Major U.S.banks cut the prime rate from 7.50% to 7.25% after the Fed's 25bps rate cut. The Fed moved due to rising jobless claims and weak hiring.Major U.S.banks cut the prime rate from 7.50% to 7.25% after the Fed's 25bps rate cut. The Fed moved due to rising jobless claims and weak hiring.

U.S. banks slash prime rate to 7.25% following Fed meeting

2025/09/18 16:25

Big U.S. banks have lowered their prime lending rate to 7.25%, down from 7.50%, after the Federal Reserve announced a 25 basis point rate cut on Wednesday, the first adjustment since December.

The change directly affects consumer and business loans across the country. According to Reuters, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America all implemented the new rate immediately following the Fed’s announcement.

The prime rate is what banks charge their most trusted borrowers, usually large companies. But it’s also the base for what everyone else pays; mortgages, small business loans, credit cards, and personal loans.

With this cut, borrowing gets slightly cheaper across the board. Inflation still isn’t under control. It’s above the 2% goal, and the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs remains uncertain.

Fed reacts to rising unemployment concerns

Richard Flynn, managing director at Charles Schwab UK, said jobless claims are at their highest in almost four years, despite the Fed originally planning to keep rates unchanged through the summer.

“Although the summer began with expectations of holding rates steady, the labor market has shown more signs of weakness than anticipated,” Flynn said.

Hiring has slowed because of uncertainty around Trump’s trade policy. Companies are hesitating to add staff, which is why job growth has nearly stalled.

As fewer people are hired, spending starts to shrink. And that’s when things start to unravel. That’s what the Fed is trying to get ahead of with this rate cut.

The cut also helps banks directly. Lower rates mean more people may qualify for loans again. During the previous rate hikes, lending standards got tighter.

Now, with cheaper credit, smaller businesses could get approved again. If well-funded businesses feel confident, they may hire again. That could eventually help the consumer side of the economy bounce back, but that’s still a big if.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, is not optimistic. Last week, he said that the true effects of tariffs, immigration policies, and Trump’s fiscal strategy are still unknown.

The tax-and-spending decisions made under Trump’s administration could bring unexpected consequences. Dimon didn’t say anything reassuring—he just made it clear the situation is still foggy.

David Solomon, CEO of Goldman Sachs, agreed. Speaking to CNBC, he said: “There’s no question in my mind that it’s having an impact on growth.” He was referring to tariffs, but the message was broader. No one running a major financial institution is confident about what’s next.

Fed board split while markets remain cold

The Fed vote to cut rates was almost unanimous. The only pushback came from Stephen Miran, who had just joined the board after being picked by Trump and confirmed earlier that same week.

He wanted a half-point cut, not a quarter-point. Before the meeting, there had been speculation that Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller, both also appointed by Trump, would argue for a deeper cut too. But they ended up backing the smaller move.

Even though most of the board was on the same page, the markets didn’t respond much. Investors were waiting to see if Trump’s pressure for a 100 basis point cut would be answered. It wasn’t. The Fed chose a more cautious approach.

The Fed’s internal dot plot—which shows where board members see rates heading—revealed more uncertainty. Most of them expect only one rate cut in 2026. Traders were betting on more. That mismatch explains the weak market reaction.

Jerome Powell, the Fed chair, called the move “risk management.” That means the Fed didn’t act because things are already falling apart, but because they might soon. That’s not confidence. That’s hedging.

The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

The post Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. “It’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress,” writes Pipes. Getty Images Washington is addicted to taxing success. Now, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is floating a plan to skim half the patent earnings from inventions developed at universities with federal funding. It’s being sold as a way to shore up programs like Social Security. In reality, it’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress. Yes, taxpayer dollars support early-stage research. But the real payoff comes later—in the jobs created, cures discovered, and industries launched when universities and private industry turn those discoveries into real products. By comparison, the sums at stake in patent licensing are trivial. Universities collectively earn only about $3.6 billion annually in patent income—less than the federal government spends on Social Security in a single day. Even confiscating half would barely register against a $6 trillion federal budget. And yet the damage from such a policy would be anything but trivial. The true return on taxpayer investment isn’t in licensing checks sent to Washington, but in the downstream economic activity that federally supported research unleashes. Thanks to the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, universities and private industry have powerful incentives to translate early-stage discoveries into real-world products. Before Bayh-Dole, the government hoarded patents from federally funded research, and fewer than 5% were ever licensed. Once universities could own and license their own inventions, innovation exploded. The result has been one of the best returns on investment in government history. Since 1996, university research has added nearly $2 trillion to U.S. industrial output, supported 6.5 million jobs, and launched more than 19,000 startups. Those companies pay…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 03:26