The Fed's next chapter: this is no regular interest-rate cut

The U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) trimmed rates by 25 basis points (bps), as has been widely expected, but we believe Wednesday’s interest-rate decision is more significant than it may initially seem.

The majority of media coverage and market commentary we’ve seen so far has been focused on what the Fed did on Wednesday, that is, the quantum of the rate cut and the ensuing market reaction. The “what” was relatively straightforward:

  • Interest rates were cut by 25bps.
  • The Fed’s balance sheet runoff known as quantitative tightening (QT) now ends as of August 1, two months earlier than initially planned. This makes sense: Why ease with one tool but tighten with another?
  • The interest rate it pays banks to park their excess reserves at the central bank was cut by 25bps, from 2.35% to 2.10%. 

However, we believe the why—the rationale behind the Fed’s decision—is far more important. Unfortunately, it’s also more difficult to discern. Formally, the Fed’s statement implies the decision to cut rates was fairly broad, attributing it to “the implications of global developments for the economic outlook as well as muted inflation pressures.” However, during Wednesday’s press conference, Fed Chair Jerome Powell also continued to emphasize that the Fed’s base case for the economy is “a positive one” that includes a sustained economic expansion.1 In which case, why cut? We believe the Fed is substantially more focused on inflation and inflation expectations than its statement formally alludes to, and that its desire to boost price pressures is the primary driver behind Wednesday’s rate cut—and for that matter, any forthcoming rate cuts.

Investors are likely to have come across two different broad sets of narratives explaining the Fed’s decision to embark on a rate-cutting path. The first, favored by a group of market watchers who belong to what we call the “easing cycle” camp, suggests this could mark the beginning of a more typical Fed easing cycle, similar to the majority of those seen in the past three decades. On average, easing cycles tend to produce around 500bps of rate cuts and are typically a reaction to an economy that’s already in, or is heading toward, a recession. In the current environment, a traditional easing cycle would imply that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will take rates to 0% or below and that the U.S. 10-year yield will also fall to zero, which will likely be accompanied by some pain for risk assets.

Admittedly, after Wednesday’s surprisingly robust press conference, this narrative is likely to be relegated to the sidelines … at least for now.

The second narrative, advocated by those in the “insurance cuts” camp, suggests these cuts—which typically involves lowering rates by a total of 75bps in one or two increments—are intended to offset short-term cyclical weakness in U.S. growth, in this case, because of trade tensions and weak global manufacturing activity. The Fed has acted similarly (twice) in the 1990s: It most famously undertook this approach in 1995 and again in 1998.

Fed Chair Powell’s insistence during Wednesday’s press conference that the Fed is engineering a “mid-cycle adjustment”2 is far more consistent with the insurance cuts camp versus the easing cycle camp, and markets appear to be unwinding a good deal of their easing cycle pricing.


Interest-rate cuts: three different narratives.  This table shows characteristics of three types of interest-rate cuts: easing cycle cuts, insurance cuts, and reflation cuts.

We believe the narrative needs further refining. In our view, the Fed could be engaging in an important variation of the insurance cut that it hasn’t done before, which we call the “reflation cut.” These cuts aren’t primarily designed to support short-term growth (although that’s a helpful offshoot, particularly in an environment defined by elevated uncertainty), or as a response to recession risk.

Instead, they’re undertaken to produce a structural inflationary overshoot and to reignite persistently weak inflation expectations that have become de-anchored from 2%. If this is indeed the case, by explicitly attempting to engineer greater than 2% inflation, the FOMC will likely contribute to an overheating of the U.S. economy.

The most important difference between a typical insurance cut and our theory of reflation cuts is that central bank dovishness doesn’t end when growth reaccelerates; it only ends when inflation has persistently overshot 2%. This implies (a) the Fed’s likely to stay on hold once it’s done cutting for a prolonged period of time, longer than it would have done in an insurance cut environment, and (b) risk assets could benefit from both lower rates and stronger growth.

Our key takeaway from Wednesday’s press conference is that it confirmed our belief that the Fed’s trying to ease its way into an economic stabilization (and potentially into a reacceleration). In other words, we believe Wednesday’s interest-rate cut is indeed a “mid-cycle adjustment”2 to stoke inflation. This is consistent with our near-term market views that:

  • risk assets can continue to do moderately well as these cuts will support the extension of the economic cycle.
  • no substantial repricing at the front-end of the yield curve because in our view, interest-rate cuts of between 50bps and 75bps followed by a long pause is consistent with the reflation cut mandate of two to three interest-rate cuts.

Ultimately, regardless of which camp we end up belonging to, the broader story is clear: The Fed’s going to cut at least once more,probably in September, and the 2016/2018 hiking cycle is now over.

“Federal Reserve issues FOMC Statement,”, July 31, 2019. 2 FOMC Press Conference,, July 31, 2019.

Important disclosures

Investing involves risks, including the potential loss of principal. Financial markets are volatile and can fluctuate significantly in response to company, industry, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments. These risks are magnified for investments made in emerging markets. Currency risk is the risk that fluctuations in exchange rates may adversely affect the value of a portfolio’s investments.

A rise in interest rates typically causes bond prices to fall. The longer the average maturity of the bonds held, the more sensitive a portfolio is likely to be to interest-rate changes. The yield earned by a portfolio will vary with changes in interest rates.

The information provided does not take into account the suitability, investment objectives, financial situation, or particular needs of any specific person. You should consider the suitability of any type of investment for your circumstances and, if necessary, seek professional advice. This material, intended for the exclusive use by the recipients who are allowable to receive this document under the applicable laws and regulations of the relevant jurisdictions, was produced by, and the opinions expressed are those of, Manulife Investment Management as of the date of this publication, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. The information and/or analysis contained in this material have been compiled or arrived at from sources believed to be reliable, but Manulife Investment Management does not make any representation as to their accuracy, correctness, usefulness, or completeness and does not accept liability for any loss arising from the use of the information and/or analysis contained. The information in this material may contain projections or other forward-looking statements regarding future events, targets, management discipline, or other expectations, and is only as current as of the date indicated. The information in this document, including statements concerning financial market trends, are based on current market conditions, which will fluctuate and may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons. Manulife Investment Management disclaims any responsibility to update such information.

Neither Manulife Investment Management or its affiliates, nor any of their directors, officers or employees shall assume any liability or responsibility for any direct or indirect loss or damage or any other consequence of any person acting or not acting in reliance on the information contained herein. All overviews and commentary are intended to be general in nature and for current interest. While helpful, these overviews are no substitute for professional tax, investment or legal advice. Clients should seek professional advice for their particular situation. Neither Manulife, Manulife Investment Management, nor any of their affiliates or representatives is providing tax, investment or legal advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This material was prepared solely for informational purposes, does not constitute a recommendation, professional advice, an offer or an invitation by or on behalf of Manulife Investment Management to any person to buy or sell any security or adopt any investment strategy, and is no indication of trading intent in any fund or account managed by Manulife Investment Management. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee returns or eliminate risk in any market environment. Diversification or asset allocation does not guarantee a profit nor protect against loss in any market. Unless otherwise specified, all data is sourced from Manulife Investment Management. 

Manulife Investment Management

Manulife Investment Management is the global wealth and asset management segment of Manulife Financial Corporation. We draw on more than 150 years of financial stewardship to partner with clients across our institutional, retail, and retirement businesses globally. Our specialist approach to money management includes the highly differentiated strategies of our fixed-income, specialized equity, multi-asset solutions, and private markets teams—along with access to specialized, unaffiliated asset managers from around the world through our multimanager model.

These materials have not been reviewed by, are not registered with any securities or other regulatory authority, and may, where appropriate, be distributed by the following Manulife entities in their respective jurisdictions. Additional information about Manulife Investment Management may be found at

Australia: Hancock Natural Resource Group Australasia Pty Limited, Manulife Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited. Brazil: Hancock Asset Management Brasil Ltda. Canada: Manulife Investment Management Limited, Manulife Investment Management Distributors Inc., Manulife Investment Management (North America) Limited, Manulife Investment Management Private Markets (Canada) Corp. China: Manulife Overseas Investment Fund Management (Shanghai) Limited Company. European Economic Area and United Kingdom: Manulife Investment Management (Europe) Ltd. which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, Manulife Investment Management (Ireland) Ltd. which is authorised and regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland Hong Kong: Manulife Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited. Indonesia: PT Manulife Aset Manajemen Indonesia. Japan: Manulife Asset Management (Japan) Limited. Malaysia: Manulife Investment Management (M) Berhad (formerly known as Manulife Asset Management Services Berhad) 200801033087 (834424-U) Philippines: Manulife Asset Management and Trust Corporation. Singapore: Manulife Investment Management (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Company Registration No. 200709952G) Switzerland: Manulife IM (Switzerland) LLC. Taiwan: Manulife Investment Management (Taiwan) Co. Ltd. Thailand: Manulife Asset Management (Thailand) Company Limited. United States: John Hancock Investment Management LLC, Manulife Investment Management (US) LLC, Hancock Capital Investment Management, LLC and Hancock Natural Resource Group, Inc. Vietnam: Manulife Investment Fund Management (Vietnam) Company Limited. 


Frances Donald

Frances Donald, 

Global Chief Economist and Global Head of Macroeconomic Strategy, Multi-Asset Solutions Team

Manulife Investment Management

Read bio