By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel largely agreed that the 2-year yield crossing the fed funds rate is not a reliable signal for imminent hikes, given the unique supply-side shocks and the Fed's potential prioritization of employment data. They expressed concern about a potential stagflationary environment and USD strength, but disagreed on the likelihood of a Fed hike and its impact on equities.
Risk: A sustained stagflationary environment that compresses P/E multiples across the S&P 500
Opportunity: Potential equity relief if oil prices decrease faster than modeled, or if core CPI rolls over
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
The 2-Year U.S. Treasury Yield Has Now Blown Past the Federal Funds Rate. History Says the Fed Will Do This Next
Bram Berkowitz, The Motley Fool
5 min read
Perhaps one of the most impressive aspects of the stock market's resilience this year is its ability to overcome surging U.S. Treasury yields.
As of this writing, the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury Note was 4.58%. This is slightly higher than it was following "Liberation Day" in April of 2025, after President Donald Trump announced high tariffs on most of the U.S.'s key trading partners.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on a little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly," providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need.
The yield on the 2-year U.S. Treasury note has also blasted higher, now at 4.14%. That's well above the Federal Reserve's benchmark overnight lending rate, the federal funds rate, which sits between 3.50% to 3.75%.
The 2-year yield, which is influenced by market expectations, reflects where investors expect the federal funds rate to go in the near term, and the fact that it is now well above the federal funds rate is meaningful.
History says this will happen next.
What 30 years of history tells us
It's certainly understandable to see bond yields up right now. The ongoing feud with Iran has led to minimal passage through the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of daily oil demand normally flows.
This has led to high oil prices at a time when the U.S. economy has been struggling to beat back higher inflation, which has remained stubbornly above the Fed's preferred 2% target.
April inflation data also came in hot, further stoking inflation concerns. Even if the U.S. and Iran reach an agreement soon, it will take time for supply chains to return to normal.
Oil also isn't likely to return to pre-war levels because the market now knows Iran has enough power to close, or at least significantly slow, overall passage through the Strait of Hormuz. That's likely to lead oil investors to price that aspect in for the foreseeable future.
All of this could force the Fed's hand on interest rates, ultimately leading to a hike.
In fact, BCA Research strategist Arthur Budaghyan recently said in a research note that when the 2-year yield has surpassed the federal funds rate over the last three decades, the Fed has hiked rates. The opposite has been true when the 2-year yield dipped below the federal funds rate.
Taking it one step further, Budaghyan said he sees stocks and bonds on a "collision course."
"Only a meaningful equity sell-off is likely to pull bond yields considerably lower. Global equity risk-reward looks poor," he added.
Essentially, if things stay on this path, the Fed will have to hike rates to prevent bond yields from getting out of control, and a hike will trigger a stock sell-off.
How investors should prepare
Budaghyan seems to be right because traders betting on federal funds futures now see the Fed hiking at its December meeting this year, and holding rates at that level for all of 2027. Keep in mind that these probabilities change frequently.
Media reports this week have suggested the U.S. and Iran are close to striking a deal, which, if it happens, could send oil prices lower and push yields lower. However, we've heard reports like this before, and it's unclear if a deal can be reached and hold up.
Furthermore, there's no guarantee this will lead to an immediate reprieve for inflation. If the 10-year Treasury yield continues to move toward 5%, the Fed may ultimately have to raise the federal funds rate.
This is all near-term speculation, and as we've seen this year, things can change drastically and frequently.
Long-term investors don't necessarily need to do anything to their portfolios, but they should be aware of what's going on and that volatility could persist over the next few months, including a short-term pullback or correction.
The more one knows about what's influencing the market, the calmer they will be during more stressful times, enabling them to make more rational investment decisions.
Don’t miss this second chance at a potentially lucrative opportunity
Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you’ll want to hear this.
On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a “Double Down” stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you’re worried you’ve already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it’s too late. And the numbers speak for themselves:
Nvidia:if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009,you’d have $569,379!*
Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you’d have $58,129!*
Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you’d have $481,589!*
Right now, we’re issuing “Double Down” alerts for three incredible companies, available when you joinStock Advisor, and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"The 2y-fed funds spread may not trigger hikes this cycle because supply shocks from tariffs and geopolitics weaken the historical parallel."
The article treats the 2y yield crossing above the fed funds rate as a reliable signal for imminent hikes, citing three decades of precedent amid oil-driven inflation from the Iran Strait of Hormuz disruption. Yet this ignores how 2025's tariff regime and potential supply shocks differ from prior cycles, where demand pressures dominated. The Fed's reaction function may prioritize employment data over yield signals if growth slows, and futures pricing for a December hike remains fluid. Long-term investors face volatility but no automatic equity collision if a diplomatic resolution lowers oil prices faster than modeled.
The three-decade pattern cited by BCA Research could still dominate if inflation stays sticky, forcing the Fed to hike regardless of unique 2025 factors like tariffs.
"The 2-year/fed funds inversion is a market pricing signal, not a Fed directive—and reversing a 100bp rate-cut cycle on one hot CPI print and a geopolitical incident would be a dramatic policy reversal that requires far more evidence than this article presents."
The article conflates correlation with causation. Yes, 2-year yields above fed funds have historically preceded hikes—but the article never asks: did the Fed hike because yields rose, or did yields rise because the market correctly priced incoming hikes? The Iran strait closure is real, but oil at current levels hasn't broken 2022 peaks, and the article ignores that energy's weight in CPI has shrunk. Most critically: the Fed has cut rates 100bps since late 2023. A hike now would reverse that entire cycle based on one month of 'hot' inflation data and geopolitical noise. That's a massive regime shift the article treats as inevitable.
If inflation genuinely re-accelerates (wage growth + oil supply shock + tariff pass-through), the 2-year yield signal could be prescient, not false. The Fed might indeed hike to defend credibility before yields spike further.
"The market is conflating supply-side geopolitical inflation with demand-pull inflation, setting the stage for a policy error if the Fed prioritizes rate hikes over structural supply chain normalization."
The article’s reliance on the 2-year Treasury yield exceeding the federal funds rate as a deterministic signal for rate hikes is overly simplistic. While the yield curve inversion and subsequent bear-steepening often precede policy shifts, the current environment is driven by supply-side shocks—specifically geopolitical friction in the Strait of Hormuz—rather than overheating demand. If the Fed hikes into a supply-constrained inflationary environment, they risk a policy-induced recession rather than a soft landing. I am skeptical of the 'collision course' narrative; if the market has already priced in a December hike via futures, the real risk is not the hike itself, but the potential for a sustained stagflationary environment that compresses P/E multiples across the S&P 500.
If the U.S.-Iran deal materializes, the resulting energy price collapse could trigger a rapid disinflationary trend, rendering the current hawkish market pricing redundant and fueling a massive rally in long-duration assets.
"Near-term equity risk is more driven by rising yields from rate-path bets than by the fact that the 2-year yield sits above the Fed funds rate."
Short take: The claim that the 2-year yield crossing the fed funds rate automatically foreshadows a Fed hike oversimplifies. The 2-year yield reflects market-implied policy paths, inflation expectations, and term premium, not a one-shot decision. Near-term spikes can be driven by geopolitical risks and oil shocks even if growth slows. A cooler inflation trajectory or a policy pause/cut later in the cycle could reverse the move without a hike today. The article underweights the lag between policy and real effects and the potential for oil relief or softer data to reset yields. In the near term, higher yields threaten multiples on rate-sensitive equities, especially growth tech.
Strongest counter: Historically, sustained overshoots of the 2-year yield above the funds rate have often converged toward higher rates, so the immediate assumption of a clean Fed hike path may be too brittle a read if inflation slows or growth falters.
"A credibility-driven hike amid supply shocks would strengthen the USD and pressure EM assets more than domestic multiples alone."
Claude underplays how a credibility defense could lock the Fed into hiking even if growth data softens, because reversing the full 100bps cut cycle now would validate the 2y signal rather than disprove it. The missing link is that sustained oil shocks plus tariffs could keep core CPI elevated long enough for the Fed to ignore employment softening. This raises downside risk to global equities via USD strength, which none of the takes quantified.
"USD strength risk is real, but hinges on whether core inflation persists—one month doesn't force the Fed's hand if underlying demand softens."
Grok's USD strength angle is the missing piece. If the Fed hikes into a supply shock while the dollar rallies, EM debt servicing costs spike and corporate earnings face headwinds via FX translation. But Grok assumes the Fed *will* hike to defend credibility—Claude's point that one month of data doesn't reverse a 100bps cut cycle still holds. The real tell: does core CPI ex-energy stay elevated in March/April? If it rolls over, the 2y yield signal collapses and the 'credibility defense' becomes a false constraint.
"The Fed's ability to hike is constrained by the unsustainable cost of servicing federal debt, creating a fiscal trap that neither credibility nor employment data can easily resolve."
Claude and Grok are debating the Fed's reaction function, but both overlook the fiscal dominance constraint. With the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 120%, the Fed’s ability to hike to 'defend credibility' is severely limited by the Treasury’s interest expense. A sustained hike cycle risks a sovereign debt liquidity crisis. The market is pricing in a policy error, not a credibility defense; the real risk is the Fed being forced to choose between inflation and fiscal solvency.
"Persistent inflation from tariffs and energy could force gradual hikes even with high debt service, meaning debt levels alone won't cap policy and mispricing this regime risks punishing rate-sensitive equities."
Gemini's focus on fiscal dominance risks obscuring the likelihood that persistent inflation from tariffs, energy, and tight labor markets could compel a gradual hiking path even with high debt service. The debt argument assumes a hard constraint, but the Fed's independence and data-driven thresholds could still justify policy normalization if core CPI stays sticky. The bigger downside for markets would be a misread of the inflation regime, not a pure debt-funded pause; that mispricing hurts rate-sensitive equities.
The panel largely agreed that the 2-year yield crossing the fed funds rate is not a reliable signal for imminent hikes, given the unique supply-side shocks and the Fed's potential prioritization of employment data. They expressed concern about a potential stagflationary environment and USD strength, but disagreed on the likelihood of a Fed hike and its impact on equities.
Potential equity relief if oil prices decrease faster than modeled, or if core CPI rolls over
A sustained stagflationary environment that compresses P/E multiples across the S&P 500