Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 379

10 reasons low interest rates may limit growth

Sitting on the desk of Reserve Bank of Australia Governor Philip Lowe most days when he arrives at work are letters from the public. Many are from retirees who have one complaint in this world of low interest rates. Lowe told a parliamentary committee last year.

“It's not uncommon for people to say to me they've worked hard all their lives, they've saved, they're frugal, they don't spend very much, they rely on interest income and they're having to cut back their spending.” 

The limits of low interest rates

The RBA Governor earlier that session said that for every dollar the household sector received in interest income, it paid more than two dollars in interest payments. So overall, lower interest rates help the economy because they enable more consumer spending. To extend such conventional analysis, lower interest rates promote business investment, reduce borrowing costs for governments, which frees up more spending, help exports by lowering a currency and create a ‘wealth effect’ that encourages household spending by boosting asset prices.

Such thinking has motivated central banks to reduce interest rates to rev economies such that low rates have been a mainstay since the global financial crisis of 2008. An obvious problem with interest rates as a macro tool is they lose their stimulus fizz when they are close to zero or even mildly negative.

UK economist John Maynard Keynes in 1936 spoke of the ‘liquidity trap’ when describing the limits of low interest rates as an effective policy tool. When uncertainty is so great, even low interest rates fail to generate enough demand to ensure full employment.

But Keynes was indicating that low interest rates could be ineffective as a macro tool. 

10 side effects stand out

The worry after 12 years of low and negative rates is that these settings produce side effects that make them counterproductive.

First, a core concern is that Keynes’s liquidity-trap concept seems to underestimate the dampening effect of emergency measures. Low rates seem to dent consumer spending and business investment because they signal that authorities are gloomy, even panicked.

A second side effect is that low interest rates have encouraged so much borrowing that consumer, corporate and government debt have reached an unprecedented level of GDP in many countries. This could prove a systemic risk. Even without such mishaps, future repayments are likely to reduce consumption and investment.

A third effect is that low and negative rates can lift asset prices. Lower interest rates push investors into riskier assets and argue for higher prices on property and shares, asset gains that tend to boost inequality. More tellingly, negative policy rates helped push bond prices so high that yields went negative – and widely so. The concern is that, if low and negative rates help the economy as intended, interest rates will move higher and puncture asset prices.

A fourth problem is that low and negative rates trouble the business models of insurers and pension funds that typically use the safety and positive returns of government bonds to help meet long-term liabilities.

A fifth spillover is the squeeze on bank margins, perhaps to the point of threatening financial stability.

Any crimping in bank margins brings a sixth problem: that at some level, low rates could backfire by forcing banks to restrict lending – a level known as the ‘reversal rate’.

A seventh handicap is that central banks have faced political pressure for hurting savers and rescuing reckless borrowers.

An eighth side effect is low and (especially) negative rates can, perversely again, force people to save more to attain a targeted level of savings.

A ninth drawback is that low rates can encourage unproductive investment.

A tenth criticism is that low rates help embed economies in the ‘debt trap’. This term describes how indebted economies need more debt to overcome the problems left by past debt. But at some indeterminant point this strategy must miscarry.

Failure to generate economic growth 

These risks might explain why low rates have often failed to spark sustainable economic growth. The question arises as to whether such risks are worth taking to fight mild deflation which, in economic effects, is not much different from negligible, or zero, inflation.

No matter these doubts, low and negative interest rates appear entrenched for the foreseeable future. In such a world, policymakers will need to rely less on monetary stimulus and be mindful of, and perhaps take steps to mitigate, the side effects they are creating.

It must be noted that real interest rates are more critical economically than nominal ones. Low nominal rates have essentially failed to charge economies because they haven’t approached the negative real rates that stimulated economies over much of the 1940s to the 1970s. That said, low nominal rates have helped stoke some economic growth.

For all their side effects, low interest rates are yet to trigger an upheaval – a jump in inflation that would undermine bond prices whatever level they were at. But even with these qualifications, central bankers appear concerned about the side effects that low and negative rates are provoking. They are among the most vocal in calling for instruments other than monetary policy to lead the world back to prosperity.


Michael Collins is an Investment Specialist at Magellan Asset Management, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article is for general information purposes only, not investment advice. For the full version of this article and to view sources, go to:


Click here to view the VIDEO - Magellan Live Webinar with Hamish Douglass – What Really Matters, broadcast on 13 October 2020.


For more articles and papers from Magellan, please click here.


October 20, 2020

The basic mistake is to assume that borrowers would spend incremental savings from lower interest rates where it is pretty clear most use the extra cash to pay down debt faster. No real boost to the economy. Savers, particularly pensioners would be much more likely to spend additional income. The marginal propensity to save & consume is not the same between the two groups.
And of course the stupidity of encouraging more debt in a highly leveraged economy.

SMSF Trustee
October 21, 2020

I think it's a brave man that says the RBA has made a 'basic mistake' about something so fundamental as the transmission mechanism for monetary policy. The Economics Department at the Reserve Bank has researched this extensively - whereas yours is a rather partial and casual observation I presume.
I've lost count of the number of times the RBA Governor over the years has had that put to them in Q&A and how many times they've rebutted it with evidence. (Retirees might spend a bit more, but the overall average consumer doesn't - they save it.)
Your point about whether borrowers spend interest savings or borrow more is a valid question, the answer to which is at the heart of the RBA's call for fiscal policy to shoulder much of the weight of lifting the economy at present. Lower interest rates can only provide the opportunity for extra spending by business and household borrowers, but if there's a lot of uncertainty and other headwinds at play, then they are reluctant to do so. So if the government uses low interest rates to fund spending, then the spending does actually happen, with the direct and flow-on effects that comes with it. It's NOT stupid to encourage and facilitate that sort of debt and spending at the moment.

October 29, 2020

Still not convinced, I admire your trust in the economists who seem somewhat at a loss as to why their 'traditional' approaches aren't working and who just keep on digging (eg negative rates overseas!). The other significant element is the need to be 'competitive' with interest rates (ie not too high) lest the dollar appreciates too much. I think this is one of the main drivers of interest rates, one which the RBA has not alot of control over unfortunately.

October 18, 2020

Thanks Dudley. I agree. The less return l receive, the harder l have to save to hit my goal. Governments and Central bankers really need to consider behavioural economics more.

October 18, 2020

"The less return l receive, the harder l have to save to hit my goal.":

... and the further the your goal recedes due to asset price increases due to lower interest rates / yields - requiring you to spend less to save more - which reduces demand - which causes central banks to repress interest rates.

Whereas, for those who do not need to save and already have investments in excess of their needs, lower interest rates / yields result return in higher asset prices and effortless, but not riskless, capital gains.

TheIndebted Demand

October 15, 2020

‘wealth effect’ - that would be the NEGATIVE Wealth Effect.

Two most common reasons for having / wanting wealth are housing and retirement.

Decreasing interest rates / returns increase the price of both - which means more must be saved to provide both = NEGATIVE Wealth Effect.

Clearest is where an Accumulating Couple aimed to save at least enough assessable assets to earn at least as much as, but not be eligible for, the Age Pension when interest rates were 5% and inflation 2.5% and now faced with interest rates 1% and inflation 1%:

At the Age Pension Sweet Spot they expected to receive:
= 37000 + ((1+5%)/(1+2.5%)-1) * 400000
= $46,756

To exceed that using both returns and drawdown and retaining at least Age Pension cutoff assets of $876,500 they would have aimed to have saved:
= PV(((1+5%)/(1+2.5%)-1), (90-67), -46756, -876500, 0)
= $1,319,224
which would have provided the planned withdrawals of:
= PMT(((1+5%)/(1+2.5%)-1), (90-67), -1319224, 876500, 0)
= $46,756

With interest rates / returns now of 1% and inflation also 1%, they would have to aim to have saved:
= PV(((1+1%)/(1+1%)-1), (90-67), -46756, -876500, 0)
= $1,951,888
which, for the same outcome, is an increase in amount saved of:
= (1951888 - 1319224)
= $632,664
which must now come from increased income or decreased expenditure - the NEGATIVE Wealth Effect.

A Retired Couple, who can not add to savings, would see their withdrawals decrease from:
= $46,756
=PMT(((1+1%)/(1+1%)-1), (90-67), -1319225, 876500, 0)
= $19,249
which is a decrease of:
= (46756 - 19249)
= $27,507
= -60%
which probably feels like NEGATIVE Wealth Effect.

Retired Couple could take more risk by such that nominal yield / returns increased from 1% to:
= (1 + ((1+5%)/(1+2.5%)-1)) * (1 + 1%) - 1
= 3.46%
which might feel like a NEGATIVE without a Wealth Effect.

Wealth Effect - phooey.


Leave a Comment:



Britain amid COVID and the pain of the final exit talks

Dogfooding and how we expect our leaders to invest


Most viewed in recent weeks

Lessons when a fund manager of the year is down 25%

Every successful fund manager suffers periods of underperformance, and investors who jump from fund to fund chasing results are likely to do badly. Selecting a manager is a long-term decision but what else?

2022 election survey results: disillusion and disappointment

In almost 1,000 responses, our readers differ in voting intentions versus polling of the general population, but they have little doubt who will win and there is widespread disappointment with our politics.

Now you can earn 5% on bonds but stay with quality

Conservative investors who want the greater capital security of bonds can now lock in 5% but they should stay at the higher end of credit quality. Rises in rates and defaults mean it's not as easy as it looks.

30 ETFs in one ecosystem but is there a favourite?

In the last decade, ETFs have become a mainstay of many portfolios, with broad market access to most asset types, as well as a wide array of sectors and themes. Is there a favourite of a CEO who oversees 30 funds?

Betting markets as election predictors

Believe it or not, betting agencies are in the business of making money, not predicting outcomes. Is there anything we can learn from the current odds on the election results?

Meg on SMSFs – More on future-proofing your fund

Single-member SMSFs face challenges where the eventual beneficiaries (or support team in the event of incapacity) will be the member’s adult children. Even worse, what happens if one or more of the children live overseas?

Latest Updates


'It’s your money' schemes transfer super from young to old

Policy proposals allow young people to access their super for a home bought from older people who put the money back into super. It helps some first buyers into a home earlier but it may push up prices.

Investment strategies

Rising recession risk and what it means for your portfolio

In this environment, safe-haven assets like Government bonds act as a diversifier given the uncorrelated nature to equities during periods of risk-off, while offering a yield above term deposit rates.

Investment strategies

‘Multidiscipline’: the secret of Bezos' and Buffett’s wild success

A key attribute of great investors is the ability to abstract away the specifics of a particular domain, leaving only the important underlying principles upon which great investments can be made.


Keep mandatory super pension drawdowns halved

The Transfer Balance Cap limits the tax concessions available in super pension funds, removing the need for large, compulsory drawdowns. Plus there are no requirements to draw money out of an accumulation fund.


Confession season is upon us: What’s next for equity markets

Companies tend to pre-position weak results ahead of 30 June, leading to earnings downgrades. The next two months will be critical for investors as a shift from ‘great expectations’ to ‘clear explanations’ gets underway.


Australia, the Lucky Country again?

We may have been extremely unlucky with the unforgiving weather plaguing the East Coast of Australia this year. However, on the economic front we are by many measures in a strong position relative to the rest of the world.

Exchange traded products

LIC discounts widening with the market sell-off

Discounts on LICs and LITs vary with market conditions, and many prominent managers have seen the value of their assets fall as well as discount widen. There may be opportunities for gains if discounts narrow.



© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.