No one likes to think about their own demise, but planning can make life after your death significantly easier for heirs.

Here are five ways to help heirs avoid extra time, money, stress and acrimony after you pass:

Keep documents updated

Having a will or living trust is essential—but it isn’t enough. The proper documents need to be updated periodically, especially as life circumstances change.

Amber Hughes , a lawyer in the Phoenix office of law firm Dickinson Wright, offers the example of a mother who belatedly drafted new estate-planning documents but died before signing them. The old will had named as heirs stepchildren she hadn’t spoken to in 20 years, and her sons are spending tens of thousands of dollars to have the unsigned will enforced by a judge.

Many people also fail to update beneficiaries for life insurance, retirement accounts and bank or investment accounts. These assets pass according to the beneficiary designation, if there is one, regardless of what the will or living trust says, says Laura Zwicker , chair of the private client services group at law firm Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger in Los Angeles.

A client’s brother had an IRA valued at several million dollars. When he died, the IRA funds went to a woman he hadn’t dated for at least 10 years instead of to his brother’s daughters, even though they were named as beneficiaries in his trust. The heir indicated on the IRA was the former girlfriend, and that was the one that counted. “Imagine their surprise, but there’s nothing we can do about it,” Zwicker says.

Address digital assets

Many people have digital assets, including email and online photos, that could be lost to heirs if proper provisions aren’t put in place. For instance, a writer who stores plays or novels on a Google drive, but doesn’t set up a Google inactive-account profile, may make it harder or impossible for heirs to gain access to these works. Terms might differ, so having appropriate documentation on file with each provider is important.

Cryptocurrency and non fungible tokens can also easily be lost if their owners don’t provide heirs a way to access these assets. So people should make sure beneficiaries know how to access an account’s private keys—the secret numbers used to access cryptocurrency—as well as the kind of wallet and crypto type. One caveat: Those private keys and other sensitive information shouldn’t be included in a will because it becomes public through the probate process and that puts the assets at risk.

Assign personal property in advance

Many people assume that heirs will figure out on their own how to divide personal property, but that can lead to fights.

Hughes offers the example of three sisters who fought over their mother’s collection of hundreds of porcelain dolls. They had to hire a professional mediator to draw straws until all of the dolls were distributed. Had the mother made a personal-property list before she died, significant aggravation and hostility might have been avoided. The list can be handwritten and up-to-date, and should be kept with estate-plan documents. The document should also include where items can be found.

Leave good notes

Estate-planning experts advise that people set aside a folder with important information for the heirs, such as names, numbers and locations of accounts, as well as names and contact information for attorneys, accountants and financial advisers. This is especially important since bills are often paid online, eliminating once-helpful paper statements. Also let heirs know where to find your estate-planning documents. “If you can’t find the will and you don’t know who the trust and estate attorney is, that’s a horrible situation,” says Seth Slotkin at law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in New York.

One word of caution: Try not to leave unnecessary documents for your heirs, because it’s overwhelming, Slotkin says. How long to keep certain documents depends on their nature, but generally speaking, purging unnecessary documents will save your heirs time and money, he says.

Strive for conflict-avoidance

Parents sometimes create conflict by choosing one child over another to serve as executor, trustee or both, says Neil Solarz , shareholder at Weinstock Manion in Los Angeles.

Sometimes it may be appropriate. But in most instances, Solarz recommends naming a relative or friend to avoid potential sibling-rivalry issues. If there’s no one else available, people might consider hiring a trust company or a private professional fiduciary—vetted and licensed individuals who are licensed to act as trustees or executors.

People who have specific reasons for dividing assets or roles unevenly should prepare a letter that explains their thought process, which can help mitigate the potential for future conflicts, Slotkin says. For example, clarify that you named your daughter as executor because she lives locally, but that you want all of your children to work together to settle the estate, he says. Or, if you are leaving the younger of three children $100,000 more than the others, explain why. This extra step can mean the difference between harmony and acrimony among your heirs, he says.

“The thing that’s most likely to cause the estate process to dissolve into something horrible is acrimony among the children,” Slotkin says. “If you want to make things easy for your kids, if there’s anything that could be misinterpreted, explain it to them so they’re not fighting about it.”

When tens of thousands of software engineers, tech enthusiasts and salesmen descended on San Francisco for the annual Salesforce mega conference in September, startup founder Jari Salomaa had an idea: What if he rented out a sauna?

Salomaa was looking to pitch his startup Valo, which has built an artificial-intelligence tool that helps users on Salesforce’s platform. But an anti-alcohol movement that’s sweeping through the tech industry is disrupting work gatherings that revolve around drinking or eating. That’s leading Salomaa and others to try “social saunas,” where networking happens inside a steamy 200-degree box. In bathing suits.

The experience can take some getting used to. Bathrobes and bikinis can be distracting. It’s also very sweaty.

But investors and venture capitalists say it’s refreshing to have someplace other than a bar to gather and that business is getting done everywhere from a pop-up sauna in a Napa vineyard, to an 80-person sauna in New York.

Salomaa, 46, grew up in Finland where the sauna was part of everyday life and at his first job for Nokia in Helsinki, saunas were built inside the offices.

“There are more saunas than cars in Finland,” he said. “As many saunas as toilets.”

Still, he worried how Americans would react to hanging out in their bathing suits for a corporate event. “Scandinavians are more at ease with body images than the average American,” he said.

He thought about having one event for women and another for men, but the planning soon got complicated. In the end, Salomaa decided on a sort of social experiment: a coed gathering in San Francisco. He wound up with a wait list of 100 guests.

Salomaa imposed some sauna etiquette—bathing suits required and stay hydrated. And he started the event like any other investor pitch, by giving a PowerPoint presentation to an audience clad in bathrobes.

Attendees shared images of the event on social media, and soon Salomaa was fielding calls from friends in the tech industry, asking how they could do a similar event. He’s eager to help, but maintains some reservation about moving too much work inside the sauna.

“If it’s all talk about work, it kind of kills the vibe,” he said.

New social saunas have popped up in San Francisco, New York and Colorado this year.

They are built with stadium seating to fit more people—usually around 20 to 40 people—and conversation is often encouraged.

At Othership, a new sauna facility that opened in New York City’s Flatiron district in July, the sauna can fit up to 90 people. Lined with ambient lighting that can switch from warm red to neon pink, the sauna looks more like a nightclub than a place of tranquility.

Founder Robbie Bent, 40, said young tech founders make up a large part of his clientele. “They want to be healthier, meet like-minded people, and often don’t want to be out late,” he said.

The company hosts founder nights, as well as events for investors and founders to mingle. Othership says tech companies big and small are considering offering its services as a benefit to employees.

Othership has also offered to organise complimentary “team sweats” as team-building exercises. But according to Bent, they received pushback from human resources at companies across tech and Wall Street. Colleagues congregating in bathing suits wasn’t going to fly.

In response to these critiques, Bent designed a “corporate swimsuit”—basically a full-body rashguard for people to wear in the sauna.

Will Drescher, 29, built a social sauna in Boulder, Colo., after going to one in Minneapolis this year. “Neither me nor my co-founder drink,” said Drescher. “And we just thought, why don’t we have this?”

They built Portal, a “more DIY” option than the saunas popping up in New York and San Francisco, said Drescher.

“We wanted to bridge what’s happening in the coasts with what we’re seeing in the middle of the country,” said Drescher.

Venture investor Helene Servillon, 35, proposed a meeting with a founder of a tech company at Portal.

The meeting lasted an hour, which allowed them to cycle in and out of the sauna for three sessions. After learning more about the startup, Servillon said she plans to invest in it soon.

“VCs socialise a lot. If we only have two options—have a drink or a meal—that can just get really exhausting,” she said. When founders or investors ask to meet for happy hour these days, she will often counter-propose with a sauna or a hike.

Fintech investor Sheel Mohnot, 42, co-hosted an August social sauna event in San Francisco and attended an investor event in Napa, where a mobile sauna was wheeled on to the vineyard.

“The reality is there are always chances for people to feel uncomfortable, and more people are feeling that way about drinking,” Mohnot said. “We just didn’t have great sauna options here before.”

Not all tech workers have bought in. Laila Danielsen, chief executive of an AI software company, was invited to a social sauna event in October. She enjoyed the event and the environment it provided to have conversations, but she didn’t go into the hotbox.

“I don’t know if I’d necessarily put on my bikini to go out and pitch a VC, you know what I mean?” the 55-year-old said. “I’ll consider meeting them at the sauna after we close the deal.”

Donald Trump will retake office in a global economy substantially transformed from eight years ago—one much more reliant on the U.S.

It means that the president-elect’s plans, including across the board tariffs, could pack an even greater wallop on other countries than the first round of “America First” economic policy. It also gives Trump much more leverage in negotiations over trade policy.

Strong growth since the pandemic has expanded the U.S.’s weight in the global economy. Its share of output among the Group of Seven wealthy nations is higher than at any point since at least the 1980s, International Monetary Fund data shows.

Growth in China, the world’s second-largest economy, has slowed. Germany, the largest European economy, is contracting. Many poorer economies are buckling under the weight of high debt.

U.S. gains in global output partly reflect the strong dollar, which pushes up the value of American output relative to that of foreign economies. But they also result from substantial increases in U.S. productivity compared with the rest of the world.

The changes in the global economy have made America, not China, the premier destination for foreign direct investment, enlarging the exposure that foreign companies have to the U.S. economy and changes in government policy. A booming U.S. stock market has attracted huge flows of investment dollars.

“The fact that much of the rest of the world is now struggling to generate demand on its own provides more reason for countries to try to reach some sort of accommodation with Trump,” said Brad Setser , a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Trump started imposing tariffs in 2018, primarily on China but also on Europe and other allies. Those tariffs fractured global trade, weighing on large exporting economies in Asia and Europe, while not obviously hurting the U.S., which is less reliant on foreign demand than its trading partners. Trump campaigned on a promise to impose at least a 60% tariff on China, and an across the board tariff of 10% to 20% on everywhere else.

America’s superior economic performance has been driven in part by energy independence and massive government spending, said Neil Shearing , chief economist at Capital Economics in London. Since the U.S. now exports more energy than it imports—including millions of barrels of oil each month to China—the nation as a whole benefits when energy prices rise, unlike for net importers such as China and Europe.

The upshot: America’s traditional role as the centre of gravity in the global economy has become even more pronounced in the years after Trump’s first-term tariffs, the pandemic, and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

U.S. influence over Europe’s economy is a case in point. The U.S. has cemented its position as Europe’s largest export market as trans-Atlantic trade surged in recent years and China’s imports from Europe stalled. The U.S. has replaced Russia as Europe’s major source of imported energy. Europe runs big trade surpluses with the U.S. but big trade deficits with China.

The result is access to the U.S. market is far more important for Europe than access to European markets for the U.S. That asymmetry will give Trump leverage in trade negotiations with Europe, according to economists.

Germany exports around 7% of its entire manufacturing value-added to the U.S., but Germany imports only around 0.8% of value-added in U.S. manufacturing, according to a September paper by researchers at Germany’s Ifo Institute for Economic Research.

“German business is vulnerable to Trump,” said Marcel Fratzscher , president of the Berlin-based economic research institute DIW Berlin.

Parts of Asia have benefited from the changes in supply chains sparked by Trump’s initial trade war with China. Many manufacturers, including Chinese ones, moved factories to places such as Vietnam and Cambodia. For the past two quarters, Southeast Asia’s exports to the U.S. have exceeded those to China.

But that now leaves them more exposed to across the board tariffs, a policy that Trump advisers say will be necessary to force manufacturing back to the U.S.

To be sure, Trump’s policies could create countervailing forces. Tariffs would decrease imports and potentially weigh on productivity, but tax cuts would drive up household and business spending, including, inevitably, on imports. Other countries could retaliate by placing tariffs on U.S. goods.

Meanwhile, a tight U.S. labor market has pushed up wages, which is good for those workers. But it could pressure employers to raise prices, in turn making them vulnerable to foreign competition.

Many economists are girding for a different type of trade war from Trump 1.0, when trade fell between the U.S. and China but was diverted elsewhere.

“As long as protectionism refers only to one country, China, the world can live with this,” said Joerg Kraemer , chief economist at Commerzbank. “The thing becomes difficult or dangerous if you implement tariffs on all countries. This would be a new era in global trade.”

Higher barriers to trade would have a negative impact on the global economy, and Europe must be prepared for increased tensions, Bank of Finland Gov. Olli Rehn said Tuesday.

Rehn, who is a member of the European Central Bank’s governing council, said a soft landing for the eurozone economy was still a plausible scenario, but that the outlook is clouded by growing geopolitical uncertainty.

A new element in that uncertainty is the trade policy of Donald Trump in his second term as U.S. president. Trump has expressed a desire to raise tariffs on imports from a wide range of countries.

“What we do know is that significant import duties could have negative ramifications for the global economy,” Rehn said.

Questions about the future of one of Europe’s key trade relationships add to the other uncertainties that face policymakers, including Russia’s war on Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, and China’s military and technological ambitions, Rehn said.

“A new trade war is the last thing we need amid today’s geopolitical rivalries, especially among allies,” he told investors at a London conference.

Rehn said Europe must be better positioned to respond than it was during Trump’s first term.

“If a trade war were to start, Europe must not be unprepared,” he said.

The threat of new tariffs comes at a time when the eurozone’s two largest economies—Germany and France—are being led by minority governments. However, trade policy is decided at the level of the European Union as a whole, and implemented by the European Commission, rather than national governments.

“Political turmoil in Germany and France underscores the importance of the European Commission in providing leadership and direction,” Rehn said. Rehn was a member of the Commission from 2004 until 2014.

The ECB continues to say that its key interest rate needs to stay restrictive, and damp demand to cool inflation. But as it cuts its key rate, there will come a point where it moves to neutral, where policy is neither restraining or stimulating the economy. Rehn said that was likely to happen in the first half of next year.

“We might expect leaving restrictive territory between January and June, ” he said.

When the world’s most-followed investor doesn’t feel comfortable investing, should the rest of us be worried?

Warren Buffett , who has quipped that his favourite holding period for a stock is “forever,” continues to have substantial money at work in American companies. But he has never taken this much off the table either—a whopping $325 billion in cash and equivalents, mostly in the form of Treasury bills.

To appreciate the immensity of that hoard, consider that it would allow Berkshire to write a check, with change left over, for all but the 25 or so most-valuable listed U.S. corporations—iconic ones such as Walt Disney, Goldman Sachs , Pfizer, General Electric or AT&T. In addition to letting the dividends and interest pile up on its balance sheet, the conglomerate has aggressively sold down two of its largest shareholdings, Apple and Bank of America, in the past several months. And, for the first time in six years, it has stopped buying more of the stock it knows best— Berkshire Hathaway.

Does that mean mere investing mortals should be cautious about the market? Maybe, but it tells us even more about Berkshire.

Buffett and his late business partner Charlie Munger didn’t outperform the stock market 140-fold by being market-timers. Probably Munger’s most famous quote is his first rule of compounding: “Never interrupt it unnecessarily.” Investors who follow Berkshire closely and hope for a bit of its magic to rub off on their portfolios pay very close attention to what it is buying and selling, but much less to when.

Yet the seemingly always optimistic and patient Buffett has turned cautious before, famously shutting his extremely successful partnership in 1969 when he said markets were too frothy and also building up substantial cash in the years leading up to the global financial crisis—money he deployed opportunistically.

“He’s cognisant of the fact that markets gyrate and go to extremes,” says Adam J. Mead, a New Hampshire money manager and Buffetologist who is the author of “The Complete Financial History of Berkshire Hathaway.”

Stock values being stretched doesn’t mean they are on the precipice of a crash or even a bear market. Instead, zoom out and look at what today’s valuations say about returns over the next several years, which will include both good and bad periods. Goldman Sachs strategist David Kostin predicted recently that the S&P 500’s return over the next decade would average just 3% a year—less than a third of the postwar pace.

Kostin’s report went over like a record scratch at a time of high investor optimism, but it is consistent with other forecasts. Giant asset manager Vanguard recently predicted an annual return range of 3% to 5% for large U.S. stocks and just 0.1% to 2.1% for growth stocks over a decade. And Prof. Robert Shiller ’s cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio is consistent with an average return of about 0.5% a year after inflation —similar to Kostin’s projection.

Then there is the even simpler “Buffett Indicator,” which the Oracle of Omaha once called “probably the best single measure of where valuations stand at any given moment.” There are variants on the theme, but it is basically a ratio of all listed stocks to the size of the U.S. economy. Taking the Wilshire 5000 Index as a proxy it is now around 200%, which would leave it more stretched than at the peak of the tech bubble.

With T-bills now yielding more than the prospective return on stocks, it might seem that Buffett has taken as many chips off of the table as possible since there is no upside in risky stocks. But he is on record saying that he would love to spend it.

“What we’d really like to do is buy great businesses,” he said at Berkshire’s 2023 annual meeting. “If we could buy a company for $50 billion or $75 billion, $100 billion, we could do it.”

With Berkshire now worth $1 trillion, it would take a deal of that size to move the needle. Mead explains that a transaction matching acquisitions like 2010’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe deal or the 1998 acquisition of insurer General Re would be worth $100 billion scaled to today’s balance sheet.

Could it also mean that Buffett sees value in keeping dry powder ahead of the next crisis or general froth in the market? Yes, but he isn’t saying, and individual investors also have more options than he does. First of all, we don’t have to pay a 20% or more premium to the market price to invest in a business like Berkshire would in a takeover. We also can sail in much shallower waters and smaller ponds. For example, Vanguard’s 10-year projections range from 7% to 9% a year for non-U.S. developed market stocks and 5% to 7% for U.S. small capitalisation stocks. Other than a very profitable bet on Japanese trading companies in recent years, though, Buffett has kept his money mostly stateside and likely will continue to do so.

Changes at Berkshire are inevitable, though—and not just because the 94-year-old is nearing the end of his remarkable career. Buffett hasn’t hesitated to return cash to shareholders, almost exclusively through stock buybacks, yet he clearly deems even his own stock too pricey for that.

Berkshire also has reached a size at which it can’t replicate its long-run record of deploying its profits and handily beating the market. It is going to have to hand money back somehow—probably through a dividend, reckons Mead. Eventually it becomes necessary to interrupt compounding.

Wall Street’s verdict is clear: A second Trump presidency is likely to deliver a blow to an export-dependent European Union that is struggling with sclerotic economic growth and ever-multiplying political crises. Whether it will finally spark some change is the question for patient investors.

Since Wednesday, the day after the election, the S&P 500 has gained 3.7%. Meanwhile, the Euro Stoxx 50 and the FTSE 100 are down. Among those to shed the most market value have been clean-energy firms such as Vestas, carmakers such as BMW , consumer-goods companies such as Nestlé and Unilever and sellers of pharmaceuticals such as Roche. They all sell a lot to the U.S.

The U.S. is the top goods export market for the European Union, and for Germany, with pharmaceuticals, machinery and vehicles topping the export list.

During the campaign, President-elect Donald Trump floated a 60% tariff on Chinese imports and a 10%-to-20% levy across the board. The think tank German Economic Institute estimates that such a measure could make the German economy between 1.2% and 1.4% smaller than it would have been by 2028.

The core of the European Union’s export machine has been plunged into difficulties because of the end of cheap Russian energy, delays in joining the electric-vehicle revolution and an over reliance on selling to China.

Volkswagen last week announced the closing of at least three plants in Germany. According to FactSet, American customers make up 18% of its sales, about the same as the German market.

“I want German car companies to become American car companies,” Trump said last month while holding a rally in Savannah, Ga. “If you don’t make your product here, then you will have to pay a tariff, a very substantial tariff,” he added.

On Wednesday, Oliver Zipse , chairman of German carmaker BMW, underscored that the company has a plant in Greer, S.C.

“The most demanded vehicles in the United States, we produce there,” he told analysts Wednesday in a conference call. “So there is some natural cover against possible tariffs.”

Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz have factories in Chattanooga, Tenn., and Vance, Ala., respectively. Manufacturers Airbus , Siemens and BASF also service the U.S. market from within, as do Nestlé and Unilever.

Much depends on details. In early 2021, Airbus’s assembly line in Mobile, Ala., was forced to pay tariffs for its shipments of fuselage, wing and tail components from France and Germany, as part of a World Trade Organization dispute. An agreement was quickly reached to suspend them.

Regardless, building up capacity to service all types of American-based demand would be hard. The Mobile plant makes A220 and A320 jets, but A330 and A350 wide-bodies are assembled in France. Volkswagen uses Chattanooga for the Atlas SUV, the Passat sedan and the electric ID.4, but the bestselling Tiguan and Jetta are built in Mexico. Roughly a quarter of U.S. imported cars originate there, and Trump has suggested that a 200% tariff could be slapped on them.

And when it comes to high-performance models, most EU firms still make them domestically and ship them over. Exports to the U.S. amounted to about 800,000 cars in 2023.

To be sure, EU leaders have struck a conciliatory tone with Trump this week, suggesting that a more amicable endgame such as the 2018 trade deal between the U.S., Canada and Mexico is possible.

Another risk is that China would send even more cheap goods to Europe if the U.S. ratchets up its trade war with Beijing. Yes, recent experience shows that China often just reroutes exports through third countries—and, as of recently, faces higher tariffs for electric vehicles in the EU anyway—but even small shifts could have big effects.

For a decade and a half, the 27-nation bloc has limped along, fostering just enough political change to avoid a painful breakup during the debt crisis of the 2010s and the 2020 pandemic, but never enough to truly invigorate its economy. Attempts by France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Olaf Scholz to change course have ended in paralysis. Scholz’s three-party government collapsed this week, after years that saw the coalition’s pro-austerity member blocking efforts to spur domestic industry with public spending.

Yet the first Trump presidency did galvanise some early support for a cohesive industrial strategy in Europe. The long-term bull case for European equities is that Trump 2.0 will be a catalyst for further transformation. European Central Bank President Mario Draghi published a report in September urging less red tape, state aid to key sectors and, where appropriate, harsher tariffs, all of which has buy-in from officials in Brussels.

On a small scale, the impulse toward a European industrial policy is already playing out. European defence contractors such as BAE Systems, Rheinmetall and Thales have seen their shares jump on the expectation that less American military involvement in Europe will force governments there to rely on their own capabilities. By 2030, the EU wants members to direct 50% or more of their procurement budgets toward European contractors.

Elsewhere, substituting foreign markets for domestic consumers will prove much harder, though providing advantages to buyers of electric vehicles has proved extremely effective in Norway. They now outnumber cars that run on gasoline.

Caught between the U.S. and China, Europe’s economic strategy is soon to face its biggest challenge since the eurozone crisis. Investors are right to be wary.

US: The Federal Reserve approved a quarter-point interest-rate cut Thursday, the latest step to prevent large rate increases of the prior 2½ years from weakening the labour market as inflation eases.

The decision, coming the same week as the election of Donald Trump to a second presidential term, followed an initial cut of a half-point in September and will bring the benchmark federal-funds rate to a range between 4.5% and 4.75%. All 12 Fed voters backed the cut.

Officials have said those moves are warranted because they are more confident that inflation will return to the central bank’s target and because they believe rates are still high enough, even with the latest cuts, to dampen economic activity.

The move was expected. Stocks and Treasury yields were steady after the announcement.

“We are committed to maintaining our economy’s strength,” Fed Chair Jerome Powell said at a news conference. He said officials are confident that with an “appropriate recalibration of our policy stance,” inflation can continue heading lower with a solid economy.

Trump’s election victory this week has the potential to reshape the economic outlook, with presumed GOP majorities on both sides of Capitol Hill enabling a broad shift on taxes, spending, immigration and trade. Economists are divided over whether the mix of policies will boost or weaken growth and drive up prices.

The shift in the outlook, in turn, has fuelled questions on Wall Street over whether the Fed will alter its earlier expectation that rates could be steadily dialled lower over the coming year or two.

Powell said it was too soon to say how the next administration’s policies would reshape the economic outlook.

“We don’t guess, we don’t speculate, we don’t assume” what policies will get put into place, Powell said. “In the near term, the election will have no effects on our policy decisions.”

Powell also said he had no intention of leaving the Fed before his four-year term as chair expires in May 2026. “Not permitted under the law,” Powell said when asked if he believed the president could remove him or other Fed personnel from their positions before their term expires.

Since the Fed cut rates in September, longer-dated bond yields have climbed notably, meaning the cost to borrow for a mortgage or car loan has gone up. Yields have increased in large part because better economic data has led investors to reduce their worries about a recession, which could have triggered larger rate cuts.

But some analysts think the bond-market selloff may also reflect concerns by some investors about higher deficits or inflation in a second Trump administration.

Either way, the market has generated an unusual result: Borrowing costs rose after the Fed cut rates. The average 30-year mortgage rate has jumped since mid-September, to 6.8% this week from 6.1%, according to Freddie Mac.

Over a similar time frame, investors in interest-rate futures markets have steadily reduced their expectations over how much the Fed will cut rates over the next year or so. They now see the Fed cutting rates to around 3.6% by 2026, up from an estimated trough of 2.8% in September, according to Citi.

Officials are trying to bring rates back to a more “normal” or “neutral” setting that neither spurs nor slows growth. But they don’t know what constitutes a normal rate. Policies that boost economic activity or prices could also lead officials to conclude that they should maintain a moderately restrictive rate stance. That means they would hold rates somewhat higher than a normal or neutral level.

Before the 2008-09 financial crisis, many thought a neutral rate might be around 4%, but after the crisis and an extremely sluggish recovery, economists and Fed officials concluded the neutral rate might be closer to 2%.

Interest-rate projections that officials submitted in September show most of them expected that if the economy expanded solidly with inflation continuing to cool , they could cut rates to around 3.5% next year.

Inflation based on the Fed’s preferred index was 2.1% in September, from a year earlier. A separate measure of so-called core inflation that strips out volatile food and energy prices was 2.7%. The Fed targets 2% inflation over time.

Because officials don’t have much conviction over where the neutral rate sits, they are likely to be guided by how the economy performs in the months ahead. If inflation keeps slowing and the demand for workers looks soft, officials could conclude it makes sense to continue cutting rates along the path they envisioned in September.

“We’re going to move carefully as this goes on so we can increase the chances that we get it right,” Powell said. “We’re trying to steer between the risk of moving too quicky…or moving too slowly. We’re trying to be on a middle path.”

If inflation progress stalls or ebullient financial markets raise concerns that inflation might get stuck above their target, officials might face more reservations around continuing to cut rates at a steady, meeting-after-meeting clip.

The most immediate focus is whether the Fed will cut again at its upcoming meeting in December. In September, 19 participants were about evenly divided over whether to cut rates one or two more times this year. Nine of them penciled in no more than one cut in either November or December, while 10 penciled in two cuts.

“There’s a lot to learn between now and the December meeting,” said Diane Swonk, chief U.S. economist at KPMG. “They can’t leave the door wide open, but they can’t close the door either.”

Powell said Thursday it was too soon to rule anything “out or in” at that meeting. Slowing down the pace of rate cuts is “something we’re just beginning to think about,” he said. “We’re on a path to a more neutral stance. That has not changed at all since September. We’re just going to have to see where the data lead us.”

Even before the election result, recent data suggested that cutting again would be a finely balanced decision because inflation looks like it might end the year slightly above officials’ projection, while the unemployment rate has edged lower recently, said Matthew Luzzetti, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank.

The election result— which sent stock markets to new highs while raising the prospect of stronger growth, higher inflation and better labour-market outcomes—boosted the odds that the Fed forgoes a cut next month, he said.

“Those could present a strong case from a risk-management perspective to potentially skip that meeting,” said Luzzetti.