What prevents interest rates from rising?
A lot of loans are taken out on a fixed rate basis, so the rate is part of the contract and is therefore covered by contract law. If the loan is taken out on a variable basis then in principle the rate can rise within the terms of the contract.  If a particular lender tries to raise its rates out of line with the market then its customers will seek alternative, cheaper, loans and pay off their expensive loan if they can. If rates rise sharply in general due to unusual politico-economic circumstances then those with variable rate loans can find themselves in severe trouble.  For example the base rate in the UK (and therefore variable mortgage rates closely tied to it) spiked sharply in the late 80s which caused severe stress to a lot of borrowers and undoubtedly pushed some into financial difficulties. Interest rates are market driven. They tend to be based on the prime rate set by the federal reserve bank because of the tremendous lending capacity of that institution and that other loan originators will often fund their own lending (at least in part) with fed loans. However, there is no mandatory link between the federal reserve rate and the market rate. No law stipulates that rates cannot rise or fall. They will rise and fall as lenders see necessary to use their capital. Though a lender asking 10% interest might make no loans when others are willing to lend for 9%. The only protection you have is that we are (mostly) economically free. As a borrower, you are protected by the fact that there are many lenders. Likewise, as a lender, because there are many borrowers. Stability is simply by virtue of the fact that one market participant with inordinate pricing will find fewer counterparties to transact. To protect yourself from an increase in interest rates get a fixed rate loan. The loan terms: interest rate, number of payments, monthly payments will be fixed for the loan. Of course if rate for the rest of the market drops during the period of the loan, you may be able to refinance the loan. But if you can't refinance, or won't refinance, the drop in rates for the rest of the market doesn't help you. If you want to be able to have your rate float you can get a variable rate loan. Of course it can float up, or it can float down. So you take that risk. Because of that risk adjustable rate loans start at a lower rate. If the market interest rate drops far enough many people will refinance into a fixed rate loan at a lower rate than they could have gotten at the start. For adjustable rate loans the lender, during the application process, details how the rate is determined. It is pegged to be x% above some national or international interest rate that they don't have any control over. If that base rate moves then your loan rate may move. They also specify how often it will adjust, and the maximum it can adjust between each adjustments and over the entire life of the loan.  That rate that starts initially lower than the fixed rate loan is the enticement that many people have to pick an adjustable rate loan. Some do it because they believe they will payoff the loan before the rates get too high, or they will see enough increase in income so they can afford the higher monthly payment if rates rise. If they are wrong about these things they may find themselves in trouble. The terms of the adjustable rate loan still have to follow the terms of the contract: the lender can't change the % offset or the source used to used to set interest rate. There do not appear to be any specific legal measures to prevent bankruptcies.  In fact, they seems to be part of the means for which rates are raised, for the consequent aim of lowering inflation. See:  The Budgetary Implications of Higher Federal Reserve Board Interest Rates by Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research. The Federal Reserve Board (Fed) is widely expected to start raising   interest rates some time in 2015. The purpose of higher interest rates   is to slow the economy and prevent inflation. This is done by reducing   the rate of job creation and thereby reducing the ability of workers   to achieve wage gains.
Long-term bonds -- any bonds, really -- can be risky for two main reasons:  return on principal, or return of principal.  The former is a problem if interest rates are low (which they are now in the US) because existing bonds will fall in price if interest rates rise.  The second is a problem if the lender defaults: IOU nothing. No investment is riskless.  Short-term bonds command a lower interest rate than long-term bonds (usually) because of their quicker maturity, but short-term bonds carry risk just like long-term bonds (though the interest rate risk is lower, sometimes quite a bit lower, than for long-term bonds). "Note: I am making a USA-assumption here; keep in mind this answer doesn't necessarily apply to all countries (or even states in the USA).  You asked two questions: I'm looking to buy a property. I do not want to take a risk on this   property. Its sole purpose is to provide me with a place to live. How   would I go about hedging against increasing interest rates, to counter   the increasing mortgage costs? To counter increasing interest rates, obtaining a fixed interest rate on a mortgage is the answer, if that's available.  As far as costs for a mortgage, that depends, as mortgages are tied to the value of the property/home.  If you want a place to live, a piece of property, and want to hedge against possible rising interest rates, a fixed mortgage would work for these goals. Ideally I'd like to not lose money on my property, seeing as I will be   borrowing 95% of the property's value. So, I'd like to hedge against   interest rates and falling property prices in order to have a risk   neutral position on my property. Now we have a different issue.  For instance, if someone had opened a fixed mortgage on a home for $500,000, and the housing value plummeted 50% (or more), the person may still have a fixed interest rate protecting the person from higher rates, but that doesn't protect the property value.  In addition to that, if the person needed to move for a job, that person would face a difficult choice: move and sell at a loss, or move and rent and face some complications. Renting is generally a good idea for people who (1) have not determined if they'll be in an area for more than 5-10 years, (2) want the flexibility to move if their living costs rises (which may be an issue if they lose wages), (3) don't want to pay property taxes (varies by state), homeowner's insurance, or maintenance costs, (4) enjoy regular negotiation (something which renters can do before re-signing a lease or looking for a new place to live).  Again, other conditions can apply to people who favor renting, such as someone might enjoy living in one room out of a house rather than a full apartment or a person who likes a ""change of scenes"" and moves from one apartment to another for a fresh perspective, but these are smaller exceptions. But with renting, you have nothing to re-sell and no financial asset so far as a property is concerned (thus why some real estate agents refer to it as ""throwing away money"" which isn't necessarily true, but one should be aware that the money they invest in renting doesn't go into an asset that can be re-sold)." "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." just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in picking a bond and how would they weigh against each other? Quite a number of them to say, assuming these aren't government bonds(US, UK etc) How safe is the institution issuing the bond. Their income, business they are in, their past performance business wise and the bonds issued by them, if any. Check for the bond ratings issued by the rating agencies. Read the prospectus and check for any specific conditions i.e. bonds are callable, bonds can be retired under certain conditions, what happens if they default and what order will you be reimbursed(senior debt take priority). Where are interest rates heading, which will decide the price you are paying for the bond. And also the yield you will derive from the bond. How do you intend to invest the income, coupon, you will derive from the bonds. What is your time horizon to invest in bonds and similarly the bond's life. I have invested in stocks previously but realized that it isn't for me Bonds are much more difficult than equities. Stick to government bonds if you can, but they don't generate much income, considering the low interest rates environment. Now that QE is over you might expect interest rates to rise, but you can only wait. Or go for bonds from stable companies i.e. GE, Walmart. And no I am not saying you buy their bonds in any imaginable way. It seems from the Bernanke and pundits in general that there's an ideal inflation rate and it's not zero. When you reference that recessions bring prices down, I think I understand you, but recession does not mean deflation. In fact deflation is a rarity, not a common occurrence.  When you look at what compounding does, you see that a 3% inflation rate will double the cost of an item in 24 years. From 1975 to 2010, inflation was 4X as it ran well above 3% for a time. I chose that date as I was 13 at the time, and wasn't too aware of specific prices before that. So I've seen a pizza go from $3 to $12 during my life. I hope to live long enough to see it double again.  I think that it's hyperinflation that's an ongoing concern, but the controlled inflation as I just described is not detrimental, in fact it's preferable in some sense. For example, when I look at my 5% mortgage, it's 3.6% after tax, but with a 3% inflation rate, my cost is really .6%, as the remaining debt devalues over time and the house (in theory) goes up with inflation. On the other extreme, higher inflation, say 8%, starts to be detrimental, distorting spending behavior and bad for the system. Investopedia has this note where you'd want the contrapositive point: The interest rate, commonly bandied about by the media, has a wide and   varied impact upon the economy. When it is raised, the general effect   is a lessening of the amount of money in circulation, which works to   keep inflation low. It also makes borrowing money more expensive,   which affects how consumers and businesses spend their money; this   increases expenses for companies, lowering earnings somewhat for those   with debt to pay. Finally, it tends to make the stock market a   slightly less attractive place to investment. As for evidence, I'd question that anyone could really take out all the other possible economic influences to prove a direct co-relation between the Federal Funds rate and the stock market returns.  For example, of the dozens of indices that are stock related, which ones would you want that evidence: Total market, large-cap, small-cap, value stocks, growth stocks, industrials, tech, utilities, REITs, etc.  This is without considering other possible investment choices such as direct Real Estate holdings, compared to REITs that is, precious metals and collectibles that could also be used. "Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words.  Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that ""we can't make interest rates lower"", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it." Too expand on /u/stoneeus, mortgage rates were/are also heavily influenced by the FED QE program, which holds about $4.5T in mortgage-backed securities and treasuries on the FED's balance sheet. The FED has been holding this balance steady since it ended the QE program a couple years ago, purchasing new securities as old ones mature. However, the FED has started signalling that they are going to end these purchases and let their portfolio wind down. Once that happens, you'll start to see mortgage rates rise.