Tweet
Federal Reserve officials, concerned that selling bonds from their $4.3 trillion portfolio could crush the U.S. recovery, are preparing to keep their balance sheet close to record levels for years.
Central bankers are stepping back from a three-year-old strategy for an exit from the unprecedented easing they deployed to battle the worst recession since the Great Depression. Minutes of their last meeting in April made no mention of asset sales.
Officials worry that such sales would spark an abrupt increase in long-term interest rates, making it more expensive for consumers to buy goods on credit and companies to invest, according to James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
That “is a widespread view in parts of the Fed, I think, and in financial markets,” Bullard said in an interview last week. While he disagrees with that perspective, it “won the day.”
The Fed is testing new tools that would allow it to keep a large balance sheet even after it raises short-term interest rates, a step policy makers anticipate taking next year. They would use these tools to drain excess reserves temporarily from the banking system.
“It is pretty clear they are anticipating operating in a situation with a lot of reserves and a high balance sheet for a long time,” said former Fed governor Laurence Meyer, a co-founder of Macroeconomic Advisers LLC, a St. Louis-based forecasting firm.
cont.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/...s-to-come.html
By Craig Torres and Matthew Boesler - Jun 11, 2014
****
Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee
April 29-30, 2014
A staff presentation outlined several approaches to raising short-term interest rates when it becomes appropriate to do so, and to controlling the level of short-term interest rates once they are above the effective lower bound, during a period when the Federal Reserve will have a very large balance sheet. The approaches differed in terms of the combination of policy tools that might be used to accomplish those objectives. In addition to the rate of interest paid on excess reserve balances, the tools considered included fixed-rate overnight reverse repurchase (ON RRP) operations, term reverse repurchase agreements, and the Term Deposit Facility (TDF). The staff presentation discussed the potential implications of each approach for financial intermediation and financial markets, including the federal funds market, and the possible implications for financial stability. In addition, the staff outlined options for additional operational testing of the policy tools...
Following the staff presentation, meeting participants discussed a wide range of topics related to policy normalization. Participants generally agreed that starting to consider the options for normalization at this meeting was prudent, as it would help the Committee to make decisions about approaches to policy normalization and to communicate its plans to the public well before the first steps in normalizing policy become appropriate. Early communication, in turn, would enhance the clarity and credibility of monetary policy and help promote the achievement of the Committee's statutory objectives. It was emphasized that the tools available to the Committee will allow it to reduce policy accommodation when doing so becomes appropriate. Participants considered how various combinations of tools could have different implications for the degree of control over short-term interest rates, for the Federal Reserve's balance sheet and remittances to the Treasury, for the functioning of the federal funds market, and for financial stability in both normal times and in periods of stress. Because the Federal Reserve has not previously tightened the stance of policy while holding a large balance sheet, most participants judged that the Committee should consider a range of options and be prepared to adjust the mix of its policy tools as warranted. Participants generally favored the further testing of various tools, including the TDF, to better assess their operational readiness and effectiveness. No decisions regarding policy normalization were taken; participants requested additional analysis from the staff and agreed that it would be helpful to continue to review these issues at upcoming meetings. The Board meeting concluded at the end of the discussion.
Central bankers are stepping back from a three-year-old strategy for an exit from the unprecedented easing they deployed to battle the worst recession since the Great Depression. Minutes of their last meeting in April made no mention of asset sales.
Officials worry that such sales would spark an abrupt increase in long-term interest rates, making it more expensive for consumers to buy goods on credit and companies to invest, according to James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
That “is a widespread view in parts of the Fed, I think, and in financial markets,” Bullard said in an interview last week. While he disagrees with that perspective, it “won the day.”
The Fed is testing new tools that would allow it to keep a large balance sheet even after it raises short-term interest rates, a step policy makers anticipate taking next year. They would use these tools to drain excess reserves temporarily from the banking system.
“It is pretty clear they are anticipating operating in a situation with a lot of reserves and a high balance sheet for a long time,” said former Fed governor Laurence Meyer, a co-founder of Macroeconomic Advisers LLC, a St. Louis-based forecasting firm.
cont.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/...s-to-come.html
By Craig Torres and Matthew Boesler - Jun 11, 2014
****
Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee
April 29-30, 2014
A staff presentation outlined several approaches to raising short-term interest rates when it becomes appropriate to do so, and to controlling the level of short-term interest rates once they are above the effective lower bound, during a period when the Federal Reserve will have a very large balance sheet. The approaches differed in terms of the combination of policy tools that might be used to accomplish those objectives. In addition to the rate of interest paid on excess reserve balances, the tools considered included fixed-rate overnight reverse repurchase (ON RRP) operations, term reverse repurchase agreements, and the Term Deposit Facility (TDF). The staff presentation discussed the potential implications of each approach for financial intermediation and financial markets, including the federal funds market, and the possible implications for financial stability. In addition, the staff outlined options for additional operational testing of the policy tools...
Following the staff presentation, meeting participants discussed a wide range of topics related to policy normalization. Participants generally agreed that starting to consider the options for normalization at this meeting was prudent, as it would help the Committee to make decisions about approaches to policy normalization and to communicate its plans to the public well before the first steps in normalizing policy become appropriate. Early communication, in turn, would enhance the clarity and credibility of monetary policy and help promote the achievement of the Committee's statutory objectives. It was emphasized that the tools available to the Committee will allow it to reduce policy accommodation when doing so becomes appropriate. Participants considered how various combinations of tools could have different implications for the degree of control over short-term interest rates, for the Federal Reserve's balance sheet and remittances to the Treasury, for the functioning of the federal funds market, and for financial stability in both normal times and in periods of stress. Because the Federal Reserve has not previously tightened the stance of policy while holding a large balance sheet, most participants judged that the Committee should consider a range of options and be prepared to adjust the mix of its policy tools as warranted. Participants generally favored the further testing of various tools, including the TDF, to better assess their operational readiness and effectiveness. No decisions regarding policy normalization were taken; participants requested additional analysis from the staff and agreed that it would be helpful to continue to review these issues at upcoming meetings. The Board meeting concluded at the end of the discussion.
Comment