates of neutral will also come down. For now, the evidence suggests the public should get used to higher rates as far as the eye can see.

The boom in casual footware ushered in by the pandemic has ended, a potential problem for companies such as Adidas that benefited from the shift to less formal clothing, Bank of America says.

The casual footwear business has been on the ropes since mid-2023 as people began returning to office.

Analyst Thierry Cota wrote that while most downcycles have lasted one to two years over the past two decades or so, the current one is different.

It “shows no sign of abating” and there is “no turning point in sight,” he said.

Adidas and Nike alone account for almost 60% of revenue in the casual footwear industry, Cota estimated, so the sector’s slower growth could be especially painful for them as opposed to brands that have a stronger performance-shoe segment. Adidas may just have it worse than Nike.

Cota downgraded Adidas stock to Underperform from Buy on Tuesday and slashed his target for the stock price to €160 (about $187) from €213. He doesn’t have a rating for Nike stock.

Shares of Adidas listed on the German stock exchange fell 4.5% Tuesday to €162.25. Nike stock was down 1.2%.

Adidas didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Cota sees trouble for Adidas both in the short and long term.

Adidas’ lifestyle segment, which includes the Gazelles and Sambas brands, has been one of the company’s fastest-growing business, but there are signs growth is waning.

Lifestyle sales increased at a 10% annual pace in Adidas’ third quarter, down from 13% in the second quarter.

The analyst now predicts Adidas’ organic sales will grow by a 5% annual rate starting in 2027, down from his prior forecast of 7.5%.

The slower revenue growth will likewise weigh on profitability, Cota said, predicting that margins on earnings before interest and taxes will decline back toward the company’s long-term average after several quarters of outperforming. That could result in a cut to earnings per share.

Adidas stock had a rough 2025. Shares shed 33% in the past 12 months, weighed down by investor concerns over how tariffs, slowing demand, and increased competition would affect revenue growth.

Nike stock fell 9% throughout the period, reflecting both the company’s struggles with demand and optimism over a turnaround plan CEO Elliott Hill rolled out in late 2024.

Investors’ confidence has faded following Nike’s December earnings report, which suggested that a sustained recovery is still several quarters away. Just how many remains anyone’s guess.

But if Adidas’ challenges continue, as Cota believes they will, it could open up some space for Nike to claw back any market share it lost to its rival.

Investors should keep in mind, however, that the field has grown increasingly crowded in the past five years. Upstarts such as On Holding and Hoka also present a formidable challenge to the sector’s legacy brands.

Shares of On and Deckers Outdoor , Hoka’s parent company, fell 11% and 48%, respectively, in 2025, but analysts are upbeat about both companies’ fundamentals as the new year begins.

The battle of the sneakers is just getting started.

Higher Interest Rates Not Just for Longer, but Maybe Forever

Rate projections suggest many Fed officials see a rising ‘neutral rate’

The pandemic-fuelled love affair with casual footwear is fading, with Bank of America warning the downturn shows no sign of easing.