How are bonds affected by the Federal Funds Rate?
"I'll answer your question, but first a comment about your intended strategy.  Buying government bonds in a retirement account is probably not a good idea.  Government bonds (generally) are tax advantaged themselves, so they offer a lower interest rate than other types of bonds.  At no tax or reduced tax, many people will accept the lower interest rate because their effective return may be similar or better depending, for example, on their own marginal tax rate.  In a tax-advantaged retirement account, however, you'll be getting the lower interest without any additional benefit because that account itself is already tax-advantaged. (Buying bonds generally may be a good idea or not - I won't comment on that - but choose a different category of bonds.) For the general question about the relationship between the Fed rate and the bond rate, they are positively correlated.  There's not direct causal relationship in the sense that the Fed is not setting the bond rate directly, but other interest bearing investment options are tied to the Fed rate and many of those interest-bearing options compete for the same investor dollars as the bonds that you're reviewing.  That's at a whole market level.  Individual bonds, however, may not be so tightly coupled since the creditworthiness of the issuing entity matters a lot too, so it could be that ""bond rates"" generally are going up but some specific bonds are going down based on something happening with the issuer, just like the stock market might be generally going up even as specific stocks are dropping. Also keep in mind that many bonds trade as securities on a secondary market much like stocks.  So I've talked about the bond rate.  The price of the bonds themselves on the secondary market generally move opposite to the rate.  The reason is that, for example, if you buy a bond at less than face value, you're getting an effective interest rate that's higher because you get the same sized incremental payments of interest but put less money into the investment.  And vice versa." "The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less.  The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea.  Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall.  You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds.  After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive.  Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls.  So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government).  Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point.  If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in.  Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes?  If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going.  Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged.  That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (""convenience yield"").  In general, treasuries just don't pay much.  Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia."
"Banks use the money for productive pursuits, earning returns in excess of what they will owe the fed in discount interest. If a bank could not yield a return greater than their interest due their lender (whether that lender is the fed or not) they probably wouldn't borrow in the first place. EDIT: I misunderstood the question. The federal reserve does not disseminate new money by making loans. They do so by issuing and trading in bonds. The US Treasury, for example, issues a bond. The Federal Reserve Bank buys this bond using money they ""printed"". So the same question applies.... where does the money come from to pay the interest on the bond? It comes from the perpetual issuance and trading in bonds at a growing rate. All the fed needs to do is to buy bonds at a rate faster than they collect interest." The generic representative of interest rates is the 10 year treasury bond rate. (USA). As an approximation most other interest rates do tend to move up and down with the treasury rate, but with more or less sensitivity.  Another prominently discussed interest rate is the short term loan rate established by the Federal Reserve for loans it makes to banks. "You are asking multiple questions here, pieces of which may have been addressed in other questions.  A bond (I'm using US Government bonds in this example, and making the 'zero risk of default' assumption) will be priced based on today's interest rate. This is true whether it's a 10% bond with 10 years left (say rates were 10% on the 30 yr bond 20 years ago) a 2% bond with 10 years, or a new 3% 10 year bond.  The rate I use above is the 'coupon' rate, i.e. the amount the bond will pay each year in interest. What's the same for each bond is called the ""Yield to Maturity."" The price adjusts, by the market, so the return over the next ten years is the same.  A bond fund simply contains a mix of bonds, but in aggregate, has a yield as well as a duration, the time-and-interest-weighted maturity.  When rates rise, the bond fund will drop in value based on this factor (duration). Does this begin to answer your question?" "&gt; We've been deficit spending for generations and we're trillions in the hole, and that's the psychological issue hanging over our heads.  Let's unpack that a bit. What does ""trillions in the hole"" actually mean for the *issuer* of the dollar? It means that the issuer at various points has to redeem its own interest-bearing dollars (treasuries) for its own non-interest bearing dollars (reserves/notes/coins). That's not a hole. That's moving a balance from the savings account to the checking account at the same bank.  You don't think of your savings account balance as the bank being ""in the hole"" for checking account balances. You implicitly understand that the bank simply marks down the number in one account and marks up the number in the other and you don't fret that the bank might ""run out"" of checking account balances.  Treasuries have this same relationship to reserves. Not similar, not analogous to but the same. Treasury securities are literally interest-bearing accounts at the federal reserve. Reserves are literally demand accounts at the federal reserve. When a treasury matures, a treasury securities account is marked down, a reserve account is marked up. When a treasury is issued, a treasury securities account is marked up and a reserve account is marked down.  What you're thinking of as trillions ""in the hole"" is just trillions in a savings account balance.  That's what it means to have ""debt"" in a currency that you are the *issuer* of and why foreign-denominated debt is fundamentally different.  &gt;so we can design a system that will keep inflation low while we dump money into the economy  We already have that. There's no inflation monster under the bed. If there's an inflation problem it's that we're so paranoid about it we're not putting *enough* money into the economy and so inflicting unnecessary misery on ourselves.  &gt; the issue in my mind with dumping money while the debt situation is such a concern, is that speculators could sh*t the bed and devalue our currency  There's nothing a speculator can do vs a sovereign currency that the issuing central bank can't offset. So if you are a sovereign and the issuing central bank is within and beneath your authority, you have the last word and there's no such thing as bond vigilantes.  In contrast, if you take on sovereign obligations denominated in currencies where the issuing central bank sits outside your authority as is the case when you borrow/peg to foreign currency or enter a monetary union like the euro, you become just another currency user. Here, your government actually is kinda like a household and can go broke *in that foreign currency*.  Consider how that perspective sheds light on the ""mystery"" of why some countries actually experience a debt crisis and others don't. Why contrary to all the scaremongering, someplace like Japan for example can have 200% debt:GDP *and* near zero interest rates *and* no sovereign debt crisis. It's because Japan issues the yen, *sets* the interest rate on the yen and can't run out of yen.  People who don't understand this are what gave the [widowmaker](http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-funds-feeling-confident-about-the-widowmaker-trade-in-japan-2012-12) its name. :) Time after time they line up to place bets on japanese government bond crisis, they're always wrong and always will be." The Fed sets the overnight borrowing costs by setting its overnight target rate.  The markets determine the rates at which the treasury can borrow through the issuance of bonds. The Fed's actions will certainly influence the price of very short term bonds, but the Fed's influence on anything other than very short term bonds in the current environment is very muted. Currently, the most influential factor keeping bond prices high and yields low is the high demand for US treasuries coming from overseas governments and institutions.  This is being caused by two factors : sluggish growth in overseas economies and the ongoing strength of the US dollar.  With many European government bonds offering negative redemption yields, income investors see US yields as relatively attractive.  Those non-US economies which do not have negative bond yields either have near zero yields or large currency risks or both.  Political issues such as the survival of the Euro also weigh heavily on market perceptions of the current attractiveness of the US dollar.  Italian banks may be about to deliver a shock to the Eurozone, and the Spanish and French banks may not be far behind. Another factor is the continued threat of deflation.  Growth is slowing around the world which negatively effects demand.  Commodity prices remain depressed. Low growth and recession outside of the US translate into a prolonged period of near zero interest rates elsewhere together with renewed QE programmes in Europe, Japan, and possibly elsewhere.  This makes the US look relatively attractive and so there is huge demand for US dollars and bonds.  Any significant move in US interest rates risks driving to dollar ever higher which would be very negative for the future earning of US companies which rely on exports and foreign income.  All of this makes the market believe that the Fed's hands are tied and low bond yields are here for the foreseeable future.    Of course, even in the US growth is relatively slow and vulnerable to a loss of steam following a move in interest rates. "The real question is what does FT mean by ""Eurozone Bond"". There is no central European government to issue bonds. What they seem to be quoting is the rate for German Bunds. Germany has a strong economy with a manageable debt load, which means it is a safe Euro denominated investment. Bunds are in high demand across the Eurozone, which drives their price up, and their yield down. Greek 10yr bonds, which are Euro denominated, are yielding over 8%." "You are correct that it could refer to any of the types of interest rates that you've mentioned. In general, though, phrases such as ""rising interest rates"" and ""falling interest rates"" refer to the Federal Funds Rate or LIBOR. These are the interest rates at which banks in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, are lending money to each other." The short term bond fund, which you are pretty certain to have as an option, functions in this capacity.  Its return will be low, but positive, in all but the most dramatic of rising rate scenarios. I recall a year in the 90's when rates rose enough that the bond fund return was zero or very slightly negative. It's not likely that you'd have access to simple money market or cash option.