How Much Have Fed Policies Cost Savers? Try $757.9 Billion

It is not the Fed's intention to hurt bank customers.

Apr 27, 2014 at 8:37AM

During its March meeting, members of the Federal Open Market Committee expressed concern that inflation might be too low. American bank customers, who have seen their deposits lose more than $750 billion in purchasing power to inflation in recent years, according to new research, may well wonder why the Fed is not more worried about the effect inflation has had on their savings.

For the past five years, has calculated the cost of the Fed's low-interest rate policies in terms of how much purchasing power bank deposits have lost to inflation as a result of today's artificially low bank rates. For each of the five years, those losses have exceeded $100 billion, and the running total now exceeding three-quarters of a trillion dollars.

A costly stimulus
It is not the Fed's intention to hurt bank customers. Low-interest rate policies have been the centerpiece of the Fed's attempts to stimulate the economy since the Great Recession. Those aggressive stimulus measures have plenty of supporters, including homeowners, stock market investors and the business community.

Amid all the support for low interest rates, what is often overlooked is that it is not a cost-free policy. Whereas bank rates have traditionally been able to earn a little more than inflation, they have consistently lagged behind inflation during this era of extraordinarily low interest rates. That means that depositors in CDs, savings accounts and money market accounts have been losing purchasing power. This lost purchasing power is the hidden cost of the Fed's policies.

A year ago, there was $9.427 trillion on deposit at U.S. banks. Over the past year, average money market rates have ranged from 0.08 percent to 0.10 percent. Inflation, meanwhile, was 1.5 percent over that same period. Because inflation grew faster than the average bank rate, consumers lost purchasing power. Adjusting that $9.427 trillion upward for interest earnings but then downward to account for the inflation rate yields a net loss in purchasing power of $122.5 billion. When this loss is added to the purchasing power losses from the previous four years, the total comes to $757.9 billion -- the effective price of the Fed's low-rate policies.

Questionable value
What has that three-quarters of a trillion dollars in purchasing power bought? The results of the Fed's low-interest rate programs are of questionable value:

  1. Spotty economic performance. Late last year, the real GDP growth rate slipped from 4.1 percent in the third quarter to 2.6 percent in the fourth. This follows what has become a frustrating pattern: Four and a half years into a recovery, the economy still cannot sustain any momentum.
  2. Too much emphasis on borrowing. The housing crisis was caused by irresponsible borrowing, and yet the Fed's response is to encourage more borrowing by lowering interest rates. While mortgage debt did decline immediately following the housing crisis (in part because of foreclosures), total mortgage debt outstanding has begun to creep up again recently. Meanwhile, total non-mortgage consumer debt has risen by more than 20 percent since 2009.
  3. Over-dependency on low interest rates. Low interest rates have helped both the stock market and housing recover, but there are signs that neither recovery would survive a return to more normal interest rates. In essence, those patients are still on life support.

Like any other economic decision, the Fed's low-interest rate policies should be looked at in cost-benefit terms. So far, the net benefits appear debatable in light of the costs.

The worst of both worlds
Things have been bad for depositors, to the tune of three-quarters of a trillion in lost purchasing power over the past five years. But at the same time, at least some have been able to benefit from record-low mortgage rates, which were also a result of Fed policy.

Now, however, the Fed is cutting back on its program to keep long-term rates like mortgage rates down. At the same time though, it is continuing to keep short-term rates, such as deposit rates, near zero. The net result is the worst of both worlds for bank customers: It still does not pay to save money, but it now costs more to borrow it.

The stealth bailout
Bailouts were largely seen as a necessary evil in the aftermath of the financial crisis. But at least with the bailouts of Wall Street firms and the auto companies, the price tag was disclosed on the front end.

Super low interest rates are effectively another form of bailout. They have helped to artificially support the banking system and the housing market. In this case though, it has been a stealth bailout, as no price tag has been disclosed. estimates that that price tag now exceeds three-quarters of a trillion dollars. When measured against the shaky results low-interest rate policies have produced, the bank depositors who have shouldered the burden of this bailout may well question if the loss has been worth it.

This article How Much Have Fed Policies Cost Savers? Try $757.9 Billion originally appeared on

Take advantage of this little-known tax "loophole"
Recent tax increases have affected nearly every American taxpayer. But with the right planning, you can take steps to take control of your taxes and potentially even lower your tax bill. In our brand-new special report "The IRS Is Daring You to Make This Investment Now!," you'll learn about the simple strategy to take advantage of a little-known IRS rule. Don't miss out on advice that could help you cut taxes for decades to come. Click here to learn more.

You may also enjoy:

The best savings account rates: what savers should know

Bank fees: What's the latest?

Money market accounts: A good choice for your IRA?

Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

4 in 5 Americans Are Ignoring Buffett's Warning

Don't be one of them.

Jun 12, 2015 at 5:01PM

Admitting fear is difficult.

So you can imagine how shocked I was to find out Warren Buffett recently told a select number of investors about the cutting-edge technology that's keeping him awake at night.

This past May, The Motley Fool sent 8 of its best stock analysts to Omaha, Nebraska to attend the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting. CEO Warren Buffett and Vice Chairman Charlie Munger fielded questions for nearly 6 hours.
The catch was: Attendees weren't allowed to record any of it. No audio. No video. 

Our team of analysts wrote down every single word Buffett and Munger uttered. Over 16,000 words. But only two words stood out to me as I read the detailed transcript of the event: "Real threat."

That's how Buffett responded when asked about this emerging market that is already expected to be worth more than $2 trillion in the U.S. alone. Google has already put some of its best engineers behind the technology powering this trend. 

The amazing thing is, while Buffett may be nervous, the rest of us can invest in this new industry BEFORE the old money realizes what hit them.

KPMG advises we're "on the cusp of revolutionary change" coming much "sooner than you think."

Even one legendary MIT professor had to recant his position that the technology was "beyond the capability of computer science." (He recently confessed to The Wall Street Journal that he's now a believer and amazed "how quickly this technology caught on.")

Yet according to one J.D. Power and Associates survey, only 1 in 5 Americans are even interested in this technology, much less ready to invest in it. Needless to say, you haven't missed your window of opportunity. 

Think about how many amazing technologies you've watched soar to new heights while you kick yourself thinking, "I knew about that technology before everyone was talking about it, but I just sat on my hands." 

Don't let that happen again. This time, it should be your family telling you, "I can't believe you knew about and invested in that technology so early on."

That's why I hope you take just a few minutes to access the exclusive research our team of analysts has put together on this industry and the one stock positioned to capitalize on this major shift.

Click here to learn about this incredible technology before Buffett stops being scared and starts buying!

David Hanson owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway and American Express. The Motley Fool recommends and owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway, Google, and Coca-Cola.We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

©1995-2014 The Motley Fool. All rights reserved. | Privacy/Legal Information