Why are interest rates on saving accounts so low in USA and Europe?
The United States Federal Reserve has decided that interest rates should be low. (They think it may help the economy. The details matter little here though.) It will enforce this low rate by buying Treasury bonds at this very low interest rate. (Bonds are future money, so this means they pay a lot of money up front, for very little interest in the future. The Fed will pay more than anyone who offers less money up front, so they can set the price as long as they're willing to buy.) At the end of the day, Treasury bonds pay nearly no interest.   Since there's little money to be made with Treasuries, people who want better-than-zero returns will bid up the current-price of any other bonds or similar loan-like instruments to get what whatever rate of return that they can. There's really no more than one price for money; you can think of the price of those bonds as basically (Treasury rate + some modifier based on the risk) percent.  I realize thinking about bond prices is weird and different than other prices (you're measuring future-money using present-money and it's easy to be confused) and assure you it ultimately makes sense :) Anyway. Your savings account money has to compete with everyone else willing to lend money to banks. Everyone-else lends money for peanuts, so you get peanuts on your savings account too. Your banking is probably worth more to your bank on account of your check-card payment processing fees (collected from the merchant) than from the money they make lending out your savings (notice how many places have promotional rates if you make your direct deposits or use your check card to make a purchase N times a month).  In Europe, it's similar, except you've got a different central bank. If Europe's bank operated radically differently for an extended period of time, you'd expect to see a difference in the exchange rates which would ultimately make the returns from investing in those currencies pretty similar as well. Such a change may show up domestically as inflation in the country with the loose-money policy, and internationally as weakness against other currencies. There's really only one price for money around the entire world. Any difference boils down to a  difference in (perceived) risk. "The short answer is that banking is complicated, but the bank really doesn't need your money because it can get it from the Fed almost free, it can only use 90% of the money you give the bank, it can only make money on that 90% from very low-risk and thus low-return investments, and as it has to show a profit to its shareholders it will take whatever cut it needs to off the top of the returns. All of these things combine to make savings account interest roughly .05% in the US right now. The longer answer: All FDIC-insured banks (which the US requires all ""depositor"" banks to be) are subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The very first rule that all banks must comply with is that depositor money cannot be invested in things the Fed terms ""risky"". This limits banks from investing your money in things that have high returns, like stocks, commodities and hedges, because along with the high possible returns come high risk. Banks typically can only invest your savings in T-debt and in certain Fed-approved AAA bonds, which have very low risk and so very little return. The investment of bank assets into risky market funds was a major contributor to the financial crisis; with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, banks had been allowed to integrate their FDIC-insured depositor business with their ""investment banking"" business (not FDIC insured). While still not allowed to bet on ""risky"" investments with deposits, banks were using their own money (retained profits, corporate equity/bond money) to bet heavily in the markets, and were investing depositor funds in faulty AAA-rated investment objects like CDOs. When the housing market crashed, banks had to pull out of the investment market and cash in hedges like credit-default swaps to cover the depositor losses, which sent a tidal wave through the rest of the market. Banks really can't even loan your money out to people who walk in, like you'd think they would and which they traditionally used to do; that's how the savings and loan crisis happened, when speculators took out huge loans to invest, lost the cash, declared bankruptcy and left the S&Ls (and ultimately the FDIC) on the hook for depositors' money.  So, the upshot of all this is that the bank simply won't give you more on your money than it is allowed to make on it.  In addition, there are several tools that the Fed has to regulate economic activity, and three big ones play a part. First is the ""Federal Funds Rate""; this is the interest rate that the Fed charges on loans made to other banks (which is a primary source of day-to-day liquidity for these banks). Money paid as interest to the Fed is effectively removed from the economy and is a way to reduce the money supply. Right now the FFR is .25% (that's one quarter of one percent) which is effectively zero; borrow a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) from the Fed for one month and you'll pay them a scant $208,333. Banks lend to other banks at a rate based on the FFR, called the Interbank Rate (usually adding some fraction of a percent so the lending bank makes money on the loan). This means that the banks can get money from the Fed and from other banks very cheaply, which means they don't have to offer high interest rates on savings to entice individual depositors to save their money with the bank. Second is ""quantitative easing"", which just means the Fed buys government bonds and pays for them with ""new"" money. This happens all the time; remember those interest charges on bank loans? To keep the money supply stable, the Fed must buy T-debt at least in the amount of the interest being charged, otherwise the money leaves the economy and is not available to circulate. The Fed usually buys a little more than it collects in order to gradually increase the money supply, which allows the economy to grow while controlling inflation (having ""too much money"" and so making money worth less than what it can buy).  What's new is that the Fed is increasing the money supply by a very large amount, by buying bonds far in excess of the (low) rates it's charging, and at fixed prices determined by the yield the Fed wants to induce in the markets. In the first place, with the Fed buying so many, there are fewer for institutions and other investors to buy. This increases the demand, driving down yields as investors besides the Fed are willing to pay a similar price, and remember that T-debt is one of the main things banks are allowed to invest your deposits in. Inflation isn't a concern right now despite the large amount of new money being injected, because the current economy is so lackluster right now that the new cash is just being sat upon by corporations and being used by consumers to pay down debt, instead of what the Fed and Government want us to do (hire, update equipment, buy houses and American cars, etc). In addition, the ""spot market price"" for a T-bond, or any investment security, is generally what the last guy paid. By buying Treasury debt gradually at a fixed price, the Fed can smooth out ""jitters"" in the spot price that speculators may try to induce by making low ""buy offers"" on T-debt to increase yields. Lastly, the Fed can tell banks that they must keep a certain amount of their deposits in ""reserve"", basically by keeping them in a combination of cash in the vault, and in accounts with the Fed itself. This has a dual purpose; higher reserve rates allow a bank to weather a ""run"" (more people than usual wanting their money) and thus reduces risk of failure. An increased reserves amount also reduces the amount of money circulating in the economy, because obviously if the banks have to keep a percentage of assets in cash, they can't invest that cash. Banks are currently required to keep 10% of ""deposited assets"" (the sum of all checking and savings accounts, but not CDs) in cash. This compounds the other problems with banks' investing; not only are they not getting a great return on your savings, they can only use 90% of your savings to get it." There is really much simpler explanation for the interest rate differences in different countries. It is the interest rate arbitrage. It is a very well explored economic concept, so you can look it up on the Internet, in case you want to know more. 1) Interest rates for the same currency in different countries Basically, as one smart person here pointed out, there is only one price of money in free market economy. It happens, because investors can move their money unrestrictedly anywhere in the World to capitalize on the local interest rates advantage. For instance, if I can take a loan in the USA at 3-4% annual interest and receive 5-6% annual income on my dollar deposit in Russia, I would take a loan in the US and open a deposit in Russia to enjoy a risk free interest rate differential income of 2% (5-6% - 3-4% ~ 2%). So, would any reasonable person. However, in real World very few banks in Russia or anywhere would pay you an an interest rate higher than it can borrow money at. It'd probably lose money if it'd do so. Anyways, the difference between the risk free rate and interest rate on the dollar deposit can be attributed to the risk premium of this particular bank. The higher expected return, the greater risk premium. If there is a positive difference in the interest rates on the dollar deposits in different countries, it will almost entirely accounted for the risk premium. It is generally much riskier to keep money in, say Russian bank, than American. That's why investors want greater return on their dollar deposits in Russian banks than in American. Of course, if you'd want to park your USD in Russian bank you'd also have to consider transaction costs. So, as you may have already guessed, there is no free lunch. 2) Interest rates in different currencies for different countries If we are talking about the interest rates in different sovereign currencies, it is a somewhat similar concept, only there is more risk if you keep money in local currency (risk premium is much higher). Probably, the biggest component of this risk is inflation (that is only attributed to the prices in local currency). For that reason, current interest rates on deposits in Russian Rubles are at 10-12%, but only 1-3% in the US Dollars. An economic concept that discusses this phenomenon in great detail is Interest Rate Parity.  Hope this was helpful. P.S. It doesn't look quite realistic that you can get an 8% annual income for USD deposit in Russia with the interest rates in the U.S. being at 1-2%. At present moment, a 30-year mortgage annual interest rate in the US is at ~2-3% and an annual interest rates for dollar deposits in Sberbank (one of the safest Russian banks = very little risk premium) is at 1-3%. So, arbitrage is impossible. Typically developing economics are marked by moderate to high inflation [as they are growing at a faster pace], higher in savings rate and higher lending rates. If you reduce the lending rate, more business / start-up will borrow at cheaper rate, this in turn means lowers savings rate and leads to higher inflation. To combat this Central Banks make borrowing expensive, which lowers inflation and increases the saving rate. Essentially all these 3 are tied up. As to why these countries offer higher interest on USD is because most of the developing countries have trade [current account] deficit. They need to bring in more USD in the country. One of the ways is to encourage Non Resident Citizens to park their foreign earning back home, ensuring more funds USD inflow.  The rate differential also acts as a guide as to how the currency would be valued against USD. For example if you get 8% on USD, less than 12% had you converted same to Rouble, at the end of say 3 years, the exchange rate between USD and Rouble would factor that 4%, ie rouble will go down. Developed countries on the other hand are marked by low inflation [they have already achieved everything] as there is no spurt in growth, it more BAU. They are also characterized by low savings and lending rates. "The 8% rate offered by Russian banks on US Dollar accounts reflects the financial problems they have. They would prefer to lend US Dollars on the international financial markets at the same rate as US banks, but loans to Russian banks are considered to be more risky. In fact, the estimated ""default"" risk is ~6%.  Your ruble deposits at Russian banks are most likely backed by state guarantees, which reduces the risk and therefore the effective interest rate." Banks in general will keep saving rates as low as possible especially if there is a surplus of funds or alternative access for funding as in the case of the Fed in the USA. Generally speaking, why would bank pay you a high interest rate when they cannot generate any income from your money? Usually we will expect to see a drop in the loan interest rate when their is a surplus of funds so as to encourage investment. But if the market is volatile then no banks will allow easy access to money through loans. The old traditional policy of lending money without proper security and no control from the central bank has created serious problems for savings account holders when some of these banks went into bankruptcy. It is for this reason most countries has modified their Financial Act to offer more protection to account holders. At the moment banks must follow rigid guidelines before a loan can be approved to a customer. In my country (Guyana) we have seen the collapse of a few banks which sent a shock wave across the county for those that have savings held at those bank. We have also seen unsecured loans having to be written off thus putting serious pressure of those banks. So government stepped in a few years ago and amended the act to make it mandatory to have commercial banks follow certain strict guidelines before approving a loan. Some comments above are inaccurate. Advertised interest rates for deposits and savings in Russia (from Russian banks) are generally for Ruble (RUB) denominated accounts; however, USD and EUR denominated accounts still offer favorable interest rates when compared to Western counterparts. For example, Sberbank advertises these Annual Interest Rates:  RUB — 8.79–11.52% USD — 2.05–5.31% EUR — 2.05–5.21%
What is my best course of action, trying to minimize future debt? Minimizing expenses is the best thing you can do. The first step to financial independence is making do with less. Assuming I receive this $3500, am I better off using the bulk to pay off my credit cards, or should I keep as much cash available as I can? This would depend on the interest rate that is associated with the credit cards and the $3500. If the $3500 has a higher interest rate than your credit cards, then do not use any of it to pay your credit cards. Paying back the money you borrow hurts but it's the interest rate that does you in. If the interest rate for the $3500 is lower than the credit card interest, then placing some of it on the credit cards may be a wise course of action. But this depends on how long you are out of work. If you could be out of work for an extended period of time, I would recommend holding on to all of the funds. Note on saving I know this goes against the grain, but I would actually not recommend saving several months worth of funds (maybe one month though). Most employers offer some type of retirement savings account (401(k), Thrift Savings Plan, etc.). I contribute 5% to this fund instead of putting the money in savings. This is an especially effective strategy if your employer offers matching contributions such as mine. Because the divedends for a savings account are so low, it is not a wise place to store your money in the long run. If I had placed my Thrift Savings Plan contributions in a standard savings account, I would now be $12,000 poorer. In addition to this, most long term investment accounts allow you to withdraw the money early in case of emergency, such as being without work. (I also find it too temping to have huge amounts of funds on hand). I have done this for years and have been quite successful at it. Two reason I even need to do this - desire to pay for engagement ring and pay for 150 person wedding without using my nest-egg/savings.  You need to keep a document that details when the free APRs run out, and you need to setup automatic payments of the minimum balance from your checking account so you ensure you do not miss a payment.  You need to understand when you are going to need to make big purchases of homes/apartments/cars so that you can ensure you aren't doing this right before your credit score is being checked (Need to leave 12 months without opening new accounts before doing this).  I have been able to finance about $60,000 worth of unsecured debt paying between 3-5% interest per year. We have an unsecured credit line with Citibank that charges 14% and is capped at $10,000, and Discover Personal Loans charge around 14% as well (in pre-paid interest!).  I would say, all things considering, that this is a great deal if you don't have a secured line of credit with a low interest rate.  It is something, however, that if you aren't diligent can get away from you. From my experience I would rather pay a small amount of interest while allowing my savings and retirement to grow interest (hopefully greater than 3-5%) than pay the huge expense and start from zero. But if you miss a single payment on a 0 APR balance transfer they charge you all back interest concessions plus charge you a penalty rate.  Like many of the other posts, you need discipline to make this work. Lending isn't profitable when interest rates are this low.  Consider what's involved to offer a savings or checking account.  The bank must maintain branches with tellers.  The bank has to pay rent (or buy and pay property taxes and utilities).  The bank has to pay salaries.  The bank has to maintain cash so as to make change.  And pay for insurance against robbery.  All of that costs money.   At 6% interest, a bank can sort of make money.  Not great money, but it takes in more than it has to pay out.  At 4% interest, which is about where ten year mortgage rates are in Canada, the bank doesn't make enough margin.  They are better off selling the loan and closing their branches than offering free checking accounts.   An additional problem is that banks tend to make money from overdraft fees.  But there's been a move to limit overdraft fees, as they target the most economically vulnerable.  So Canadian banks tend to charge monthly fees instead.  UK banks may also start charging monthly fees if interest rates stay low and other fees get curtailed. "Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've ""lost"" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits.  Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to ""make money"". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can ""make"" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the ""worst"". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money." "He's misunderstanding Buffett's argument, which is that all forms of investment compete, and so when interest rates give you guaranteed low returns, it makes sense for stocks to give you average low returns.  That implies *high* prices for current stocks, because your return on equities is the price tomorrow over the price today.  Buffett would likely agree with him that this implies slow growth in the future, though he may not want to say so for competitive reasons.  Historical P/E norms are a more wrong metric, because they don't capture any fundamental change that might have happened in the economy.  What's likely going on is a surplus of capital: as business becomes more efficient (i.e. generates more revenue with fewer workers), that excess cash flow becomes investable capital, but as it becomes more efficient (i.e. less of that revenue filters down to workers in the form of wages that they can spend on consumer goods), the amount of productive uses where that capital can be effectively deployed in income-generating activities declines.  More capital + fewer investable opportunities = higher supply + lower demand = the price of securities for the few areas of the economy that *are* doing well increases.  This is why you see insane valuations for tech companies.  If we do get a major economic crash, it will likely come from a Carlota Perez-style financial crisis, where all the money gets concentrated within emerging new industries focused on new technology, who can't sell their products because nobody else has any money.  We're on the path to that already, but it will likely take a decade or two to play out; there's still a lot of money left in the ""old economy"" which can be extracted.  Also, these style of financial crises usually are accompanied by war and a breakdown of the established political order, and so all bets are off anyway." So if a country forces their savings onto another country, say the U.S., the U.S. would have to absorb those savings somehow. If there were enough productive investments available, then this would be a good thing. But if there aren't enough productive investments available but the savings are still forced upon the U.S. it would seem that it would inevitably lead to some kind of a debt bubble for the U.S. The only reason I can think of would be if you were convinced that you couldn't hold on to your money. Treasury Bonds are often viewed as very safe investments, and often used in some situations where cash isn't appropriate.. Also, they typically have a somewhat patriotic theme, helping your country to grow. In addition, many people don't really pay attention to the rate of the bonds, but are just investing in them. The more people investing in them, the lower the yields become. But the bottom line is, I would invest in a savings account any day over a negative interest rate... And it looks like I'm in good company as well, a quick study of reports seems to indicate that these are a very bad investment... "These rates are so low because the cost of money is so low. Specifically, two rates are near zero.  The Federal Reserve discount rate, which is ""the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window."" The effective federal funds rate, which is the rate banks pay when they trade balances with each other through the Federal Reserve. Banks want to profit on the loans they make, like mortgage loans. To do so, they try to maximize the difference between the rates they charge on mortgages and other loans (revenue), and the rates they pay savings account holders, the Federal Reserve or other banks to obtain funds (expenses). This means that the rates they offer to pay are as close to these rates as possible. As the charts shows, both rates have been cut significantly since the start of the recession, either through open market operations (the federal funds rate) or directly (the discount rate). The discount rate is set directly by the regional Federal Reserve banks every 14 days.   In most cases, the federal funds rate is lower than the discount rate, in order to encourage banks to lend money to each other instead of borrowing it from the Fed. In the past, however, there have been rare instances where the federal funds rate has exceeded the discount rate, and it's been cheaper for banks to borrow money directly from the Fed than from each other."