Connect with us

Personal Finance

Mortgage rates aren’t likely to fall any time soon — here’s why

Published

on

The Good Brigade | Digitalvision | Getty Images

Mortgage rates have risen in recent months, even as the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates.

While those opposing movements may seem counterintuitive, they’re due to market forces that seem unlikely to ease much in the near term, according to economists and other finance experts.

That may leave prospective homebuyers with a tough choice. They can either delay their home purchase or forge ahead with current mortgage rates. The latter option is complicated by elevated home prices, experts said.

“If what you’re hoping or wishing for is an interest rate at 4%, or housing prices to drop 20%, I personally don’t think either one of those things is remotely likely in the near term,” said Lee Baker, a certified financial planner based in Atlanta and a member of CNBC’s Financial Advisor Council.

Mortgage rates at 7% mean a ‘dead’ market

Rates for a 30-year fixed mortgage jumped above 7% during the week ended Jan. 16, according to Freddie Mac. They’ve risen gradually since late September, when they had touched a recent low near 6%.

Current rates represent a bit of whiplash for consumers, who were paying less than 3% for a 30-year fixed mortgage as recently as November 2021, before the Fed raised borrowing costs sharply to tame high U.S. inflation.

“Anything over 7%, the market is dead,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s. “No one is going to buy.”

Mortgage rates need to get closer to 6% or below to “see the housing market come back to life,” he said.

The disappearance of the starter home

The financial calculus shows why: Consumers with a 30-year, $300,000 fixed mortgage at 5% would pay about $1,610 a month in principal and interest, according to a Bankrate analysis. They’d pay about $1,996 — roughly $400 more a month — at 7%, it said.

Meanwhile, the Fed began cutting interest rates in September as inflation has throttled back. The central bank reduced its benchmark rate three times over that period, by a full percentage point.

Despite that Fed policy shift, mortgage rates are unlikely to dip back to 6% until 2026, Zandi said. There are underlying forces that “won’t go away quickly,” he said.

“It may very well be the case that mortgage rates push higher before they moderate,” Zandi said.

Why have mortgage rates increased?

The first thing to know: Mortgage rates are tied more closely to the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds than to the Fed’s benchmark interest rate, said Baker, the founder of Claris Financial Advisors.

Those Treasury yields were about 4.6% as of Tuesday, up from about 3.6% in September.

Investors who buy and sell Treasury bonds influence those yields. They appear to have risen in recent months as investors have gotten worried about the inflationary impact of President Donald Trump’s proposed policies, experts said.

More from Personal Finance:
What to expect from travel prices in 2025
Trump’s second term may mean downfall of FDIC, CFPB
Here’s how the child tax credit could change in 2025

Policies like tariffs and mass deportations of immigrants are expected to increase inflation, if they come to pass, experts said. The Fed may lower borrowing costs more slowly if that happens — and potentially raise them again, experts said.

Indeed, Fed officials recently cited “upside risks” to inflation because of the potential effects of changes to trade and immigration policy.

Investors are also worried about how a large package of anticipated tax changes under the Trump administration might raise the federal deficit, Zandi said.

Why Fed rate cuts aren't making mortgages cheaper

There are other factors influencing Treasury yields, too.

For example, the Fed has been reducing its holdings of Treasury bonds and mortgage securities via its quantitative tightening policy, while Chinese investors have “turned more circumspect” in their buying of Treasurys and Japanese investors are less interested as they can now get a return on their own bonds, Zandi said.

Mortgage rates “probably won’t fall below 6% until 2026, assuming everything goes as expected,” said Joe Seydl, senior markets economist at J.P. Morgan Private Bank.

The mortgage premium is historically high

Grace Cary | Moment | Getty Images

Lenders typically price mortgages at a premium over 10-year Treasury yields.

That premium, also known as a “spread,” was about 1.7 percentage points from 1990 to 2019, on average, Seydl said.

The current spread is about 2.4 percentage points — roughly 0.7 points higher than the historical average.

There are a few reasons for the higher spread: For example, market volatility had made lenders more conservative in their mortgage underwriting, and that conservatism was exacerbated by the regional banking “shock” in 2023, which caused a “severe tightening of lending standards,” Seydl said.

“All told, 2025 is likely to be another year where housing affordability remains severely challenged,” he said.

That higher premium is “exacerbating the housing affordability challenge” for consumers, Seydl said.

The typical homebuyer paid $406,100 for an existing home in November, up 5% from $387,800 a year earlier, according to the National Association of Realtors.

What can consumers do?

Don’t subject the savings for a down payment to the whims of the stock market, he said.

“That’s not something you should gamble with in the market,” he said.

Savers can still get a roughly 4% to 5% return from a money market fund, high-yield bank savings account or certificate of deposit, for example.

Some consumers may also wish to get an adjustable rate mortgage instead of a fixed rate mortgage — an approach that may get consumers a better mortgage rate now but could saddle buyers with higher payments later due to fluctuating rates, Baker said.

“You’re taking a gamble,” Baker said.

He doesn’t recommend the approach for someone on a fixed income in retirement, for example, since it’s unlikely there’d be room in their budget to accommodate potentially higher monthly payments in the future, he said.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

How credit cycling works and why it’s risky

Published

on

Olga Rolenko | Moment | Getty Images

There are all sorts of ways for consumers to misuse credit cards, from failing to pay monthly bills in full to running up your balance. But here’s one risky behavior that experts say you likely haven’t heard of: “credit cycling.”

Credit cards come with a spending limit. Cardholders are usually aware of this limit, which represents the overall cap to how much they can borrow. The limit resets with each billing statement when users pay their bill in full and on time.

Users who credit-cycle will reach that limit and quickly pay down their balance; this frees up more headroom so consumers can effectively charge beyond their typical allowance.

Doing this occasionally is usually not a big deal, experts said. It’s akin to driving a few miles per hour over the speed limit — something less likely to get a driver pulled over for speeding, said Ted Rossman, senior industry analyst at CreditCards.com.

But consistently “churning” through available credit comes with risks, Rossman said.

On-time debt payments aren't a magic fix for your credit score

For example, card issuers may cancel a user’s card and take away their reward points, experts said. This might negatively impact a user’s credit score, they said.

“If there’s even the slightest chance credit cycling can go sideways, it’s best not to do it and look for alternatives,” said Bruce McClary, senior vice president at the National Foundation for Credit Counseling. “You have to be very careful.”

Card companies see credit cycling as a risk

The average American’s credit card limit was about $34,000 at the end of the second quarter of 2024, according to Experian, one the three major credit bureaus. (This was the limit across all their cards.)

The amount varies across generations, and according to factors like income and credit usage, according to Experian.

It’s understandable why some consumers would want to credit cycle, experts said.

More from Personal Finance:
Why summer Fridays are increasingly rare
How GOP megabill affects families with kids
What a Trump, Powell showdown means for your money

Certain consumers may have a relatively low credit limit, and credit cycling might help them pay for a big-ticket purchase like a home repair, wedding or a costly vacation, experts said. Others may do it to accelerate the rewards and points they get for making purchases, they said.

But card issuers would likely see repeat offenders as a red flag, Rossman said.

Credit card debt?

Maxing out a card frequently may run afoul of certain terms and conditions, or signal that a user is experiencing financial difficulty and struggling to stay within their budget, he said.

Issuers may also view it as a potential sign of illegal activity like money laundering, he said.

“You could be putting yourself at risk by appearing to be a risk in that way,” McClary said.

Credit cycling consequences

Further, a card company could flag misuse as a reason for the account closure, potentially making the user look like more of a risk to future creditors, he added.

Consistently butting up against one’s credit limit also increases the chances of accidentally breaching that threshold, McClary said. Doing so could lead creditors to charge over-limit fees or raise a user’s interest rate, he said.

Consumers who credit-cycle should be cognizant of any recurring monthly subscriptions or other charges that might inadvertently push them over the limit, he said.

What to do instead

Instead of credit cycling, consumers may be better served by asking their card issuer for a higher credit limit, opening a new credit card account or spreading payments over more than one card, Rossman said.

As a general practice, Rossman is a “big fan” of paying down one’s credit card bill early, such as in the middle of the billing cycle instead of waiting for the end. (To be clear, this isn’t the same as credit cycling, since consumers wouldn’t be paying down their balance early in order to spend beyond their allotted credit.)

This can reduce a consumer’s credit utilization rate — and boost one’s credit score — since card balances are generally only reported to the credit bureaus at the end of the monthly billing cycle, he said.

“It can be a good way to improve your score, especially if you use your card a lot,” he said.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Summer Fridays are increasingly rare as hybrid schedules gain steam

Published

on

People enjoy an unusually warm day in New York City as temperatures reach the low 80s on June 4, 2025 in New York City.

Spencer Platt | Getty Images

Summer Fridays may be considered the most desirable perk of the season, but fewer employers are on board with the shortened workweek.

Companies have steadily phased out summer Fridays — a policy that allows workers to take Friday afternoon off over the summer months — as work-from-home Fridays became more common, experts say.

“Pre-pandemic, summer Fridays were thing, but hybrid overall has taken over,” said Bill Driscoll, technology workplace trends expert at staffing and consulting firm Robert Half.

As more commuters settle into flexible working arrangements, fewer workers are making Friday trips at all compared to mid-week traffic patterns, according to the 2024 Global Traffic Scorecard released in January by INRIX Inc., a traffic-data analysis firm.

More from Personal Finance:
Job market is ‘trash’ right now, career coach says
Millions would lose health insurance under GOP megabill
Average 401(k) balances drop 3% due to market volatility

Among employees, however, summer Fridays are the most valued summer benefit, followed by summer hours and flextime, according to a new survey by job site Monster, which polled more than 400 U.S. workers in June. 

“Summer Fridays are highly valued among workers because, for many, they represent more than just a few extra hours off,” said Scott Blumsack, Monster’s chief strategy and marketing officer. This perk “can go a long way in showing employees they’re valued, which can help prevent burnout, boost morale, and improve retention during a season when disengagement can run high.”

Still, 84% of workers are not offered any summer-specific benefits, even though 55% also said those benefits improve productivity, Monster found.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon blasts call for hybrid work, tells employees not to waste time on petition

Instead, hybrid — and to a lesser extent fully remote — job postings have increased in the last year as employers compete for talented job seekers who prioritize flexibility, according to research by Robert Half.

“Hybrid is a highly desirable situation right now and one that all levels of employees are looking for,” said Robert Half’s Driscoll.

More than five years after the pandemic, 72% of organizations also have return-to-office mandates, according to a separate hybrid work study by Cisco.

But, even with the mandates, employees are less likely to work in the office on Fridays, and much more likely to commute Monday to Thursday, Cisco found.

Employees value flexibility

As employee burnout and disengagement grows amid the wave of in-office mandates, work-life balance and flexible hours have become increasingly important, other studies show.

Corporate wellness company Exos, which works with large organizations such as JetBlue and Adobe, says burnout has gone down significantly among employees at firms that have made Fridays more flexible. Exos also tested out “You Do You Fridays” — and found significant benefits.

The more adaptable the schedule, the more positively employees view their company’s policies, the Cisco report also found.

With hybrid arrangements now common, workers put a high value on that flexibility — and 63% of all workers would even accept a pay cut for the option to work remotely more often, according to Cisco’s global survey of more than 21,500 employers and employees working full-time.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

How House Republicans’ ‘big beautiful’ bill may affect children

Published

on

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., pictured at a press conference after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Donald Trump’s agenda on May 22 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images

House reconciliation legislation, also known as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, includes changes aimed at helping to boost family’s finances.

Those proposals — including $1,000 investment “Trump Accounts” for newborns and an enhanced maximum $2,500 child tax credit — would help support eligible parents.

Proposed tax cuts in the bill may also provide up to $13,300 more in take-home pay for the average family with two children, House Republicans estimate.

“What we’re trying to do is help hardworking Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a June 8 interview with ABC News’ “This Week.”

Yet the proposed changes, which emphasize work requirements, may reduce aid for children in low-income families when it comes to certain tax credits, health coverage and food assistance.

Households in the lowest decile of the income distribution would lose about $1,600 per year, or about 3.9% of their income, from 2026 through 2034, according to a June 12 letter from the Congressional Budget Office. That loss is mainly due to “reductions in in-kind transfers,” it notes — particularly Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.

20 million children won’t get full $2,500 child tax credit

A member of MomsRising holds a sign on Capitol Hill to urge lawmakers to reject tax breaks for billionaires and protest cuts to Medicaid and child care on Capitol Hill on May 8 in Washington, D.C.

Brian Stukes | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

House Republicans have proposed increasing the maximum child tax credit to $2,500 per child, up from $2,000, a change that would go into effect starting with tax year 2025 and expire after 2028.

The change would increase the number of low-income children who are locked out of the child tax credit because their parents’ income is too low, according to Adam Ruben, director of advocacy organization Economic Security Project Action. The tax credit is not refundable, meaning filers can’t claim it if they don’t have a tax obligation.

Today, there are 17 million children who either receive no credit or a partial credit because their family’s income is too low, Ruben said. Under the House Republicans’ plan, that would increase by 3 million children. Consequently, 20 million children would be left out of the full child tax credit because their families earn too little, he said.

“It is raising the credit for wealthier families while excluding those vulnerable families from the credit,” Ruben said. “And that’s not a pro-family policy.”

Expect the reconciliation bill to be done 'at some point this summer': Punchbowl's Jake Sherman

A single parent with two children would have to earn at least $40,000 per year to access the full child tax credit under the Republicans’ plan, he said. For families earning the minimum wage, it may be difficult to meet that threshold, according to Ruben.

In contrast, an enhanced child tax credit put in place under President Joe Biden made it fully refundable, which means very low-income families were eligible for the maximum benefit, according to Elaine Maag, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

In 2021, the maximum child tax credit was $3,600 for children under six and $3,000 for children ages 6 to 17. That enhanced credit cut child poverty in half, Maag said. However, immediately following the expiration, child poverty increased, she said.

The current House proposal would also make about 4.5 million children who are citizens ineligible for the child tax credit because they have at least one undocumented parent who files taxes with an individual tax identification number, Ruben said. Those children are currently eligible for the child tax credit based on 2017 tax legislation but would be excluded based on the new proposal, he said.

New red tape for a low-income tax credit

House Republicans also want to change the earned income tax credit, or EITC, which targets low- to middle-income individuals and families, to require precertification to qualify.

When a similar requirement was tried about 20 years ago, it resulted in some eligible families not getting the benefit, Maag said. The new prospective administrative barrier may have the same result, she said.

More than 2 million children’s food assistance at risk

Momo Productions | Digitalvision | Getty Images

House Republican lawmakers’ plan includes almost $300 billion in proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, through 2034.

SNAP currently helps more than 42 million people in low-income families afford groceries, according to Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Children represent roughly 40% of SNAP participants, she said.

More than 7 million people may see their food assistance either substantially reduced or ended entirely due to the proposed cuts in the House reconciliation bill, estimates CBPP. Notably, that total includes more than 2 million children.

“We’re talking about the deepest cut to food assistance ever, potentially, if this bill becomes law,” Bergh said.

More from Personal Finance:
Experts weigh pros and cons of $1,000 Trump baby bonus
How Trump spending bill may curb low-income tax credit
Why millions would lose health insurance under House spending bill

Under the House proposal, work requirements would apply to households with children for the first time, Bergh said. Parents with children over the age of 6 would be subject to those rules, which limit people to receiving food assistance for just three months in a three-year period unless they work a minimum 20 hours per week.

Additionally, the House plan calls for states to fund 5% to 25% of SNAP food benefits — a departure from the 100% federal funding for those benefits for the first time in the program’s history, Bergh said.

States, which already pay to help administer SNAP, may face tough choices in the face of those higher costs. That may include cutting food assistance or other state benefits or even doing away with SNAP altogether, Bergh said.

While the bill does not directly propose cuts to school meal programs, it does put children’s eligibility for them at risk, according to Bergh. Children who are eligible for SNAP typically automatically qualify for free or reduced school meals. If a family loses SNAP benefits, their children may also miss out on those benefits, Bergh said.

Health coverage losses would adversely impact families

A protestor holds a sign on May 7, 2025 in Washington, D.C.

Leigh Vogel | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

Families with children may face higher health care costs and reduced access to health care depending on how states react to federal spending cuts proposed by House Republicans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The House Republican bill seeks to slash approximately $1 trillion in spending from Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

Medicaid work requirements may make low-income individuals vulnerable to losing health coverage if they are part of the expansion group and are unable to document they meet the requirements or qualify for an exemption, according to CBPP. Parents and pregnant women, who are on the list of exemptions, could be susceptible to losing coverage without proper documentation, according to the non-partisan research and policy institute.

Eligible children may face barriers to access Medicaid and CHIP coverage if the legislation blocks a rule that simplifies enrollment in those programs, according to CBPP.

In addition, an estimated 4.2 million individuals may be uninsured in 2034 if enhanced premium tax credits that help individuals and families afford health insurance are not extended, according to CBO estimates. Meanwhile, those who are covered by marketplace plans would have to pay higher premiums, according to CBPP. Without the premium tax credits, a family of four with $65,000 in income would pay $2,400 more per year for marketplace coverage.

Continue Reading

Trending