Are "INTEREST RATES" fact or dimension attributes?

I am designing a financial data warehouse where there are various types of interest rates which need to be modeled in the DW.
Some examples include: interest rate, average interest rate, Original interest rate, interest rate adjustment, etc.
What is the best and recommended approach in modeling such attributes? Model them as Facts in the fact table or as dimension in the Account dimension?

The answer would be yes to both... it all depends on what process you are modelling.

The safe thing would be to put them in the fact table. This way, depending on who asks you can say it is a measure or a degenerate dimension.

Yes, That is what I did. Just needed a second opinion. I modeled them in the fact table as well.
One reason that made me doubt my approach was that there are those who believe that only rapidly changing facts go into a fact table.
thank you for your views.

I put interest rates in fact tables as well. What I do put in dimensions are interest rate bands.

Is Interest Rate an additive measure? If not, then is it a good idea to add it as-is?

sgrover3 wrote:Is Interest Rate an additive measure? If not, then is it a good idea to add it as-is?

Yes, which is why I made the comment that you can call it a degenerate dimension if someone had a problem with calling it a measure.

The key question is: Would an Interest Rate dimension table make senese? Frankly, I cannot think of a situation where it would. The characteristics behind why an interest rate is what it is can be handled by other dimensions, such as Rate Basis, Contract or whatever. The rate itself stands on its own.

Is it a measure? Is it a dimension? That depends on your query and your point of view. The beauty of putting it in the fact table is it can be both.