Inflation

Inflation

Federal Reserve Changes 2025: How could they impact your Portfolio?

Image courtesy Harvest ETFs

By Ambrose O’Callaghan, Harvest ETFs

(Sponsor Blog)

The Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) was founded on December 23, 1913, as the central banking system of the United States.

At the time, the U.S. had contended with a series of financial crises that had rattled the domestic economy. This included the panic of 1907: a financial crisis that was triggered by the failed attempt in October 1907 to corner the market on the stock of the United Copper Company. These panics led to bank runs, reaffirming the desire of policy makers to have central control of the monetary system.

In this piece, we review the role of the Fed and how this U.S. central bank chooses its chairperson, presidents, and determines voting power. After that, we review how these factors could impact rate decisions through 2025 and beyond, and what Harvest ETFs may be impacted by these developments and policy shifts.

The role of the Fed

Upon its founding, the U.S. Congress established three key goals for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act. The Fed’s statutory mandate is as follows:

  1. Maximum Employment
  2. Stable Prices
  3. Moderate Long-Term Interest Rates

The Fed has many tools at its disposal to achieve these goals. More traditional monetary policy involves the utilization of open market operations, reserve requirements, and discount window lending.

Traditional monetary policy

Open market operations (OMOs)

Open market operations involve influencing the supply of balances in the federal funds market. In other words, this empowers the central bank to control the supply of money and credit in the economy.

Before the 2007-2008 housing crisis, and the global financial crisis that followed, OMOs were used to adjust the supply of reserve balances. This was done to keep the federal funds rate, which is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend reserve balances to other depository institutions overnight, at or around the target established by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).

This approach evolved significantly in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession. In 2008, the FOMC established a near-zero target range for the federal funds rate. That move, paired with large-scale asset purchases – which we will cover later – made the Fed a target of scrutiny to a degree not seen since its founding in the early 20th century.

Reserve requirements

The Federal Reserve Act authorizes the Fed board to establish reserve requirements within a specific range. That allows the Fed to effectively implement monetary policy on certain types of deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions. In order to reach the dollar amount of a depository institutions reserve requirement, the Fed applies the reserve requirement ratios to an institutions’ reservable liabilities. After that, the Fed board is authorized to impose reserve requirements on transaction accounts, nonpersonal time of deposits, and Eurocurrency liabilities.

Discount window lending

Another important role of the Fed is discount window lending. The Fed is authorized to lend to depository institutions. Through this, the central bank can support the liquidity and stability of the domestic banking system as well as the effective implementation of monetary policy. The discount window aids depository institutions in the managing of their liquidity risks. This, in turn, helps to avoid actions that could have negative consequences for their customers. Essentially, the discount window supports the flow of credit to households and businesses.

Nontraditional monetary policy

Forward guidance

Central banks around the world use forward guidance to tell the public about the future course of monetary policy. When the Fed provides forward guidance, it allows individuals and businesses to make decisions based on that information. Because of its impact on spending and investment decision making, forward guidance influences financial and economic conditions.

The FOMC began providing forward guidance statements following its meetings in the early 2000s.

Large-scale asset purchases

Historically, outright purchases or sales of Treasury securities were used as a tool to manage the supply of bank reserves. This was done to maintain conditions in line with the federal funds target rate.

However, the global financial crisis in 2007-2008 led to dramatic changes in how the Fed approaches large-scale asset purchases. From 2008 to 2014, the FOMC authorized three rounds of large-scale asset purchase programs – also referred to as quantitative easing – as well as a maturity extension program.

The COVID-19 pandemic also presented a significant challenge for policymakers. In March 2020, the Fed launched large-scale asset purchases of U.S. Treasury securities to address the market disruptions at the beginning of the pandemic. Other steps including the launch of market functioning purchases of Treasuries and other securities. These purchases were without precedent. Asset purchases reached nearly $2 trillion of notes and bonds purchased just in 2020.

Fed presidents and voting power

The Fed is run by seven governors that are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. All seven of the governors vote at every FOMC meeting.  A full term for Fed governors is 14 years, and one term begins every two years. This occurs on February 1 of even-numbered years. After serving a full term, a member cannot be reappointed, whereas a member who completes an unexpired portion of a term may be reappointed.

However, if a member retires earlier, the President may appoint another governor in the interim.  For example, Adriana Kugler recently resigned in August of 2025, as her term was expiring in February 2026. This seat was recently filled by the appointment and senate confirmation of Stephen Miran on September 15, 2025.  It is expected he will be re-appointed this February when that term is up for renewal.

There are 12 regional bank presidents. Five of these presidents vote at a time on rotation. All 12 presidents have terms that expire at the same time with the next term expiring this coming February. The process for selecting the regional Presidents is complicated.  It includes rolling terms for B and C directors of the regional bank that are intended to represent the public. The class B directors are chosen by the regional banks, and the class C directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.  Then, the regional banks’ Presidential nominee must be approved by the Fed’s board of seven in Washington.  Chair Jerome Powell’s term as Chair is up in May of 2026 however, he has until 2028 as a board governor, although not unprecedented to serve their full terms on the board, Chairs have historically resigned from the board following their role as Chair.

While this is complicated, this has shone a spotlight on the Fed and regional banks, especially in the wake of the recent governors’ coming retirement and more so given the controversy surrounding Governor Lisa Cook and her potential dismissal.

With now three of the seven board of governors having been appointed by the current administration, should another board of governor retire, or in the case of Governor Cook be removed for cause, that move could shift voting power of the Fed , raising concerns about political influence in the realm of monetary policy. Even though there are some safeguards that remain, the perception of the Fed’s independence being weakened has the potential to unsettle markets.

Rate expectations in 2025

On Wednesday, September 17, the Fed announced that it voted to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 0.25%, bringing the benchmark rate to 4.25%. Its decision was motivated by the moderation of economic activity in the first half of 2025, as well as slowing jobs data and the increased unemployment rate. The FOMC reiterated that it was “strongly committed to supporting maximum employment and returning inflation to its 2 percent objective.”

A September 5 report showed that the U.S. economy generated only 22,000 jobs in August. This stoked fears that the administration’s economic policies, including massive import taxes, have contributed to uncertainty in the business world. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate rose to 4.3%, moving higher than the six-month moving average. This indicates a sustained increase in unemployment.

Which Harvest ETFs are being impacted by Fed movements?

The uncertainty around Fed policy has boosted gold, benefitting two ETFs in the Harvest stable.

One of them is the Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF (TSX: HGGG), an equally weighted portfolio of the world’s leading and largest gold companies. HGGG tracks the Solactive Global Gold Giants Index TR.

We also recently launched a gold variant as part of our Harvest High Income Shares™ ETF lineup: the Harvest Agnico Eagle Enhanced High Income Shares ETF (TSX: AEME). AEME invests all its assets in shares of Agnico Eagle Mines. It overlays covered calls and employs modest leverage at around 25%, aiming to generate high levels of monthly income. The rate expectations phenomenon has pushed long-term yields higher, as investors price in incremental inflation risks and continued Fed uncertainty.

Meanwhile, the shorter-term gyrations of bond prices have been a challenging environment with longer term bond prices fluctuating month over month. Mid-duration bonds have been steadier, despite upward moves in yields in August, they will continue to be data dependent.

The Harvest Premium Yield Treasury ETF (TSX: HPYT) – a portfolio of ETFs which hold longer dated US Treasury bonds that are secured by the US government, employs up to 100% covered call writing to generate a higher yield and maximize monthly cash flow. It remains in the black in the year-to-date period. HPYT last paid out a monthly cash distribution of $0.13 per unit.

 

On the medium-term side, the Harvest Premium Yield 7-10 Year Treasury ETF (TSX: HPYM) – a portfolio of US Treasury ETFs that primary hold US bonds with average maturities of 7-10 years. Like HPYT, it can write up to 100% covered call on these holdings to generate monthly income. HPYM has delivered solid returns in the year-to-date period at the midway point in September 2025. The ETF last paid out a monthly cash distribution of $0.08 per unit.

 

Ambrose O’Callaghan is Senior Copy Writer at Harvest ETFs. Ambrose brings over a decade of experience in the financial services industry to the Content Editor role. He is responsible for providing context to current trends, developments, and analyses to help make sense of the ETF market and emerging themes. With a strong knowledge of the Canadian equity markets and Harvest products, Ambrose regularly provides commentary on a broad array of market topics.

Disclaimer

The content of this article is to inform and educate and therefore should not be taken as investment, tax, or financial advice. Commissions, management fees and expenses all may be associated with investing in Harvest Exchange Traded Funds (managed by Harvest Portfolios Group Inc.). Please read the relevant prospectus before investing. The funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. The content of this article is to inform and educate and therefore should not be taken as investment, tax, or financial advice.

Certain statements included in this communication constitute forward-looking statements (“FLS”), including, but not limited to, those identified by the expressions “expect”, “intend”, “will” and similar expressions to the extent they relate to the Fund. The FLS are not historical facts but reflect Harvest’s, the Manager of the Fund, current expectations regarding future results or events. These FLS statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from current expectations. Although Harvest, the Manager of the Fund, believes that the assumptions inherent in the FLS are reasonable, FLS are not guarantees of future performance and, accordingly, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein. Harvest, the Manager of the Fund, undertakes no obligation to update publicly or otherwise revise any FLS or information whether as a result of new information, future events or other such factors which affect this information, except as required by law.

Common mistakes to avoid in Long-term Financial Forecasts

Dodge costly financial forecasting pitfalls that derail your Financial Independence plans. Canadian retirees need these proven strategies now.

By Dan Coconate

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Planning for Financial Independence requires careful financial forecasting, but many Canadians approaching or already in their golden years make costly errors that jeopardize their financial security.

Understanding common mistakes to avoid in long-term financial forecasts helps protect your hard-earned wealth and maintain the lifestyle you’ve worked decades to achieve.

Ignoring Inflation’s Compounding Impact

Many retirees don’t realize how much inflation can reduce their buying power over time. For example, with just a 2% annual inflation rate, $100,000 today will only be worth about $67,000 in 20 years. In Canada, this is even more concerning as healthcare and housing costs are rising faster than average inflation.

Quick Tips:

  • Factor 2-4% annual inflation into all projections
  • Account for healthcare inflation potentially outpacing general rates
  • Consider variable inflation rates across different expense categories

Overlooking Healthcare Cost Escalation

Provincial health coverage doesn’t eliminate all medical expenses. Dental work, prescription drugs, vision care, and long-term care facilities often involve major costs that many forecasts overlook. These expenses tend to increase with age, potentially leading to budget shortfalls just when you’re least able to return to work, making financial planning essential.

Underestimating Longevity Risk

Life expectancy in Canada continues to rise, with many individuals now living well into their 90s and beyond. This shows the importance of careful financial planning, especially since early retirement may not be sufficient if you live 30 or more years without employment income.

Women, in particular, face unique longevity challenges, often outliving their male partners and needing to manage finances independently for extended periods. Planning is essential to ensure financial stability throughout these longer retirement years.

Using Static Return Assumptions

Market volatility creates sequence-of-returns risk, where poor early performance devastates long-term outcomes despite average returns meeting projections.

A portfolio losing 20% in year one of Financial Independence faces dramatically different outcomes than one gaining 20% initially, even with identical long-term averages.

Managing Market Volatility

Consider dollar-cost averaging withdrawals and maintaining 2-3 years of expenses in conservative investments to weather market downturns without selling equities at depressed prices. Continue Reading…

Challenging Times for Recent Retirees?

By Dale Roberts, CutTheCrap Investing, Retirement Club

Special to Financial Independence Hub

The following is a special to Findependence Hub. This post is derived from a newsletter from Retirement Club for Canadians, re-shaped and enhanced for this audience. 

In the Globe & Mail Norm Rothery offered an article with the title – With today’s market, investors close to retirement face precarious times (sub required).  Norman Rothery, PhD, CFA, is the founder of StingyInvestor.com.

Retirees typically face the greatest risk in the first few years of retirement. A severe market correction or bout of inflation can permanently impair retirement plans. In fact, the risk for retirees starts several years before the retirement start date, they’re already in the retirement risk zone

Norm suggested … 

“Planning for retirement is tricky at the best of times because it is beset by uncertainties both known and unknowable. High valuations are one of the known problems but that doesn’t make them easy to deal with.”

While a severe market correction early in retirement is a great risk for retirees who will rely extensively on balanced or growth-oriented portfolios, a longer period of low returns can also create risk. The U.S. stock market is trading at worrying levels based on a variety of value factors. 

Norm demonstrated that the S&P 500 Index is trading at a cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio near 39, which is approaching the 44 level that we saw in late 1999 as we approached the dot com crash. 

Source: Charlie Billelo / Twitter X 

The price-to-sales ratio is approaching its 1999 high

This ‘everything metric’ says we have the most expensive U.S. market – EVER! 

Source: Bloomberg

Dale’s related read: The lost decade for U.S. stocks.

And we can pile on with the Buffett Indicator … 

We certainly can’t just step aside and wait for the next recession. Valuation metrics provide no market-timing opportunity. Nothing provides any market timing opportunity. Valuation tends to be a poor near-term market predictor, but it can ‘predict’ the potential returns over the next several years to decade. The data suggest returns for U.S. stocks could be very low in the range of 1-4% annual or even negative in real dollar (inflation-adjusted) returns. 

And keep in mind that Canadian stocks (after a very healthy run) are expensive as well. After their big run-up this year, Canadian stocks now trade for nearly 29 times their average inflation-adjusted earnings of the past decade, according to Citigroup, the historical average is 16, TSX returns over the next several years might be challenged as well. 

So, there is a risk of a major correction inspired by the lofty levels. And low returns in the first decade can put a strain on the spending plans.  Continue Reading…

8 Effective Strategies for Managing Retirement Income and RMDs

Pexels photo by Marcus Aurelius

Retirement income management and Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) can be complex topics for many Americans. This article presents effective strategies to help readers navigate these financial challenges. Drawing on insights from financial experts, the following tips offer practical approaches to optimize retirement income and manage RMDs efficiently.

  • Purchase Annuity for Guaranteed Retirement Income
  • Leverage Qualified Charitable Distributions for RMDs
  • Optimize Asset Location for Tax-Efficient RMDs
  • Consider Annuities for Steady Retirement Income
  • Use Trusts to Manage RMDs Strategically
  • Convert to Roth During Market Downturns
  • Implement Bucket Approach with Beneficiary Designations
  • Start Home-Based Business to Offset RMDs

Purchase Annuity for Guaranteed Retirement Income

It is important to always consider broader planning needs, but one strategy that can be useful for generating retirement income and managing required minimum distributions (RMDs) is purchasing an annuity. This annuity would be purchased within an IRA and would create a level stream of guaranteed income for the rest of one’s retirement. This will not only satisfy one’s RMDs, but it can also lower taxes by stretching income across many years. In particular, it could help avoid large, irregular distributions that might push one into higher tax brackets. Aaron Brask, Retirement planner, Aaron Brask Capital LLC

Leverage Qualified Charitable Distributions for RMDs

The obvious choice is to find a part-time job that aligns with your passion. This way, you can generate income and get paid to enjoy your favorite hobby. For example, if you love golfing, getting a part-time job at a golf course may give you discounts or even free games.

As far as managing RMDs, the amount that you must distribute is not determined by your income. It is based on the value of your Traditional IRA at the end of the year and the IRS Uniform Lifetime Table or Joint Life and Last Survivor Table.

This doesn’t include Roth IRAs. There are no RMDs in these accounts.

The best way to manage the increase in income, which can lower benefits such as Social Security or Medicare Part B (which are based on annual income), is to leverage Qualified Charitable Distributions (QCDs) for those who are philanthropic or give to a 501(c)(3) religious institution such as tithing.

When you reach the age to take RMDs, you can directly give to your favorite charity without incurring the tax implication or the increase in income that comes with RMD distributions. In 2025, you can donate up to US$108,000.

This will eliminate the RMD from being counted in your gross income and, at the same time, qualify for satisfying your annual distribution requirement.

I think this is useful because their favorite cause still receives donations, they satisfy their RMD, and they don’t have to pay the taxes up to that amount.

One thing I love about it is that you can make as many QCDs as you wish during the year as long as the total doesn’t exceed the threshold. Alajahwon Ridgeway, Owner, A.B. Ridgeway Wealth Management, LLC

Optimize Asset Location for Tax-Efficient RMDs

After 15+ years managing corporate finances and helping businesses with cash flow optimization, I’ve seen how asset location strategy can be a game-changer for Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) management. The approach involves strategically placing different types of investments across taxable, tax-deferred, and tax-free accounts to minimize the tax impact when RMDs hit.

I worked with a client in the software technology space who had accumulated significant wealth through stock options and 401(k) contributions. We repositioned his bond holdings and REITs into his traditional IRA while moving growth stocks to his Roth accounts. When his RMDs started, he was pulling from bond interest and dividend income rather than forcing the sale of appreciating assets.

The key insight from my Financial Planning and Analysis (FP&A) background is treating this like portfolio optimization: you’re maximizing after-tax income rather than pre-tax returns. His RMD tax bill dropped by 18% because we were distributing lower-growth, income-generating assets instead of his high-performing tech stocks.

This works especially well for anyone with diverse investment types across multiple account structures. The planning needs to start at least 5-7 years before RMDs begin, but the tax savings compound significantly over time. Michael J. Spitz, Principal, SPITZ CPA

Consider Annuities for Steady Retirement Income

Although annuities are often a source of debate and critique, they are still a functional and conservative way to generate income in retirement. If set up early enough, the steady income can often account for Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) across all Individual Retirement Account (IRA) assets since the withdrawal rates are higher than the often quoted 4-4.5%. Pedro Silva, Financial Advisor, Apex Investment Group, LLC

Use Trusts to Manage RMDs Strategically

After 25 years of helping clients navigate estate planning and witnessing countless families deal with Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) challenges, I’ve discovered the most effective strategy: creating an offshore Asset Protection Trust that feeds into a domestic charitable remainder trust for your RMDs. While this may sound complex, it’s incredibly powerful for the right situation.

Here’s how it works: I had a client with US$2.3 million in retirement accounts who was facing substantial RMDs that would push him into the highest tax brackets. We transferred a portion of his Individual Retirement Account (IRA) into a charitable remainder trust, which allowed him to take his RMDs as annuity payments over 20 years at a much lower effective tax rate. The added benefit? The remainder goes to charity, providing him with immediate tax deductions that offset other income. Continue Reading…

September may be Crunch Time for investors

Deposit Photos

By John De Goey, CFP, CIM

Financial Independence Hub

In the eight months since Donald Trump was reinstalled as the American President, monetary policy south of the border has been subjected to political interference at an unprecedented level. Most observers are of the opinion that Jerome Powell has performed his duties honourably and that the monetary stance taken has been broadly reflective of overall macro circumstances.

Given how relentlessly Trump has berated Powell throughout the year, any move to ease rates could be interpreted as a form of capitulation. Of course, if the economy is weakening and inflation remains benign, a move to lower rates would be entirely justified. Observers need to be careful not to imply political causation when the rationale behind such a decision is properly based on economics.

Now August is over and a September interest rate decision looms. For months now, I have been warning that the American economy (and by extension, the global economy) may be heading for a bout of stagflation. The current circumstances are delicate, and few people envy the task in front of central bankers around the western world.

The challenge is especially acute in the United States, not only because the stakes are highest because of the size of the economy, but also because the objective metrics for the economy continue to flash red. No one wants to make a policy error, but when you’re already walking on a knife edge, even the slightest miscalculation can be devastating.

Tariffs a curious case of mistiming

This may lead to a curious case of cause-and-effect mistiming. It appears the tariffs that have belatedly been imposed by Donald Trump have caused employment numbers to suffer somewhat, while giving importers time to make band-aid adjustments. The delays in implementation have allowed importers to stockpile inventories in anticipation of the tariffs ultimately being imposed in the ensuing months. It is against this backdrop that the central bank needs to weigh its options. There are numerous commentators who believe inflation will manifest once those inventories are drawn down, which seems imminent. Continue Reading…