What prevents interest rates from rising?
A lot of loans are taken out on a fixed rate basis, so the rate is part of the contract and is therefore covered by contract law. If the loan is taken out on a variable basis then in principle the rate can rise within the terms of the contract.  If a particular lender tries to raise its rates out of line with the market then its customers will seek alternative, cheaper, loans and pay off their expensive loan if they can. If rates rise sharply in general due to unusual politico-economic circumstances then those with variable rate loans can find themselves in severe trouble.  For example the base rate in the UK (and therefore variable mortgage rates closely tied to it) spiked sharply in the late 80s which caused severe stress to a lot of borrowers and undoubtedly pushed some into financial difficulties. Interest rates are market driven. They tend to be based on the prime rate set by the federal reserve bank because of the tremendous lending capacity of that institution and that other loan originators will often fund their own lending (at least in part) with fed loans. However, there is no mandatory link between the federal reserve rate and the market rate. No law stipulates that rates cannot rise or fall. They will rise and fall as lenders see necessary to use their capital. Though a lender asking 10% interest might make no loans when others are willing to lend for 9%. The only protection you have is that we are (mostly) economically free. As a borrower, you are protected by the fact that there are many lenders. Likewise, as a lender, because there are many borrowers. Stability is simply by virtue of the fact that one market participant with inordinate pricing will find fewer counterparties to transact. To protect yourself from an increase in interest rates get a fixed rate loan. The loan terms: interest rate, number of payments, monthly payments will be fixed for the loan. Of course if rate for the rest of the market drops during the period of the loan, you may be able to refinance the loan. But if you can't refinance, or won't refinance, the drop in rates for the rest of the market doesn't help you. If you want to be able to have your rate float you can get a variable rate loan. Of course it can float up, or it can float down. So you take that risk. Because of that risk adjustable rate loans start at a lower rate. If the market interest rate drops far enough many people will refinance into a fixed rate loan at a lower rate than they could have gotten at the start. For adjustable rate loans the lender, during the application process, details how the rate is determined. It is pegged to be x% above some national or international interest rate that they don't have any control over. If that base rate moves then your loan rate may move. They also specify how often it will adjust, and the maximum it can adjust between each adjustments and over the entire life of the loan.  That rate that starts initially lower than the fixed rate loan is the enticement that many people have to pick an adjustable rate loan. Some do it because they believe they will payoff the loan before the rates get too high, or they will see enough increase in income so they can afford the higher monthly payment if rates rise. If they are wrong about these things they may find themselves in trouble. The terms of the adjustable rate loan still have to follow the terms of the contract: the lender can't change the % offset or the source used to used to set interest rate. There do not appear to be any specific legal measures to prevent bankruptcies.  In fact, they seems to be part of the means for which rates are raised, for the consequent aim of lowering inflation. See:  The Budgetary Implications of Higher Federal Reserve Board Interest Rates by Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research. The Federal Reserve Board (Fed) is widely expected to start raising   interest rates some time in 2015. The purpose of higher interest rates   is to slow the economy and prevent inflation. This is done by reducing   the rate of job creation and thereby reducing the ability of workers   to achieve wage gains.
"House prices do not go up.  Land prices in countries with growing economies tend to go up.  The price of the house on the land generally depreciates as it wears out. Houses require money; they are called money pits for a reason.  You have to replace HVAC periodically, roofs, repairs, rot, foundation problems, leaks, electrical repair; and all of that just reduces the rate at which the house (not the land) loses value. To maintain value (of the house proper), you need to regularly rebuild parts of the house.  People expect different things in Kitchens, bathrooms, dining rooms, doors, bedrooms today than they do in the past, and wear on flooring and fixtures accumulate over time. The price of land and is going to be highly determined by the current interest rates.  Interest rates are currently near zero; if they go up by even a few percent, we can expect land prices to stop growing and start shrinking, even if the economy continues to grow.  So the assumption that land+house prices go up is predicated on the last 35 years of constant rigorous economic growth mixed with interest rate decreases.  This is a common illusion, that people assume the recent economic past is somehow the way things are ""naturally"".  But we cannot decrease interest rates further, and rigorous economic growth is far from guaranteed. This is because people price land based on their carrying cost; the cost you have to spend out of your income to have ownership of it.  And that is a function of interest rates.  Throw in no longer expecting land values to constantly grow and second-order effects that boost land value also go away. Depending on the juristiction, a mortgage is a hugely leveraged investment.  It is akin to taking 10,000$, borrowing 40,000$ and buying stock.  If the stock goes up, you make almost 5x as much money; if it goes down, you lose 5x as much.  And you owe a constant stream of money to service the debt on top of that. If you want to be risk free, work out how you'd deal with the value of your house dropping by 50% together with losing your job, getting a job paying half as much after a period of 6 months unemployment.  The new job requires a 1.5 hour commute from your house.  Interest rates going up to 12% and your mortgage is up for renewal (in 15 years - they climbed gradually over the time, say), optionally. That is a medium-bad situation (not a great depression scale problem), but is a realistic ""bad luck"" event that could happen to you.  Not likely, but possible. Can you weather it?  If so, the risk is within your bounds.  Note that going bankrupt may be a reasonable plan to such a bit of bad luck.  However, note that had you not purchased the house, you wouldn't be bankrupt in that situation. It is reasonably likely that house prices will, after you spend ~3% of the construction cost of the house per year, pay the mortgage on the land+house, grow at a rate sufficient to offset the cost of renting and generate an economically reasonable level of profit.  It is not a risk-free investment. If someone tries to sell you a risk-free investment, they are almost certainly wrong." Inflation can go up for a number of reasons. Boom times can cause inflation, as everyone is making and spending a lot of money, so prices and inflation goes up. In times like these central banks usually increase interest rates to curb spending and thus bring down inflation. By raising interest rates the central bank is increasing the cost of borrowing money. So with high prices and a higher cost to borrowing money, most people start reducing their spending. When this happens businesses sell less stock and have increased costs (due to higher interest rates) so have to lay off staff or reduce their hours at work, so people will have even less money to spend. This causes prices to fall and reduces inflation and can result in a recession. At this point in time central banks start reducing interest rates to make the cost of borrowing money cheaper and stimulate people to start spending again. And so the cycle continues. The result in this case is that inflation itself didn't kerb demand, but was helped along by the central bank rising interest rates. Another reason causing inflation can be a restriction on the supply of certain goods or services. An example we went through about 2 years ago was when floods caused banana crops up in Northern Australia to be devastated. This caused a lack of supply in bananas for almost a year across Australia. The normal price for bananas here is between $1 to $3 per kg. During this period banana prices skyrocketed up to $14 per kg. The result: very few were buying bananas. So the increase in price here caused a reduction in demand directly. "Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words.  Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that ""we can't make interest rates lower"", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it." Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy.  If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future.  Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination.  My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus.  This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans.  This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops.  QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks.  If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates.  As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept.  If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates?  Yes, in two ways.  First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government.  It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds.  This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond).  The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks.  Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant.  Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds.  At some point they could demand higher rates.  The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up.  At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government.  That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse. yield on a Treasury bond increases This primarily happens when the government increases interest rates or there is too much money floating around and the government wants to suck out money from the economy, this is the first step not the other way around. The most recent case was Fed buying up bonds and hence releasing money in to the economy so companies and people start investing to push the economy on the growth path.  Banks normally base their interest rates on the Treasury bonds, which they use as a reference rate because of the probability of 0 default. As mortgage is a long term investment, so they follow the long duration bonds issued by the Fed. They than put a premium on the money lent out for taking that extra risk. So when the governments are trying to suck out money, there is a dearth of free flowing money and hence you pay more premium to borrow because supply is less demand is more, demand will eventually decrease but not in the short run. Why do banks increase the rates they loan money at when people sell bonds? Not people per se, but primarily the central bank in a country i.e. Fed in US. Another option is to short whatever interest rate you think will go up.  For example, if you think that interest on treasuries will go up, then short treasuries. "How should I allocate short-term assets in a rising-interest rate   environment? Assuming that the last part is correct, there could be bear bond funds that short bonds that could work well as a way to invest. However, bear in that the the ""rising-interest rate environment"" is part of the basis that may or may not be true in the end as I'm not sure I've seen anything to tell me why rates couldn't stay where they are for another couple of years or more. Long-Term Capital Management would be a cautionary tale before about bonds that had assumptions that backfired when something that wasn't supposed to happen, happened. Thus, while you can say there is ""rising-interest rate environment"" what else are you prepared to assume and how certain are you of that happening? An alternate theory here would be that ""junk bonds"" may do well because the economy has to be heating up for rates to rise and thus the bonds that are priced down so much because of default risk may turn out to not go bust and thus could do well. Course this would carry the ""Your mileage may vary"" and without a working time machine I couldn't say which funds will be good and which would suck. As for what I would do if I was dealing with my own money: Money market funds and CDs would likely be my suggestion for the short-term where I want to prevent principal risk. This is likely what I would do if I believed the rising rate environment is here." Great reply. This is one of reasons why I like this subreddit.  I thought that fed interest are far more important that you state. Rate is low + economy is booming (lender thinks there is good chance of repayment), banks loan money much more willingly (reserves are covered by cheap fed loans -&gt; greater profit). That should significantly affect money supply. Increasing rates from .75% to 1% is an attempt to control debt.  The new 1% rate drives down demand for bonds based on the old .75% rate and drives down demand for stocks who have decrease profit because they pay more interest on debt.  This is the federal reserves primary tool controling inflation.   1% is what the banks pay to borrow money, they base their lending rates on this 1% figure.  If a person can guarantee a .75% return on money borrowed at 1%, they will opt to save and instead lend their money out at 1%. "To understand the Twist, you need to understand what the Yield Curve is.  You must also understand that the price of debt is inverse to the interest rate. So when the price of bonds (or notes or bills) rises, that means the current price goes up, and the yield to maturity has gone down.  Currently (Early 2012) the short term rate is low, close to zero. The tools the fed uses, setting short term rates for one, is exhausted, as their current target is basically zero for this debt. But, my mortgage is based on 10yr rates, not 1 yr, or 30 day money. The next step in the fed's effort is to try to pull longer term rates down. By buying back 10 year notes in this quantity, the fed impacts the yield at that point on the curve. Buying (remember supply/demand) pushes the price up, and for debt, a higher price equates to lower yield. To raise the money to do this, they will sell short term debt. These two transactions effectively try to ""twist"" the curve to pull long term rates lower and push the economy." "True. My thinking is, the higher the rates are, the less people you'll have borrowing, the less chance of people defaulting, more people buying with flat cash, and of course cheaper housing prices.  Whereas with low interest rates, you'll have more people borrowing (thus, increasing the likelihood of more people defaulting), more people ""buying"" homes (technically not buying, technically just ""borrowing"" money and putting down mortgages), and more expensive housing prices.  Quite frankly, I think the way that the western world can solve its issue with unaffordable housing is by raising the interest rates to at least the double digits, like they once were (when housing was still cheap)." I know that assets like bonds have prices that have an inverse relationship with interest rates, but what other assets do as well? I'm a bit new to finance and all that so I'm trying to learn. Would real estate prices be high as well? If so, why? Is your question academic curiosity or are you thinking of buying bonds?  Be aware that bond interest rates are near all-time lows, and if interest rates were to rise, the prices of bonds could fall.  Those buying bonds today are taking unusually large risk of capital loss. "On a longer time scale, the plot thickens:  It almost looks random.  A large drop in real rates in the mid-70s, a massive spike in the early 80s, followed by a slow multi-decade decline. The chaos doesn't seem to be due to interest rates.  They steadily climbed and steadily fell:  All that's left is inflation:  First, real rates should be expected to pay a moderate rate, so nominal rates will usually be higher than inflation. However, interest rates are very stable over long time periods while inflation is not.  Economists call this type of phenomenon ""sticky pricing"", where the price, interest rates in this case, do not change much despite the realities surrounding them. But the story is a little more complicated. In the early 1970s, Nixon had an election to win and tried to lessen the impacts of recession by increasing gov't spending, not raising taxes, and financing through the central bank, causing inflation.  The strategy failed, but he was reelected anyways.   This set the precedent for the hyperinflation of the 1970s that ended abruptly by Reagan at the beginning of his first term in the early 1980s.  Again, interest rates remained sticky, so real rates spiked. Now, the world is not growing, almost stagnating.  Demand for equity is somewhat above average, but because corporate income is decelerating, and the developed world's population is aging, demand for investment income is skyrocketing.   As demand rises, so does the price, which for an investor is a form of inverse of the interest rate. Future demand is probably best answered by forecasters, and the monetarist over and undertones still dominating the Federal Reserve show that they have finally learned after 100 years that inflation is best kept ""low and stable"":  But what happens if growth in the US suddenly spikes, inflation rises, and the Federal Reserve must sell all of the long term assets it has bet so heavily on quickly while interest rates rise?  Inflation may not be intended, but it is not impossible." As no one has mentioned them I will...  The US  Treasury issues at least two forms of bonds that tend to always pay some interest even when prevailing rates are zero or negative.  The two that I know of are TIPS and I series bonds. Below are links to the descriptions of these bonds: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm