The Fed's rate hikes fail to address the root causes of inflation in housing, education, and healthcare. These sectors suffer from structural issues like regulation and bureaucracy. Higher rates can even be counterproductive, for instance, by stifling new housing construction, which restricts supply.

While political pressure on the Federal Reserve is notable, the central bank's shift towards rate cuts is grounded in economic data. Decelerating employment and signs of increasing labor market slack provide a solid, data-driven justification for their policy recalibration, independent of political influence.

A sustainable recovery in housing activity requires a roughly 10% improvement in affordability. Morgan Stanley calculates this threshold will be met when mortgage rates fall to approximately 5.5%, a specific target needed to meaningfully "unstick" the market from its current low-activity state.

The market is pricing in approximately three more rate cuts for next year, totaling around 110 basis points. However, J.P. Morgan's analysis, supported by the Fed's own dot plot, suggests only one additional cut is likely, indicating that current market pricing for easing is too aggressive.

According to BlackRock's CIO Rick Reeder, the critical metric for the economy isn't the Fed Funds Rate, but a stable 10-year Treasury yield. This stability lowers volatility in the mortgage market, which is far more impactful for real-world borrowing, corporate funding, and international investor confidence.

With high interest rates freezing the existing home market, homebuilders are successfully competing by using their own margins to "buy down" mortgage rates for customers. This strategy allows them to continue selling inventory even when affordability is broadly challenged.

Robert Kaplan argues that with inflation at 2.75-3%, the neutral Fed funds rate is ~3.5-3.75%. Since the current rate is 3.75-4%, another cut would place policy at neutral, not accommodative. This is a risky position when inflation remains well above the 2% target, leaving no room for error.

When government spending is massive ("fiscal dominance"), the Federal Reserve's ability to manage the economy via interest rates is neutralized. The government's deficit spending is so large that it dictates economic conditions, rendering rate cuts ineffective at solving structural problems.

Current rate cuts, intended as risk management, are not a one-way street. By stimulating the economy, they raise the probability that the Fed will need to reverse course and hike rates later to manage potential outperformance, creating a "two-sided" risk distribution for investors.