Editor's Picks | Economy | Jobs | Real Estate | Stocks | Politics | More below...
Wall Street, Greek

Wall Street Greek houses the insights of Markos N. Kaminis, a leading Wall Street analyst and accredited financial columnist. The blog is an expert authored, syndicated business news resource, reaching reputable publishers and private networks. Our columnists offer value-added color to economic matters, stock and financial market news, and other interests of our affluent readership.


Wall Street Greek

Find a series of 50 interesting videos here updated regularly. Videos cover Wall Street, politics, world news...

Wednesday, April 04, 2012

Buy Gold on the Fed Fiddling

gold dollarStocks are down and gold is lower on the latest Federal Reserve FOMC Meeting Minutes. The skinny is that the Fed sounded less dovish, and might be less accommodative in the future. It’s counter intuitive, because the Fed would only be less giving if the economy were solidifying. Nevertheless, stocks are lower because there could be less support from the Fed, and the market is not sure the notoriously faulty forecasters are on target. Gold is dropping, because of two reasons. If the Fed is less free with dollars, then the currency should strengthen; and if the economy is improving, than riskier assets should do better. Here’s why I suggest ignoring the Fed fiddling, and buying gold on the dip.

gold analyst precious metals bloggerOur founder earned clients a 23% average annual return over five years as a stock analyst on Wall Street. "The Greek" has written for institutional newsletters, Businessweek, Real Money, Seeking Alpha and others, while also appearing across TV and radio. While writing for Wall Street Greek, Mr. Kaminis presciently warned of the financial crisis.

Relative tickers include: NYSE: GG, NYSE: AEM, AMEX: ANV, NYSE: AU, NYSE: AUQ, AMEX: AZK, NYSE: ABX, AMEX: BRD, Nasdaq: CTHR, AMEX: CGR, OTC: CGCO.PK, NYSE: BVN, Nasdaq: DROOY, NYSE: EGO, AMEX: EGI, AMEX: XRA, NYSE: GFI, AMEX: GRZ, Nasdaq: GORO, OTC: MYNG.PK, AMEX: GSS, AMEX: GBG, NYSE: HMY, NYSE: IAG, AMEX: THM, NYSE: JAG, AMEX: KGN, AMEX: KBX, Nasdaq: KGJI, NYSE: KGC, AMEX: MDW, AMEX: MGH, AMEX: NSU, OTC: NJMC.PK, NYSE: NEM, OTC: NBRI.OB, AMEX: NXG, AMEX: NG, AMEX: RIC, Nasdaq: RGLD, AMEX: RBY, AMEX: SA, AMEX: XPL, AMEX: TRE, OTC: THMG.OB, NYSE: UXG, AMEX: VGZ, OTC: WITM.PK, NYSE: AUY, NYSE: CDE, NYSE: EXK, NYSE: HL, AMEX: MVG, AMEX: MGN, Nasdaq: SSRI, NYSE: SLW, NYSEArca: GLD, NYSEArca: GDX, NYSEArca: SLV, NYSEArca: AGQ, NYSEArca: ZSL, AMEX: GPL, NYSE: SVM, AMEX: PZG, Nasdaq: PAAS, NYSE: AG.

Buy Gold



The Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) published its meeting minutes for its March 13 meeting Tuesday afternoon. You can go ahead and read it, but all you need to know is that stocks are lower because of it. The focus of this article, though, is on gold not stocks.

As suggested in the introduction here, if the Federal Reserve parks its dollar-copter, the next step would be to look toward containing inflation. For this reason, the dollar is soaring +0.7% against the euro Wednesday through late afternoon trading hours Eastern Time. The PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Bullish ETF (NYSE: UUP) is up 0.5% deep into the afternoon. Much of the foolhardy popular press is blaming the dollar move on a soft Spanish bond offering… silly short-hands…

For the same reason outlined, gold is on the deep decline. Gold futures are off roughly 3.3%; the SPDR Gold Shares ETF (NYSE: GLD) is off 1.9%; and gold miners Goldcorp (NYSE: GG), Newmont Mining (NYSE: NEM) and Barrick Gold (NYSE: ABX) are off between 5% and 6%. Gold should be on the rise if the global community is once again terrified about a European disintegration via Spanish debt softness and soft data. That would be the give-away for reporters with a clue… Luckily you still have The Greek to fill in the void.

Here’s Why I Would Use this as an Opportunity to Buy Gold:

  1. The geopolitical powder keg remains tightly snug between U.S. warships and the Iranian coastline. Nothing has changed with regard to the Iranian nightmare. Iran has not budged in a significant way, and the West’s sanctions are increasingly suffocating it.

  2. Recession seems to be overcoming Europe, where 20% of American exports are sold into. Wednesday, a Purchasing Managers Index for Europe was reported below 50, indicating the region is likely in recession. Also, regional retail sales fell 0.1% in volume and 2.1% year-to-year. The regional economy shrank 0.3% in Q4 2011, and seems set to mark another quarter of contraction, which would qualify it for recession. Compounding on this, unemployment for the euro zone reached a record high in February.

  3. The European financial crisis has not yet subsided. Wednesday, soft demand for Spanish debt sent the markets into a spin. In a recent interview, Standard & Poor’s Sovereign Ratings Head, Moritz Kraemer said he believes Greece will probably have to restructure its debt again, involving needed aid from its European partners. Obviously, European heads are on record saying the latest bailout would be the last for Greece; now they may be put to the test at a time when their word will be measured. Moritz noted the risk posed by upcoming elections across Europe and Greece.

  4. The American economy has been showing signs of strain, with recent manufacturing data, housing reports and consumer information indicating softness.
Thus, all the reasons gold has climbed over the last few years continue to exist, if they are not intensified. So while foolhardy capital may flow out of gold and gold relative investments Wednesday on a few words from the Fed, I suggest investors look to the weakness as an opportunity to add to positions.

Article should interest investors in precious metals stocks: Goldcorp (NYSE: GG), Agnico-Eagle Mines (NYSE: AEM), Allied Nevada Gold (AMEX: ANV), AngloGold Ashanti (NYSE: AU), AuRico Gold (NYSE: AUQ), Aurizon Mines (AMEX: AZK), Barrick Gold (NYSE: ABX), Brigus Gold (AMEX: BRD), Charles & Covard (Nasdaq: CTHR), Claude Resources (AMEX: CGR), Commerce Group (OTC: CGCO.PK), Compania Mina Buenaventura S.A. (NYSE: BVN), DRDGOLD (Nasdaq: DROOY), Eldorado Gold (NYSE: EGO), Entrée Gold (AMEX: EGI), Exeter Resource (AMEX: XRA), Gold Fields (NYSE: GFI), Gold Reserve (AMEX: GRZ), Gold Resource (Nasdaq: GORO), Golden Eagle Int’l (OTC: MYNG.PK), Golden Star Resources (AMEX: GSS), Great Basin Gold (AMEX: GBG), Harmony Gold (NYSE: HMY), IAMGOLD (NYSE: IAG), International Tower Hill Mines (AMEX: THM), Jaguar Mining (NYSE: JAG), Keegan Resources (AMEX: KGN), Kimber Resources (AMEX: KBX), Kingold Jewelry (Nasdaq: KGJI), Kinross Gold (NYSE: KGC), Midway Gold (AMEX: MDW), Minco Gold (AMEX: MGH), Nevsun Resources (AMEX: NSU), New Jersey Mining (OTC: NJMC.PK), Newmont Mining (NYSE: NEM), North Bay Resources (OTC: NBRI.OB), Northgate Minerals (AMEX: NXG), NovaGold Resources (AMEX: NG), Richmont Mines (AMEX: RIC), Royal Gold (Nasdaq: RGLD), Rubicon Minerals (AMEX: RBY), Seabridge Gold (AMEX: SA), Solitario Exploration and Royalty (AMEX: XPL), Tanzanian Royalty Exploration (AMEX: TRE), Thunder Mountain Gold (OTC: THMG.OB), U.S. Gold (NYSE: UXG), Vista Gold (AMEX: VGZ), Wits Basin Precious Metals (OTC: WITM.PK), Yamana Gold (NYSE: AUY), Coeur d’Alene Mines (NYSE: CDE), Endeavour Silver (NYSE: EXK), Hecla Mining (NYSE: HL), Mag Silver (AMEX: MVG), Mines Management (AMEX: MGN), Silver Standard Resources (Nasdaq: SSRI), Silver Wheaton (NYSE: SLW), SPDR Gold Trust (NYSEArca: GLD), Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF (NYSEArca: GDX), iShares Silver Trust (NYSEArca: SLV), ProShares Ultra Silver (NYSEArca: AGQ), ProShares Ultra Short Silver (NYSEArca: ZSL), Great Panther Silver (AMEX: GPL), Silvercorp Metals (NYSE: SVM), Paramount Gold and Silver (AMEX: PZG), Pan American Silver (Nasdaq: PAAS) and First Majestic Silver (NYSE: AG).

Please see our disclosures at the Wall Street Greek website and author bio pages found there. This article and website in no way offers or represents financial or investment advice. Information is provided for entertainment purposes only.

New York

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

free email financial newsletter Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Federal Reserve Stays Dovish as Europe Threatens

Federal Reserve buildingWhat follows is the verbatim copy of the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) Monetary Policy Statement.

Release Date: January 25, 2012

For immediate release

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in December suggests that the economy has been expanding moderately, notwithstanding some slowing in global growth. While indicators point to some further improvement in overall labor market conditions, the unemployment rate remains elevated. Household spending has continued to advance, but growth in business fixed investment has slowed, and the housing sector remains depressed. Inflation has been subdued in recent months, and longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee expects economic growth over coming quarters to be modest and consequently anticipates that the unemployment rate will decline only gradually toward levels that the Committee judges to be consistent with its dual mandate. Strains in global financial markets continue to pose significant downside risks to the economic outlook. The Committee also anticipates that over coming quarters, inflation will run at levels at or below those consistent with the Committee's dual mandate.

To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with the dual mandate, the Committee expects to maintain a highly accommodative stance for monetary policy. In particular, the Committee decided today to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that economic conditions--including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run--are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through late 2014.

The Committee also decided to continue its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities as announced in September. The Committee is maintaining its existing policies of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. The Committee will regularly review the size and composition of its securities holdings and is prepared to adjust those holdings as appropriate to promote a stronger economic recovery in a context of price stability.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Elizabeth A. Duke; Dennis P. Lockhart; Sandra Pianalto; Sarah Bloom Raskin; Daniel K. Tarullo; John C. Williams; and Janet L. Yellen. Voting against the action was Jeffrey M. Lacker, who preferred to omit the description of the time period over which economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate.

Editor's Note: Article should interest investors in Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), Freddie Mac (OTC: FMCC.OB), Fannie Mae (OTC: FNMA.OB), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), Toronto Dominion (NYSE: TD), BB&T (NYSE: BBT), CIT (NYSE: CIT), Bank United (NYSE: BKU), First Citizens (OTC: FCNCA.PK), Synovus (NYSE: SNV), United Bankshares (Nasdaq: UBSI), Hampton Roads Bankshares (Nasdaq: HMPR), WesBanco (Nasdaq: WSBC), City Holding (Nasdaq: CHCO), Sandy Spring (Nasdaq: SASR), First Citizens (OTC: FCBN.OB), SCBT Financial (Nasdaq: SCBT), Wilmington Trust (NYSE: WL), WSFS Financial (Nasdaq: WSFS), Southside Bancshares (Nasdaq: SBSI), Stellar One (Nasdaq: STEL), Union First Market (Nasdaq: UBSH), Eagle Bancorp (Nasdaq: EGBN), First Bancorp (Nasdaq: FBNC), Ameris (Nasdaq: ABCB), The Bancorp (Nasdaq: TBBK), First Community (Nasdaq: FCBC), Capital City (Nasdaq: CCBG), Financial Institutions (Nasdaq: FISI), National Bankshares (Nasdaq: NKSH), Citizens & Northern (Nasdaq: CZNC), Charter Financial (Nasdaq: CHFN), Seacoast Banking (Nasdaq: SBCF), TIB Financial (Nasdaq: TIBB), American National (Nasdaq: AMNB), United Community (Nasdaq: UCBI), Middleburg Financial (Nasdaq: MBRG), Heritage Financial (Nasdaq: HBOS), Zions Bancorp (Nasdaq: ZION), East West Bancorp (Nasdaq: EWBC), City National (NYSE: CYN), Bank of Hawaii (NYSE: BOH), SVB Financial (Nasdaq: SIVB), Westamerica (Nasdaq: WABC), Cathay General (Nasdaq: CATY), Umpqua (Nasdaq: UMPQ), Glacier Bancorp (Nasdaq: GBCI), Pacific Capital (Nasdaq: PCBC), PacWest (Nasdaq: PACW), Western Alliance (NYSE: WAL), First National Alaska (OTC: FBAK.OB), First Interstate Bancsystem (Nasdaq: FIBK), Nara (Nasdaq: NARA), West Coast (Nasdaq: WCBO), TriCo (Nasdaq: TCBK), Territorial (Nasdaq: TBNK), Washington Banking (Nasdaq: WCBO), Bank of Marin (Nasdaq: BMRC), Hanmi (Nasdaq: HAFC), PNC Bank (NYSE: PNC), J.P. Morgan Chase (NYSE: JPM), United Bankshares (Nasdaq: UBSI), Bank of New York Mellon (NYSE: BK), MB Financial (Nasdaq: MBFI), Astoria Financial (NYSE: AF), New York Community (NYSE: NYB), Hudson City (Nasdaq: HCBK), People’s United (Nasdaq: PBCT), First Niagra (Nasdaq: FNFG), Capitol Federal (Nasdaq: CFFN), Washington Federal (Nasdaq: WFSL), Investor’s Bancorp (Nasdaq: ISBC), Northwest Bankshares (Nasdaq: NWBI), Sterling Financial (Nasdaq: STSA), Ocwen (NYSE: OCN), Flagstar (NYSE: FBC), Provident (NYSE: PFS), Colombia Banking (Nasdaq: COLB), Kearny (Nasdaq: KRNY), Brookline (Nasdaq: BRKL), Dime Community (Nasdaq: DCOM), Flushing Financial (Nasdaq: FFIC), Danvers (Nasdaq: DNBK).

Please see our disclosures at the Wall Street Greek website and author bio pages found there. This article and website in no way offers or represents financial or investment advice. Information is provided for entertainment purposes only.

dog daycare

Labels: ,

free email financial newsletter Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

BREAKING: Fed's FOMC Monetary Policy Statement

bernankeWhat follows is a verbatim copy of the Fed's FOMC Monetary Policy Statement, the last of 2011.

Fed's Monetary Policy



Release Date: December 13, 2011

For immediate release
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in November suggests that the economy has been expanding moderately, notwithstanding some apparent slowing in global growth. While indicators point to some improvement in overall labor market conditions, the unemployment rate remains elevated. Household spending has continued to advance, but business fixed investment appears to be increasing less rapidly and the housing sector remains depressed. Inflation has moderated since earlier in the year, and longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee continues to expect a moderate pace of economic growth over coming quarters and consequently anticipates that the unemployment rate will decline only gradually toward levels that the Committee judges to be consistent with its dual mandate. Strains in global financial markets continue to pose significant downside risks to the economic outlook. The Committee also anticipates that inflation will settle, over coming quarters, at levels at or below those consistent with the Committee’s dual mandate. However, the Committee will continue to pay close attention to the evolution of inflation and inflation expectations.

To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with the dual mandate, the Committee decided today to continue its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities as announced in September. The Committee is maintaining its existing policies of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. The Committee will regularly review the size and composition of its securities holdings and is prepared to adjust those holdings as appropriate.

The Committee also decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that economic conditions--including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run--are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through mid-2013.

The Committee will continue to assess the economic outlook in light of incoming information and is prepared to employ its tools to promote a stronger economic recovery in a context of price stability.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Elizabeth A. Duke; Richard W. Fisher; Narayana Kocherlakota; Charles I. Plosser; Sarah Bloom Raskin; Daniel K. Tarullo; and Janet L. Yellen. Voting against the action was Charles L. Evans, who supported additional policy accommodation at this time.

Editor's Note: Article should interest investors in Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), Freddie Mac (OTC: FMCC.OB), Fannie Mae (OTC: FNMA.OB), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), Toronto Dominion (NYSE: TD), BB&T (NYSE: BBT), CIT (NYSE: CIT), Bank United (NYSE: BKU), First Citizens (OTC: FCNCA.PK), Synovus (NYSE: SNV), United Bankshares (Nasdaq: UBSI), Hampton Roads Bankshares (Nasdaq: HMPR), WesBanco (Nasdaq: WSBC), City Holding (Nasdaq: CHCO), Sandy Spring (Nasdaq: SASR), First Citizens (OTC: FCBN.OB), SCBT Financial (Nasdaq: SCBT), Wilmington Trust (NYSE: WL), WSFS Financial (Nasdaq: WSFS), Southside Bancshares (Nasdaq: SBSI), Stellar One (Nasdaq: STEL), Union First Market (Nasdaq: UBSH), Eagle Bancorp (Nasdaq: EGBN), First Bancorp (Nasdaq: FBNC), Ameris (Nasdaq: ABCB), The Bancorp (Nasdaq: TBBK), First Community (Nasdaq: FCBC), Capital City (Nasdaq: CCBG), Financial Institutions (Nasdaq: FISI), National Bankshares (Nasdaq: NKSH), Citizens & Northern (Nasdaq: CZNC), Charter Financial (Nasdaq: CHFN), Seacoast Banking (Nasdaq: SBCF), TIB Financial (Nasdaq: TIBB), American National (Nasdaq: AMNB), United Community (Nasdaq: UCBI), Middleburg Financial (Nasdaq: MBRG), Heritage Financial (Nasdaq: HBOS), Zions Bancorp (Nasdaq: ZION), East West Bancorp (Nasdaq: EWBC), City National (NYSE: CYN), Bank of Hawaii (NYSE: BOH), SVB Financial (Nasdaq: SIVB), Westamerica (Nasdaq: WABC), Cathay General (Nasdaq: CATY), Umpqua (Nasdaq: UMPQ), Glacier Bancorp (Nasdaq: GBCI), Pacific Capital (Nasdaq: PCBC), PacWest (Nasdaq: PACW), Western Alliance (NYSE: WAL), First National Alaska (OTC: FBAK.OB), First Interstate Bancsystem (Nasdaq: FIBK), Nara (Nasdaq: NARA), West Coast (Nasdaq: WCBO), TriCo (Nasdaq: TCBK), Territorial (Nasdaq: TBNK), Washington Banking (Nasdaq: WCBO), Bank of Marin (Nasdaq: BMRC), Hanmi (Nasdaq: HAFC), PNC Bank (NYSE: PNC), J.P. Morgan Chase (NYSE: JPM), United Bankshares (Nasdaq: UBSI), Bank of New York Mellon (NYSE: BK), MB Financial (Nasdaq: MBFI), Astoria Financial (NYSE: AF), New York Community (NYSE: NYB), Hudson City (Nasdaq: HCBK), People’s United (Nasdaq: PBCT), First Niagra (Nasdaq: FNFG), Capitol Federal (Nasdaq: CFFN), Washington Federal (Nasdaq: WFSL), Investor’s Bancorp (Nasdaq: ISBC), Northwest Bankshares (Nasdaq: NWBI), Sterling Financial (Nasdaq: STSA), Ocwen (NYSE: OCN), Flagstar (NYSE: FBC), Provident (NYSE: PFS), Colombia Banking (Nasdaq: COLB), Kearny (Nasdaq: KRNY), Brookline (Nasdaq: BRKL), Dime Community (Nasdaq: DCOM), Flushing Financial (Nasdaq: FFIC), Danvers (Nasdaq: DNBK).

Please see our disclosures at the Wall Street Greek website and author bio pages found there. This article and website in no way offers or represents financial or investment advice. Information is provided for entertainment purposes only.

investing news

Labels: ,

free email financial newsletter Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Bernanke on Small Business 11-09-11

Bernanke speechWhat follows is a verbatim copy of the speech given today by Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke on the importance of small business to job creation.

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
Welcoming Remarks

At the Conference on Small Business and Entrepreneurship during an Economic Recovery, Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C.

November 9, 2011


Relative Tickers: NYSE: RHI, NYSE: KFY, NYSE: MAN, NYSE: MWW, Nasdaq: KELYA, Nasdaq: JOBS, NYSE: JOB, Nasdaq: CECO, Nasdaq: PAYX, NYSE: ASF, Nasdaq: KFRC, NYSE: TBI, NYSE: DHX, NYSE: SFN, NYSE: CDI, Nasdaq: CCRN, Nasdaq: ASGN, NYSE: AHS, Nasdaq: BBSI, Nasdaq: HHGP, NYSE: SRT, Nasdaq: RCMT, Nasdaq: VSCP, OTC: ASRG.OB, OTC: MCTH.OB, OTC: IGEN.OB, OTC: STJO.OB, OTC: TNUS.OB, Nasdaq: TSTF, OTC: STTH.PK, OTC: PSRU.OB, OTC: CRRS.OB.

Bernanke Speech on Small Business



Good morning. Welcome to the Federal Reserve Board and today's conference, "Small Business and Entrepreneurship during an Economic Recovery." Let me begin by thanking the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, both of which have cooperated closely with the Board of Governors in organizing this event. This meeting is indeed an eclectic one, bringing together small business owners, lenders, technical assistance providers, government officials, and members of the academic community to explore the challenges faced by today's entrepreneurs and to identify promising approaches to addressing their needs. Events such as this one are particularly valuable because they allow us to draw on a broad range of experiences and evidence. We are keenly interested in hearing your insights and look forward to sharing results from the Federal Reserve's continued small business outreach and research efforts.

Some of you may have attended a forum here last year that focused on credit access for small businesses.1 We hope to advance that discussion today by exploring not only the financing needs of creditworthy small businesses, but also the role these firms could play in creating jobs during these difficult economic times. We will also discuss the unique challenges faced by women- and minority-owned firms. We hope to be as concrete and practical as possible; for example, several conference papers assess the extent to which training, technical assistance, and other resources are available to support these and other small firms. The ultimate goal of this meeting is to learn more about how best to support both small businesses and their communities--to understand what works and what doesn't.

Importance of Small Businesses to the Economy
It's no secret that the past few years have been very difficult for many small firms. They have faced weak sales, diminished asset values, elevated uncertainty, and tight credit market conditions. Many small business owners have had to lay off employees or defer hiring. And many potential entrepreneurs with plans to start new businesses have put those plans on hold.

The role of small businesses and entrepreneurship in job creation will be discussed in our first panel today. As many of you are aware, small businesses have played an important role in fueling past economic recoveries. We need to think carefully about how, in the current economic environment, our nation can best provide small businesses and entrepreneurs with the support they need to expand job opportunities.

Small businesses also help our country compete globally; they often offer a level of agility in bringing innovative products to the global marketplace that larger firms cannot match. At home, many entrepreneurs do more than provide important goods and services--they and their businesses help sustain the vitality of the neighborhoods in which they live and work. Frequently, small business owners demonstrate their commitment to their communities by serving in leadership positions in local schools, volunteering for local nonprofit organizations, and engaging in civic affairs.

For many people, starting a small business is an opportunity to follow one's particular dream. We should recognize that it can also be an important option for people confronting economic challenges in their lives, such as insufficient retirement savings. A study conducted by the Kauffman Foundation suggests that both baby boomers and older generations are increasingly turning to entrepreneurial activities.2 Tomorrow's discussion will pay special attention to how these and other new entrepreneurs are adjusting to the changing landscape of financial services.

Federal Reserve Efforts to Support Small Businesses
The Federal Reserve System is committed to supporting small business and entrepreneurship. We do that, for example, through research that adds to our stock of knowledge about the catalysts for and barriers to entrepreneurship, and through outreach programs to help small business owners and other community stakeholders gain access to a range of financing and technical assistance.

For instance, in a recent forum sponsored by the Federal Reserve System and held in Jacksonville, Florida, both small business owners and their lenders stressed that it takes more than an enterprising spirit to succeed; entrepreneurs also must seek appropriate training and resources. Forum participants emphasized the need to support organizations that offer valuable technical assistance and training programs, including state and regional economic development offices, small business development centers, community colleges, technical schools, and rural cooperative extension offices. Similar forums in Chicago, Atlanta, and Denver--conducted by the Federal Reserve in cooperation with the Opportunity Finance Network, a national trade association for community development financial institutions (CDFIs)--highlighted examples of banks working closely with community development loan funds and other CDFIs to streamline client referral processes to match small businesses with appropriate lenders. Our regional meetings also focused on providing capital and support services to minority-owned small businesses. Through research and analytical efforts, we are working to deepen our understanding of credit market conditions facing small and new businesses, particularly the frictions that impede the flow of credit to creditworthy borrowers. In addition, some of our community development offices conduct regional surveys to obtain a better understanding of the characteristics and financing needs of small business owners in their areas. You will hear more about their findings during the second panel today.

The Federal Reserve also continues to encourage bank examiners to adopt a balanced approach to reviewing banks' lending to small businesses. We hold training sessions for examiners and extend outreach to lenders to promote awareness about both the credit environment and available lending guidance and resources. We would like to foster an environment in which lenders do all they can to meet the needs of creditworthy borrowers while maintaining appropriately prudent underwriting standards.

Closing Observations
The issues you will be discussing today and tomorrow are critical to everyone with an interest in the success of our nation's small firms and entrepreneurs, and, by extension, of our economy as a whole. Based on the wide variety of perspectives represented at today's conference, I feel sure you won't agree on the answers to all the many questions that will be raised. But the dialogue itself is of great value. We at the Federal Reserve have found that conferences such as this one help us to more effectively conduct our outreach and analytical work. We hope that each of you will find this experience worthwhile as well. Thank you in advance for sharing your insights about the challenges for small businesses, and I look forward to seeing the results of your work.

1. More information on "Addressing the Needs of Small Businesses," held July 12, 2010, is available on the Board's website at www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/conferences/asfbconf.htm. Return to text

2. See Dane Stangler (2009), The Coming Entrepreneurship Boom (Kansas City, Mo.: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation).


Article should interest investors in Paychex (Nasdaq: PAYX), Manpower (NYSE: MAN), Robert Half International (NYSE: RHI), 51Job Inc. (Nasdaq: JOBS), Monster World Wide (NYSE: MWW), Korn/Ferry International (NYSE: KFY), Administaff (NYSE: ASF), Kforce (Nasdaq: KFRC), TrueBlue (NYSE: TBI), Dice Holdings (NYSE: DHX), Kelly Services (Nasdaq: KELYA), CDI Corp. (NYSE: CDI), Cross Country Healthcare (Nasdaq: CCRN), On Assignment (Nasdaq: ASGN), AMN Healthcare Services (NYSE: AHS), Barrett Business Services (Nasdaq: BBSI), Hudson Highland Group (Nasdaq: HHGP), StarTek (NYSE: SRT), RCM Technologies (Nasdaq: RCMT), VirtualScopics (Nasdaq: VSCP), American Surgical (OTC: ASRG.OB), Medical Connections (OTC: MCTH.OB), iGen Networks (OTC: IGEN.OB), St. Joseph (OTC: STJO.OB), General Employment Enterprises (NYSE: JOB), Total Neutraceutical (OTC: TNUS.OB), TeamStaff (Nasdaq: TSTF), Stratum (OTC: STTH.PK), Purespectrum (OTC: PSRU.OB), Corporate Resource Services (OTC: CRRS.OB).

Please see our disclosures at the Wall Street Greek website and author bio pages found there. This article and website in no way offers or represents financial or investment advice. Information is provided for entertainment purposes only.

job seeker

Labels:

free email financial newsletter Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, November 02, 2011

The Fed Forecast Highlights its Failings

Fed forecastThe Federal Reserve concluded its Federal Open Market Committee meeting and issued monetary policy Wednesday as usual, but it also adjusted its economic forecasts downward. Last projected in June, before the summer slide, the Federal Reserve reduced its GDP projections for this year and the long-term, raised its unemployment expectations, and hiked its near-term inflation view. In other words, it was an all around bad chew.

economy columnistOur founder earned clients a 23% average annual return over five years as a stock analyst on Wall Street. "The Greek" has written for institutional newsletters, Businessweek, Real Money, Seeking Alpha and others, while also appearing across TV and radio. While writing for Wall Street Greek, Mr. Kaminis presciently warned of the financial crisis.

Relative Tickers: NYSE: BAC, NYSE: JPM, NYSE: GS, NYSE: C, NYSE: MS, NYSE: WFC, NYSE: TD, NYSE: PNC, NYSE: STT, NYSE: JNS, Nasdaq: TROW, NYSE: GE, NYSE: WMT, NYSE: MCD, NYSE: AA, NYSE: AXP, NYSE: BA, NYSE: CAT, Nasdaq: CSCO, NYSE: CVX, NYSE: DD, NYSE: DIS, NYSE: HD, NYSE: HPQ, NYSE: IBM, Nasdaq: INTC, NYSE: JNJ, NYSE: KFT, NYSE: KO, NYSE: MMM, NYSE: MRK, Nasdaq: MSFT, NYSE: PFE, NYSE: PG, NYSE: T, NYSE: TRV, NYSE: UTX, NYSE: VZ, NYSE: XOM.

The Fed Forecast Highlights its Failings



The market took it like a champ, with the Dow hanging in the green after the news, and even climbing higher. However, that was probably the result of an already well understood change in the economy since June. Besides, the market had anxiously anticipated the release while edging lower heading into it. Still, what the Fed had to say should have been more concerning to markets, in my view, especially since in our observance, it has generally failed to forecast adequately. This in turn worries me that the Fed’s documented nearsightedness will leave it a day late and a dollar short when the inflation monster inevitably roars in the future. There may be nothing the Fed can do about that, but this is for another article.

The Federal Reserve’s forecast for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) indicates a reduction in consensus expectations (among its forecasters) for growth projections. The GDP forecast for this year has been cut to a range of 1.6% to 1.7%, down from a hopeful 2.7% to 2.9% forecast in June. That’s more than a point lower, quite a difference for a five month interval between publishing. The Fed went ahead and cut its projections for 2012 and 2013 as well, which is yet another indicator of incompetent work. My reasoning for that derogatory judgment is that if the capacity is there, our mature economy should be able to reach absolute levels of productivity over a certain time span, and that should not be dependent upon what was accomplished the year before. We are not India or China, where new ground is broken each quarter.

What the projectors have done here is too simplistic, and that’s a disservice to the American people. They appear to have simply applied changes to prior numbers in their figure-licking. Instead, they might have contemplated the components of their forecasts more completely. This would surely have flown at the Mickey Mouse operation I was confined to for too long, but it should not apply to the most important of economic forecasts for our nation. It is guesswork, and I expect likely to miss reality yet again.

Despite exposing it for its uselessness, we’ll go ahead and fill you in with regard to the rest of the data. The Fed sees unemployment much stickier now than it did in June. Where it had projected unemployment to improve to between an 8.6% and 8.9% rate, it now sees 9.0% to 9.1% for 2011. In 2012, the Fed sees stubborn unemployment only improving to 8.5% to 8.7%, versus the 7.8% to 8.2% it thought it saw previously.

With regard to Core PCE Inflation, the Fed now expects 2011 to mark between a 1.8% to 1.9% rate this year, up from its June expectation for a tamer 1.5% to 1.8% price increase. The Fed’s forecast for between a 1.5% to 2.0% increase in 2012 and 1.4% to 1.9% rise in 2013, tells me it currently sees a mid-to-late year 2012 change in monetary policy; I believe that is where we can currently place expectations to see it begin hiking rates. I think what you can bet will play out, though, is a Fed losing control of the situation, but that issue is for another article.

Article should interest investors in Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), J.P. Morgan Chase (NYSE: JPM), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Citigroup (NYSE: C), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), TD Bank (NYSE: TD), PNC Bank (NYSE: PNC), State Street (NYSE: STT), Janus (NYSE: JNS), T. Rowe Price (Nasdaq: TROW), General Electric (NYSE: GE), Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT), McDonald's (NYSE: MCD), Alcoa (NYSE: AA), American Express (NYSE: AXP), Boeing (NYSE: BA), Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT), Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO), Chevron (NYSE: CVX), DuPont (NYSE: DD), Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS), Home Depot (NYSE: HD), Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ), IBM (NYSE: IBM), Intel (Nasdaq: INTC), Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ), Kraft (NYSE: KFT), Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO), 3M (NYSE: MMM), Merck (NYSE: MRK), Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT), Pfizer (NYSE: PFE), Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG), AT&T (NYSE: T), Travelers (NYSE: TRV), United Technologies (NYSE: UTX), Verizon (NYSE: VZ), Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM).

Please see our disclosures at the Wall Street Greek website and author bio pages found there. This article and website in no way offers or represents financial or investment advice. Information is provided for entertainment purposes only.

Phillies

Labels: , , ,

free email financial newsletter Bookmark and Share

Fed FOMC Monetary Policy Statement 11-02-11

Fed FOMC Monetary Policy Statement
What follows is a verbatim copy of the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) Monetary Policy Statement release for November 2, 2011.

Release Date: November 2, 2011

For immediate release

Relative tickers: NYSE: BAC, NYSE: GS, NYSE: MS, NYSE: WFC, NYSE: TD, OTC: FMCC.OB, OTC: FNMA.OB, NYSE: PNC, NYSE: JPM, NYSE: BBT, NYSE: CIT, NYSE: BKU, Nasdaq: UBSI, NYSE: BK, Nasdaq: MBFI, NYSE: AF, NYSE: NYB, Nasdaq: HCBK, Nasdaq: PBCT, Nasdaq: FNFG, Nasdaq: CFFN, Nasdaq: WFSL, Nasdaq: ISBC, Nasdaq: NWBI, Nasdaq: STSA, NYSE: OCN, NYSE: FBC, NYSE: PFS, Nasdaq: COLB, Nasdaq: KRNY, Nasdaq: BRKL, Nasdaq: DCOM, Nasdaq: FFIC, Nasdaq: DNBK, OTC: FCNCA.PK, NYSE: SNV, Nasdaq: UBSI, Nasdaq: HMPR, Nasdaq: WSBC, Nasdaq: CHCO, Nasdaq: SASR, OTC: FCBN.OB, Nasdaq: SCBT, NYSE: WL, Nasdaq: WSFS, Nasdaq: SBSI, Nasdaq: STEL, Nasdaq: UBSH, Nasdaq: EGBN, Nasdaq: FBNC, Nasdaq: ABCB, Nasdaq: TBBK, Nasdaq: FCBC, Nasdaq: CCBG, Nasdaq: FISI, Nasdaq: NKSH, Nasdaq: CZNC, Nasdaq: CHFN, Nasdaq: SBCF, Nasdaq: TIBB, Nasdaq: AMNB, Nasdaq: UCBI, Nasdaq: MBRG, Nasdaq: HBOS, Nasdaq: ZION, Nasdaq: EWBC, NYSE: CYN, NYSE: BOH, Nasdaq: SIVB, Nasdaq: WABC, Nasdaq: CATY, Nasdaq: UMPQ, Nasdaq: GBCI, Nasdaq: PCBC, Nasdaq: PACW, NYSE: WAL, OTC: FBAK.OB, Nasdaq: FIBK, Nasdaq: NARA, Nasdaq: WCBO, Nasdaq: TCBK, Nasdaq: TBNK, Nasdaq: WCBO, Nasdaq: BMRC, Nasdaq: HAFC, NYSE: DIA, NYSE: SPY, Nasdaq: QQQQ, NYSE: DOG, NYSE: SDS, NYSE: QLD, NYSE: NYX, NYSE: ICE, Nasdaq: NDAQ.

Fed FOMC Monetary Policy Statement



Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in September indicates that economic growth strengthened somewhat in the third quarter, reflecting in part a reversal of the temporary factors that had weighed on growth earlier in the year. Nonetheless, recent indicators point to continuing weakness in overall labor market conditions, and the unemployment rate remains elevated. Household spending has increased at a somewhat faster pace in recent months. Business investment in equipment and software has continued to expand, but investment in nonresidential structures is still weak, and the housing sector remains depressed. Inflation appears to have moderated since earlier in the year as prices of energy and some commodities have declined from their peaks. Longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee continues to expect a moderate pace of economic growth over coming quarters and consequently anticipates that the unemployment rate will decline only gradually toward levels that the Committee judges to be consistent with its dual mandate. Moreover, there are significant downside risks to the economic outlook, including strains in global financial markets. The Committee also anticipates that inflation will settle, over coming quarters, at levels at or below those consistent with the Committee's dual mandate as the effects of past energy and other commodity price increases dissipate further. However, the Committee will continue to pay close attention to the evolution of inflation and inflation expectations.

To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with the dual mandate, the Committee decided today to continue its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities as announced in September. The Committee is maintaining its existing policies of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. The Committee will regularly review the size and composition of its securities holdings and is prepared to adjust those holdings as appropriate.

The Committee also decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that economic conditions--including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run--are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through mid-2013.

The Committee will continue to assess the economic outlook in light of incoming information and is prepared to employ its tools to promote a stronger economic recovery in a context of price stability.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Elizabeth A. Duke; Richard W. Fisher; Narayana Kocherlakota; Charles I. Plosser; Sarah Bloom Raskin; Daniel K. Tarullo; and Janet L. Yellen. Voting against the action was Charles L. Evans, who supported additional policy accommodation at this time.

Editor's Note: Article should interest investors in Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), Freddie Mac (OTC: FMCC.OB), Fannie Mae (OTC: FNMA.OB), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), Toronto Dominion (NYSE: TD), BB&T (NYSE: BBT), CIT (NYSE: CIT), Bank United (NYSE: BKU), First Citizens (OTC: FCNCA.PK), Synovus (NYSE: SNV), United Bankshares (Nasdaq: UBSI), Hampton Roads Bankshares (Nasdaq: HMPR), WesBanco (Nasdaq: WSBC), City Holding (Nasdaq: CHCO), Sandy Spring (Nasdaq: SASR), First Citizens (OTC: FCBN.OB), SCBT Financial (Nasdaq: SCBT), Wilmington Trust (NYSE: WL), WSFS Financial (Nasdaq: WSFS), Southside Bancshares (Nasdaq: SBSI), Stellar One (Nasdaq: STEL), Union First Market (Nasdaq: UBSH), Eagle Bancorp (Nasdaq: EGBN), First Bancorp (Nasdaq: FBNC), Ameris (Nasdaq: ABCB), The Bancorp (Nasdaq: TBBK), First Community (Nasdaq: FCBC), Capital City (Nasdaq: CCBG), Financial Institutions (Nasdaq: FISI), National Bankshares (Nasdaq: NKSH), Citizens & Northern (Nasdaq: CZNC), Charter Financial (Nasdaq: CHFN), Seacoast Banking (Nasdaq: SBCF), TIB Financial (Nasdaq: TIBB), American National (Nasdaq: AMNB), United Community (Nasdaq: UCBI), Middleburg Financial (Nasdaq: MBRG), Heritage Financial (Nasdaq: HBOS), Zions Bancorp (Nasdaq: ZION), East West Bancorp (Nasdaq: EWBC), City National (NYSE: CYN), Bank of Hawaii (NYSE: BOH), SVB Financial (Nasdaq: SIVB), Westamerica (Nasdaq: WABC), Cathay General (Nasdaq: CATY), Umpqua (Nasdaq: UMPQ), Glacier Bancorp (Nasdaq: GBCI), Pacific Capital (Nasdaq: PCBC), PacWest (Nasdaq: PACW), Western Alliance (NYSE: WAL), First National Alaska (OTC: FBAK.OB), First Interstate Bancsystem (Nasdaq: FIBK), Nara (Nasdaq: NARA), West Coast (Nasdaq: WCBO), TriCo (Nasdaq: TCBK), Territorial (Nasdaq: TBNK), Washington Banking (Nasdaq: WCBO), Bank of Marin (Nasdaq: BMRC), Hanmi (Nasdaq: HAFC), PNC Bank (NYSE: PNC), J.P. Morgan Chase (NYSE: JPM), United Bankshares (Nasdaq: UBSI), Bank of New York Mellon (NYSE: BK), MB Financial (Nasdaq: MBFI), Astoria Financial (NYSE: AF), New York Community (NYSE: NYB), Hudson City (Nasdaq: HCBK), People’s United (Nasdaq: PBCT), First Niagra (Nasdaq: FNFG), Capitol Federal (Nasdaq: CFFN), Washington Federal (Nasdaq: WFSL), Investor’s Bancorp (Nasdaq: ISBC), Northwest Bankshares (Nasdaq: NWBI), Sterling Financial (Nasdaq: STSA), Ocwen (NYSE: OCN), Flagstar (NYSE: FBC), Provident (NYSE: PFS), Colombia Banking (Nasdaq: COLB), Kearny (Nasdaq: KRNY), Brookline (Nasdaq: BRKL), Dime Community (Nasdaq: DCOM), Flushing Financial (Nasdaq: FFIC), Danvers (Nasdaq: DNBK).

WSG

Labels:

free email financial newsletter Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Fed Chairman Bernanke Speech - Long-Term Impact of Great Recession

Fed Chairman BernankePlease find the verbatim copy of Chairman Bernanke's speech to a group at the Fed Bank of Boston, through which he discusses the long-term effects of the Great Recession on Central Bank Doctrine and Practice.

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke

At the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston 56th Economic Conference, Boston, Massachusetts

October 18, 2011

The Effects of the Great Recession on Central Bank Doctrine and Practice



Relative tickers: NYSE: DIA, NYSE: SPY, Nasdaq: QQQ, NYSE: DOG, NYSE: SDS, NYSE: QLD, NYSE: NYX, Nasdaq: NDAQ, NYSE: ICE, Nasdaq: ETFC, Nasdaq: SCHW, Nasdaq: AACC, NYSE: AMG, NYSE: AMP, Nasdaq: AMTD, Nasdaq: BGCP, NYSE: BK, NYSE: BLK, NYSE: CIT, Nasdaq: CLMS, NYSE: CME, NYSE: CNS, Nasdaq: COWN, Nasdaq: DHIL, Nasdaq: DLLR, Nasdaq: DUF, Nasdaq: ECPG, Nasdaq: EF, NYSE: EFX, Nasdaq: EPHC, NYSE: EVR, Nasdaq: EZPW, Nasdaq: FBCM, Nasdaq: FCFS, NYSE: FII, NYSE: FMD, NYSE: FNF, Nasdaq: FNGN, Nasdaq: FXCM, NYSE: GBL, Nasdaq: GCAP, Nasdaq: GDOT, Nasdaq: GFIG, NYSE: GHL, Nasdaq: GLCH, NYSE: GS, Nasdaq: IBKR, Nasdaq: INTL, Nasdaq: INTX, NYSE: ITG, NYSE: IVZ, NYSE: JEF, NYSE: JMP, NYSE: JNS, NYSE: KBW, NYSE: KCG, NYSE: LAZ, NYSE: LM, Nasdaq: LPLA, AMEX: LTS, NYSE: MA, NYSE: MCO, NYSE: MF, NYSE: MGI, Nasdaq: MKTX, Nasdaq: MRLN, NYSE: MS, Nasdaq: MSCI, NYSE: MTG, Nasdaq: NEWS, NYSE: NFP, NYSE: NNI, Nasdaq: NTRS, Nasdaq: NTSP, NYSE: OCN, NYSE: OPY, Nasdaq: OXPS, Nasdaq: PICO, NYSE: PJC, NYSE: PMI, Nasdaq: PNSN, Nasdaq: PRAA, NYSE: RJF, Nasdaq: SEIC, NYSE: SF, NYSE: SFE, NYSE: STT, NYSE: SWS, Nasdaq: TROW, NYSE: V and Nasdaq: VRTS.

The financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, together with the associated deep recession, was a historic event--historic in the sense that its severity and economic consequences were enormous, but also in the sense that, as the papers at this conference document, the crisis seems certain to have profound and long-lasting effects on our economy, our society, and our politics. More subtle, but of possibly great importance in the long run, will be the effects of the crisis on intellectual frameworks, including the ways in which economists analyze macroeconomic and financial phenomena.

In particular, the crisis has already influenced the theory and practice of modern central banking and no doubt will continue to do so. Although it is too early to know the full implications of recent events for central bank doctrine and operations, I thought it would be worthwhile today to highlight and put into context some of the changes, as well as the continuities, that are already evident. My remarks will focus on how central banks responded to recent challenges related to the conduct of both monetary policy and the promotion of financial stability and how, as a result of that experience, the analysis and execution of these two key functions may change.

The Monetary Policy Framework
During the two decades preceding the crisis, central bankers and academics achieved a substantial degree of consensus on the intellectual and institutional framework for monetary policy. This consensus policy framework was characterized by a strong commitment to medium-term price stability and a high degree of transparency about central banks' policy objectives and economic forecasts. The adoption of this approach helped central banks anchor longer-term inflation expectations, which in turn increased the effective scope of monetary policy to stabilize output and employment in the short run. This broad framework is often called flexible inflation targeting, as it combines commitment to a medium-run inflation objective with the flexibility to respond to economic shocks as needed to moderate deviations of output from its potential, or "full employment," level. The combination of short-run policy flexibility with the discipline imposed by the medium-term inflation target has also been characterized as a framework of "constrained discretion."

Many central banks in both advanced and emerging market economies consider themselves to be inflation targeters, prominent examples including those in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Although they differ somewhat in the details of their policy strategies, policy tools, and communication practices, today virtually all inflation-targeting central banks interpret their mandate flexibly--that is, they treat the stabilization of employment and output in the short term as an important policy objective even as they seek to hit their inflation targets over the medium term. Several other major central banks, such as the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Swiss National Bank, do not label themselves as inflation targeters; however, they have incorporated key features of that framework, including a numerical definition of price stability, a central role for communications about the economic outlook, and a willingness to accommodate short-run economic stabilization objectives so long as these objectives do not jeopardize the primary goal of price stability.

How does the Federal Reserve fit into this range of policy frameworks? The Federal Reserve is accountable to the Congress for two objectives--maximum employment and price stability, on an equal footing--and it does not have a formal, numerical inflation target. But, as a practical matter, the Federal Reserve's policy framework has many of the elements of flexible inflation targeting. In particular, like flexible inflation targeters, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is committed to stabilizing inflation over the medium run while retaining the flexibility to help offset cyclical fluctuations in economic activity and employment.

Also, like the formal inflation targeters, over time the Federal Reserve has become much more transparent about its outlook, objectives, and policy strategy. For example, since early 2009, the Federal Reserve's "Summary of Economic Projections" has included the FOMC's longer-run projections, which represent Committee participants' assessments of the rates to which economic growth, unemployment, and inflation will converge over time. These projections are conditioned on the assumptions of appropriate monetary policy and no further shocks to the economy; consequently, the longer-run projections for inflation in particular can be interpreted as indicating the rate of inflation that FOMC participants judge to be most consistent, over time, with the Federal Reserve's mandate to foster maximum employment and stable prices. These longer-run inflation projections are thus analogous to targets although, importantly, they represent the Committee participants' individual assessments of the mandate-consistent inflation rate, not a formal inflation goal of the Committee as a whole.1

To what extent, if at all, has the pre-crisis consensus framework for monetary policy been changed by recent events? In part because they recognized the benefits of continuity and familiarity during a period of upheaval, central banks generally retained their established approaches to monetary policy during the crisis; and, in many respects, the existing frameworks proved effective. Notably, well-anchored longer-term inflation expectations moderated both inflation and deflation risks, as price-setters and market participants remained confident in the ability of central banks to keep inflation near target in the medium term. The medium-term focus of flexible inflation targeting also offered central banks latitude to cushion the effects of the financial shocks on output and employment in the face of transitory swings in inflation. In particular, they were able to avoid significant policy tightening in mid-2008 and early 2011, when sharp increases in commodity prices temporarily drove headline inflation rates above target levels. Finally, for central banks with policy rates near the zero lower bound, influencing the public's expectations about future policy actions became a critical tool, as I will discuss further shortly. The commitment to a policy framework that is transparent about objectives and forecasts was helpful, in many instances, in managing those expectations and thus in making monetary policy both more predictable and more effective during the past few years than it might otherwise have been.

However, the recent experience did raise at least one important question about the flexible inflation-targeting framework--namely, that although that framework had helped produce a long period of macroeconomic stability, it ultimately, by itself, was not enough to ensure financial stability. Some observers have argued that this failure should lead to modifications, or even a replacement, of the inflation targeting approach. For example, since financial excesses tend to develop over a relatively longer time frame and can have significant effects on inflation when they ultimately unwind, it has been suggested that monetary policy should be conducted with reference to a longer horizon to take appropriate account of financial stability concerns.2

My guess is that the current framework for monetary policy--with innovations, no doubt, to further improve the ability of central banks to communicate with the public--will remain the standard approach, as its benefits in terms of macroeconomic stabilization have been demonstrated. However, central banks are also heeding the broader lesson, that the maintenance of financial stability is an equally critical responsibility. Central banks certainly did not ignore issues of financial stability in the decades before the recent crisis, but financial stability policy was often viewed as the junior partner to monetary policy. One of the most important legacies of the crisis will be the restoration of financial stability policy to co-equal status with monetary policy.

Monetary Policy Tools
While central banks may have left their monetary policy frameworks largely unchanged through the Great Recession, they have considerably widened their set of tools for implementing those frameworks. Following the crisis and the downturn in the global economy that started in 2008, central banks responded with a forceful application of their usual policy tools, most prominently sharp reductions in short-term interest rates. Then, as policy rates approached the zero lower bound, central banks began to employ an increasingly wide range of less conventional tools, including forward policy guidance and operations to alter the scale and composition of their balance sheets.

Forward guidance about the future path of policy rates, already used before the crisis, took on greater importance as policy rates neared zero. A prominent example was the Bank of Canada's commitment in April 2009 to keep its policy rate unchanged at 1/4percent until the end of the second quarter of 2010, depending on the outlook for inflation.3 This commitment was successful in clarifying for market participants the bank's views on the likely path of policy rates and appears to have helped reduce longer-term interest rates, thus providing additional policy accommodation. In 2010, the Bank of Japan, which faced ongoing deflation in consumer prices, also used conditional forward guidance, saying that "The Bank will maintain the virtually zero interest rate policy until it judges, on the basis of the ‘understanding of medium- to long-term price stability,' that price stability is in sight, on condition that no problem will be identified in examining risk factors, including the accumulation of financial imbalances."4

Some central banks provide forward guidance directly by releasing forecasts or projections of their policy rate. This practice had already been adopted by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (in 1997), the Norges Bank (in 2005), and the Swedish Riksbank (in 2007). Each of these central banks used those projections during the financial crisis to indicate that they were likely to keep rates at low levels for at least a year.

In the United States, the FOMC introduced language in its March 2009 statement indicating that it anticipated rates to remain at low levels for an "extended period," and at its August 2011 meeting the Committee elaborated by indicating that it anticipated rates would remain low at least through mid-2013.5 The FOMC continues to explore ways to further increase transparency about its forecasts and policy plans.

In addition to forward guidance about short-term rates, a number of central banks have also used changes in the size and composition of their balance sheets as tools of monetary policy. In particular, the Federal Reserve has both greatly increased its holdings of longer-term Treasury securities and broadened its portfolio to include agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities. Its goal in doing so was to provide additional monetary accommodation by putting downward pressure on longer-term Treasury and agency yields while inducing investors to shift their portfolios toward alternative assets such as corporate bonds and equities. These actions also served to improve the functioning of some stressed financial markets, especially in 2008 and 2009, through the provision of market liquidity.

Other central banks have also used their balance sheets more actively than before the crisis, with some differences in their motivations and emphasis, in part reflecting differing financial structures across countries. For example, the Bank of England has used large-scale purchases of medium- and long-term government securities as its preferred tool for providing additional stimulus; it expanded the size of its asset purchase program earlier this month out of concern about possible slowing of domestic and global economic growth. The Bank of Japan has acquired a wide range of assets, including government and corporate bonds, commercial paper, exchange-traded equity funds, and equity issued by real estate investment corporations. The ECB purchased privately issued covered bonds between July 2009 and June 2010 to improve liquidity in a key market segment; it recently announced plans to resume such purchases in November. The ECB has also bought the sovereign bonds of some vulnerable euro-area countries, "to ensure depth and liquidity in those market segments which are dysfunctional," although the monetary effects of these purchases have been sterilized through offsetting operations.6

In most cases, the use of balance sheet policies for macroeconomic stabilization purposes has reflected the constraints on more-conventional policies as short-term nominal interest rates reach very low levels. In more normal times, when short-term policy rates are not constrained, I expect that balance sheet policies will be rarely used. By contrast, forward guidance and other forms of communication about policy can be valuable even when the zero lower bound is not relevant, and I expect to see increasing use of such tools in the future.

Financial Stability Policy
Even as central banks were innovative in the operation of their monetary policies, they were forced to be equally innovative in restoring and maintaining financial stability. Serving as a lender of last resort--standing ready in a crisis to lend to solvent but illiquid financial institutions that have adequate collateral--is, of course, a traditional function of central banks. Indeed, the need for an institution that could serve this function was a primary motivation for the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The Federal Reserve's discount window is an example of a facility that operates in normal times to provide very short-term liquidity to depository institutions. Most other central banks have facilities with similar features that are generally aimed at banks that find themselves with temporary liquidity needs. During the crisis, as short-term funding markets failed to function normally, central banks around the world acted forcefully to channel liquidity to institutions and markets by lengthening the terms of their lending, increasing the range of collateral accepted, and expanding the set of counterparties with which they would undertake operations.

To help stabilize the financial system and facilitate the flow of credit to households and businesses, the Federal Reserve responded to the dislocations in funding and securitization markets by dramatically increasing the amount of term funding that it provided to banks, establishing new lending facilities for nonbanks, and providing funding to support the operation of key markets. Elsewhere, including Canada, the euro area, and the United Kingdom, central banks introduced similar facilities or expanded existing facilities to boost the provision of liquidity in their local currencies. The types of facilities have varied across countries commensurate with differences in financial systems. In the euro area, where the banking sector plays a relatively large role in financial intermediation, the ECB focused on increasing liquidity to banks. Similarly, the Bank of England sought to improve banks' liquidity positions by allowing them to exchange illiquid mortgage-backed securities for U.K. treasury bills for up to three years.

One of the lessons of the crisis was that financial markets have become so globalized that it may no longer be sufficient for central banks to offer liquidity in their own currency; financial institutions may face liquidity shortages in other currencies as well. For that reason, the Federal Reserve established bilateral currency swap agreements with 14 foreign central banks during the financial crisis. The swap facilities have allowed these central banks to borrow dollars from the Federal Reserve to lend to banks in their jurisdictions, which has served to ease conditions in dollar funding markets globally. Similarly, the ECB established bilateral swap lines with several other central banks in Europe to exchange euros for their respective currencies.

As lender of last resort, a central bank works to contain episodes of financial instability; but recent events have shown the importance of anticipating and defusing threats to financial stability before they can inflict damage on the financial system and the economy. In particular, the crisis illustrated some important benefits of involving central banks in financial supervision. Among these benefits are the facilitation of close and effective information sharing between supervisors and the providers of backstop liquidity, especially during crises; the ability to exploit the substantial overlap of expertise in the making of monetary policy and financial stability policy; and the usefulness of the information supervisors gather about economic and financial conditions for monetary policy. Appreciation of these benefits is leading to larger roles for central banks in financial supervision. For example, the Bank of England received expanded powers and responsibilities for financial stability with the establishment of a prudential regulator as a subsidiary of the bank and the creation of a separate Financial Policy Committee within the bank that will identify, monitor, and take action to reduce systemic risks. In the euro area, the newly created European Systemic Risk Board, which is chaired by the president of the ECB and includes the governors of all European Union central banks, draws heavily on central bank expertise, including analytical, statistical, and administrative support from the ECB. In the United States, the Federal Reserve has reoriented its existing supervisory activities to incorporate a broader systemic focus; it also has been assigned new responsibilities for financial stability, including supervisory authority over nonbank financial institutions that are designated as systemically important by the Financial Stability Oversight Council and new backup authorities for systemically critical financial market utilities.

The Integration of Monetary Policy and Financial Stability Policies
As I noted earlier, in the decades prior to the crisis, monetary policy had come to be viewed as the principal function of central banks; their role in preserving financial stability was not ignored, but it was downplayed to some extent. The financial crisis has changed all that. Policies to enhance financial stability and monetary policy are now seen as co-equal responsibilities of central banks. How should these two critical functions fit together?

At an institutional level, as I have already suggested, the two functions are highly complementary. Monetary policy, financial supervision, and lender-of-last-resort policies all benefit from the sharing of information and expertise. At the Federal Reserve, for example, macroeconomists help design stress-test scenarios used by bank supervisors, while supervisors provide information about credit conditions to macroeconomic forecasters. Threats to financial stability, and their potential implications for the economy, are thoroughly discussed at meetings of the FOMC.

An important debate for the future concerns the extent to which it is useful for central banks to try to make a clear distinction between their monetary and financial stability responsibilities, including designating a separate set of policy tools for each objective. For example, throughout the crisis the ECB has maintained its "separation principle" under which it orients changes in its policy interest rate toward achieving price stability and focuses its unconventional liquidity and balance sheet measures toward addressing dysfunctional markets. The idea that policy is more effective when separate tools are dedicated to separate objectives is consistent with the principle known to economists as the Tinbergen rule.7

In practice, the distinction between macroeconomic and financial stability objectives will always be blurred to some extent, given the powerful interactions between financial and economic conditions. For example, monetary policy actions that improve the economic outlook also tend to improve the conditions of financial firms; likewise, actions to support the normal functioning of financial institutions and markets can help achieve the central bank's monetary policy objectives by improving credit flows and enhancing monetary policy transmission. Still, the debate about whether it is possible to dedicate specific policy tools to the macroeconomic and financial stability objectives is a useful one that raises some important practical questions. A leading example is the question of whether monetary policy should "lean against" movements in asset prices or credit aggregates in an effort to promote financial stability. In my view, the issue is not whether central bankers should ignore possible financial imbalances--they should not--but, rather, what "the right tool for the job" is to respond to such imbalances.8

The evolving consensus, which is by no means settled, is that monetary policy is too blunt a tool to be routinely used to address possible financial imbalances; instead, monetary policy should remain focused on macroeconomic objectives, while more-targeted microprudential and macroprudential tools should be used to address developing risks to financial stability, such as excessive credit growth. Prudential tools can be structural or cyclical in nature. Examples of structural prudential tools are measures to ensure adequate levels of capital and liquidity in the banking sector or to increase the resiliency of the financial infrastructure. Examples of cyclical prudential tools include varying caps on loan-to-value ratios on mortgages, as Korea and Hong Kong have done; dynamic provisioning for losses by banks, as employed in Spain; time-varying margin and haircut rules; and countercyclical capital requirements, as have been set out in BaselIII. In principle, structural and cyclical prudential tools could both damp the buildup of imbalances and bolster the resilience of the financial sector to a decline in asset prices by increasing its capacity to absorb losses. The diverse tools of financial regulation and supervision, together with appropriate monitoring of the financial system, should be, I believe, the first line of defense against the threat of financial instability. However, the effectiveness of such targeted policies in practice is not yet proven, so the possibility that monetary policy could be used directly to support financial stability goals, at least on the margin, should not be ruled out.

Conclusion
The financial crisis of 2008 and 2009 will leave a lasting imprint on the theory and practice of central banking. With respect to monetary policy, the basic principles of flexible inflation targeting--the commitment to a medium-term inflation objective, the flexibility to address deviations from full employment, and an emphasis on communication and transparency--seem destined to survive. However, following a much older tradition of central banking, the crisis has forcefully reminded us that the responsibility of central banks to protect financial stability is at least as important as the responsibility to use monetary policy effectively in the pursuit of macroeconomic objectives.

An evolving consensus holds that central banks can dedicate separate toolkits to achieving their financial stability and macroeconomic objectives, but this consensus must be viewed as provisional. Certainly, those toolkits appear to be much better stocked today than before the crisis: monetary policy tools that can be brought to bear if necessary include the management of the central bank's balance sheet and, to a greater extent than in the past, communication about future policies. Financial stability policy encompasses, as the first line of defense at least, a range of microprudential and macroprudential tools, both structural and varying over the cycle, supported by enhanced monitoring and analysis of potential risks to systemic stability. Clearly, understanding and applying the lessons of the crisis will take some time yet; both theorists and practitioners of central banking have their work cut out for them.

FOOTNOTES:
1. In a similar vein, since 2006 the Bank of Japan has provided the range of individual policy board members' understanding of the inflation rate consistent with price stability. That understanding is reviewed annually. Return to text

2. For example, Charles Bean of the Bank of England has suggested that "taking on board the possible risks posed by cumulating financial imbalances may require a shift in the rhetoric of inflation targeters towards the longer term." See page 70 of Charles Bean (2003), "Asset Prices, Financial Imbalances and Monetary Policy: Are Inflation Targets Enough? " in Asset Prices and Monetary Policy, proceedings of a conference sponsored by the Reserve Bank of Australia (New South Wales, Australia: RBA, Aug. 18-19), pp. 48-76. Return to text

3. See Bank of Canada (2009), "Bank of Canada lowers overnight rate target by 1/4 percentage point to 1/4 per cent and, conditional on the inflation outlook, commits to hold current policy rate until the end of the second quarter of 2010 ," press release, April 21. Return to text

4. See Bank of Japan (2010), "Comprehensive Monetary Easing ," press release, October 5. Return to text

5. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2009), "FOMC Statement," press release, March 18; and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2011), "FOMC Statement," press release, August 9. Return to text

6. See European Central Bank (2010), "ECB Decides on Measures to Address Severe Tensions in Financial Markets ," press release, May 10. Return to text

7. The Tinbergen rule states that if the number of policy targets surpasses the number of instruments, then some targets may not be met. See Jan Tinbergen (1952), On the Theory of Economic Policy (Amsterdam: North-Holland). Return to text

8. See Ben S. Bernanke (2002), "Asset-Price ‘Bubbles' and Monetary Policy," speech delivered at the New York Chapter of the National Association for Business Economics, New York, N.Y., October 15.

Article should interest investors in SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average (NYSE: DIA), SPDR S&P 500 (NYSE: SPY), PowerShares QQQ Trust (Nasdaq: QQQ), ProShares Short Dow 30 (NYSE: DOG), ProShares Ultra Short S&P 500 (NYSE: SDS), ProShares Ultra QQQ (NYSE: QLD), NYSE Euronext (NYSE: NYX), The NASDAQ OMX Group (Nasdaq: NDAQ), Intercontinental Exchange (NYSE: ICE), E*Trade Financial (Nasdaq: ETFC), Charles Schwab (Nasdaq: SCHW), Asset Acceptance Capital (Nasdaq: AACC), Affiliated Managers (NYSE: AMG), Ameriprise Financial (NYSE: AMP), TD Ameritrade (Nasdaq: AMTD), BGC Partners (Nasdaq: BGCP), Bank of New York Mellon (NYSE: BK), BlackRock (NYSE: BLK), CIT Group (NYSE: CIT), Calamos Asset Management (Nasdaq: CLMS), CME Group (NYSE: CME), Cohn & Steers (NYSE: CNS), Cowen Group (Nasdaq: COWN), Diamond Hill Investment (Nasdaq: DHIL), Dollar Financial (Nasdaq: DLLR), Duff & Phelps (Nasdaq: DUF), Encore Capital (Nasdaq: ECPG), Edelman Financial (Nasdaq: EF), Equifax (NYSE: EFX), Epoch (Nasdaq: EPHC), Evercore Partners (NYSE: EVR), EXCorp. (Nasdaq: EZPW), FBR Capital Markets (Nasdaq: FBCM), First Cash Financial (Nasdaq: FCFS), Federated Investors (NYSE: FII), First Marblehead (NYSE: FMD), Fidelity National Financial (NYSE: FNF), Financial Engines (Nasdaq: FNGN), FXCM (Nasdaq: FXCM), Gamco Investors (NYSE: GBL), GAIN Capital (Nasdaq: GCAP), Green Dot (Nasdaq: GDOT), GFI Group (Nasdaq: GFIG), Greenhill (NYSE: GHL), Gleacher (Nasdaq: GLCH), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Interactive Brokers (Nasdaq: IBKR), INTL FCStone (Nasdaq: INTL), Intersections (Nasdaq: INTX), Investment Technology (NYSE: ITG), Invesco (NYSE: IVZ), Jefferies (NYSE: JEF), JMP Group (NYSE: JMP), Janus Capital (NYSE: JNS), KBW (NYSE: KBW), Knight Capital (NYSE: KCG), Lazard (NYSE: LAZ), Legg Mason (NYSE: LM), LPL Investment (Nasdaq: LPLA), Ladenburg Thalmann (AMEX: LTS), Mastercard (NYSE: MA), Moody’s (NYSE: MCO), MF Global (NYSE: MF), Moneygram (NYSE: MGI), MarketAxess (Nasdaq: MKTX), Marlin Business Services (Nasdaq: MRLN), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), MSCI (Nasdaq: MSCI), MGIC Investment (NYSE: MTG), NewStar Financial (Nasdaq: NEWS), National Financial Partners (NYSE: NFP), Nelnet (NYSE: NNI), Northern Trust (Nasdaq: NTRS), NetSpend (Nasdaq: NTSP), Ocwen Financial (NYSE: OCN), Oppenheimer (NYSE: OPY), optionsXpress (Nasdaq: OXPS), PICO (Nasdaq: PICO), Piper Jaffray (NYSE: PJC), PMI Group (NYSE: PMI), Penson Worldwide (Nasdaq: PNSN), Portfolio Recovery (Nasdaq: PRAA), Raymond James (NYSE: RJF), SEI Investments (Nasdaq: SEIC), Stifel Financial (NYSE: SF), Safeguard Scientifics (NYSE: SFE), State Street (NYSE: STT), SWS (NYSE: SWS), T. Rowe Price (Nasdaq: TROW), Visa (NYSE: V) and Virtus Investment Partners (Nasdaq: VRTS).

Please see our disclosures at the Wall Street Greek website and author bio pages found there. This article and website in no way offers or represents financial or investment advice. Information is provided for entertainment purposes only.


travel flights

Labels:

free email financial newsletter Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Fed FOMC Meeting Minutes for Operation Twist - September 20-21 2011

Fed FOMC meeting minutesWhat follows is the verbatim copy of the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting minutes for the September 20-21 meeting. This was the meeting through which "Operation Twist" was initiated.

PRESENT:
Ben Bernanke, Chairman
William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman
Elizabeth Duke
Charles L. Evans
Richard W. Fisher
Narayana Kocherlakota
Charles I. Plosser
Sarah Bloom Raskin
Daniel K. Tarullo
Janet L. Yellen

Christine Cumming, Jeffrey M. Lacker, Dennis P. Lockhart, Sandra Pianalto, and John C. Williams, Alternate Members of the Federal Open Market Committee

James Bullard and Eric Rosengren, Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks of St. Louis and Boston, respectively

Esther L. George, First Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City

William B. English, Secretary and Economist
Deborah J. Danker, Deputy Secretary
Matthew M. Luecke, Assistant Secretary
David W. Skidmore, Assistant Secretary
Michelle A. Smith, Assistant Secretary
Scott G. Alvarez, General Counsel
Thomas C. Baxter, Deputy General Counsel

James A. Clouse, Thomas A. Connors, Steven B. Kamin, Loretta J. Mester, Simon Potter, David Reifschneider, Harvey Rosenblum, and David W. Wilcox, Associate Economists

Brian Sack, Manager, System Open Market Account

Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board, Office of the Secretary, Board of Governors

Patrick M. Parkinson, Director, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation, Board of Governors

Nellie Liang, Director, Office of Financial Stability Policy and Research, Board of Governors

Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Board of Governors

William Nelson, Deputy Director, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors

Linda Robertson, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members, Board of Governors

Charles S. Struckmeyer, Deputy Staff Director, Office of the Staff Director, Board of Governors

Seth B. Carpenter, Senior Associate Director, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors; Michael P. Leahy, Senior Associate Director, Division of International Finance, Board of Governors; Lawrence Slifman and William Wascher, Senior Associate Directors, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors

Andrew T. Levin, Senior Adviser, Office of Board Members, Board of Governors; Stephen A. Meyer and Joyce K. Zickler, Senior Advisers, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors

Daniel M. Covitz and David E. Lebow, Associate Directors, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors

David H. Small, Project Manager, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors

Penelope A. Beattie, Assistant to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Board of Governors

James M. Lyon, First Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

Jeff Fuhrer, Executive Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

David Altig, Alan D. Barkema, Spencer Krane, Mark E. Schweitzer, Christopher J. Waller, and John A. Weinberg, Senior Vice Presidents, Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta, Kansas City, Chicago, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Richmond, respectively

Julie Ann Remache, Assistant Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Eric T. Swanson, Senior Research Advisor, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco

Jonathan Heathcote, Senior Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

Relative tickers: NYSE: BAC, NYSE: GS, NYSE: MS, NYSE: WFC, NYSE: TD, OTC: FMCC.OB, OTC: FNMA.OB, NYSE: PNC, NYSE: JPM, NYSE: BBT, NYSE: CIT, NYSE: BKU, Nasdaq: UBSI, NYSE: BK, Nasdaq: MBFI, NYSE: AF, NYSE: NYB, Nasdaq: HCBK, Nasdaq: PBCT, Nasdaq: FNFG, Nasdaq: CFFN, Nasdaq: WFSL, Nasdaq: ISBC, Nasdaq: NWBI, Nasdaq: STSA, NYSE: OCN, NYSE: FBC, NYSE: PFS, Nasdaq: COLB, Nasdaq: KRNY, Nasdaq: BRKL, Nasdaq: DCOM, Nasdaq: FFIC, Nasdaq: DNBK, OTC: FCNCA.PK, NYSE: SNV, Nasdaq: UBSI, Nasdaq: HMPR, Nasdaq: WSBC, Nasdaq: CHCO, Nasdaq: SASR, OTC: FCBN.OB, Nasdaq: SCBT, NYSE: WL, Nasdaq: WSFS, Nasdaq: SBSI, Nasdaq: STEL, Nasdaq: UBSH, Nasdaq: EGBN, Nasdaq: FBNC, Nasdaq: ABCB, Nasdaq: TBBK, Nasdaq: FCBC, Nasdaq: CCBG, Nasdaq: FISI, Nasdaq: NKSH, Nasdaq: CZNC, Nasdaq: CHFN, Nasdaq: SBCF, Nasdaq: TIBB, Nasdaq: AMNB, Nasdaq: UCBI, Nasdaq: MBRG, Nasdaq: HBOS, Nasdaq: ZION, Nasdaq: EWBC, NYSE: CYN, NYSE: BOH, Nasdaq: SIVB, Nasdaq: WABC, Nasdaq: CATY, Nasdaq: UMPQ, Nasdaq: GBCI, Nasdaq: PCBC, Nasdaq: PACW, NYSE: WAL, OTC: FBAK.OB, Nasdaq: FIBK, Nasdaq: NARA, Nasdaq: WCBO, Nasdaq: TCBK, Nasdaq: TBNK, Nasdaq: WCBO, Nasdaq: BMRC, Nasdaq: HAFC, NYSE: DIA, NYSE: SPY, Nasdaq: QQQQ, NYSE: DOG, NYSE: SDS, NYSE: QLD, NYSE: NYX, NYSE: ICE, Nasdaq: NDAQ

Fed FOMC Meeting Minutes



Developments in Financial Markets and the Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet
The Manager of the System Open Market Account (SOMA) reported on developments in domestic and foreign financial markets during the period since the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) met on August 9, 2011. He also reported on System open market operations, including the continuing reinvestment into longer-term Treasury securities of principal payments received on SOMA holdings of agency debt and agency-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By unanimous vote, the Committee ratified the Desk's domestic transactions over the intermeeting period.

Staff Presentation on Policy Tools
The staff gave a presentation on several tools that could be used, within the Committee's current policy framework, to provide additional monetary policy accommodation to support the economic recovery. The presentation first reviewed three options for managing the size and composition of the SOMA portfolio: a reinvestment maturity extension program, a SOMA portfolio maturity extension program, and a large-scale asset purchase program. Under the first of these options, the Federal Reserve would reinvest the principal payments it receives on its holdings of agency securities exclusively in long-term Treasury securities. Under the second option, the Committee would purchase long-term Treasury securities and sell the same amount of shorter-term Treasury securities; these transactions would significantly increase the average maturity of the SOMA portfolio, but the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet and the level of reserve balances would be largely unaffected in the near term. Under the third option, the Committee would purchase longer-term Treasury securities, increasing the size of its balance sheet and the supply of reserve balances. The staff also summarized a set of options for clarifying, for the public, the Committee's longer-run objectives under its dual mandate as well as the Committee's forward guidance about the likely future stance of monetary policy. The options focused on ways to elucidate the economic conditions that could warrant raising the level of short-term interest rates. Finally, the staff presentation summarized the potential implications of reducing the interest rate that the Federal Reserve pays on reserve balances that depository institutions hold in accounts at the Federal Reserve Banks (the IOR rate).

Meeting participants expressed a range of views on the potential efficacy of policy tools tied to the size and composition of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. Many judged that these policies could provide additional monetary policy accommodation by lowering longer-term interest rates and easing financial conditions at a time when further reductions in the federal funds rate are infeasible. However, a number saw the potential effects on real economic activity as limited or only transitory, particularly in the current environment of balance sheet deleveraging, credit constraints, and household and business uncertainty about the economic outlook. Participants noted that a SOMA maturity extension program would not expand the Federal Reserve's balance sheet or the level of reserve balances, and that the scale of such a program was necessarily limited by the size of the Federal Reserve's holdings of shorter-term securities so that it could not be repeated to provide further stimulus. A number of participants saw large-scale asset purchases as potentially a more potent tool that should be retained as an option in the event that further policy action to support a stronger economic recovery was warranted. Some judged that large-scale asset purchases and the resulting expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet would be more likely to raise inflation and inflation expectations than to stimulate economic activity and argued that such tools should be reserved for circumstances in which the risk of deflation was elevated. In commenting on the implications of a maturity extension program or another large-scale asset purchase program, several participants noted that the System should avoid holding a very large proportion of the outstanding stock of longer-term Treasury securities in its portfolio because the result could be a deterioration in market functioning. A number of participants suggested directing some purchases or reinvestments into agency MBS; however, a couple of participants saw such actions as unlikely to have benefits, or as a form of credit allocation.

Most participants indicated that they favored taking steps to increase further the transparency of monetary policy, including providing more information about the Committee's longer-run policy objectives and about the factors that influence the Committee's policy decisions. Participants generally agreed that a clear statement of the Committee's longer-run policy objectives could be helpful; some noted that it would also be useful to clarify the linkage between these longer-run objectives and the Committee's approach to setting the stance of monetary policy in the short and medium run. That said, a number of participants expressed concerns about the conceptual issues associated with establishing and communicating explicit longer-run objectives for the unemployment rate or other measures of labor market conditions, inasmuch as the long-run equilibrium levels of such measures are influenced importantly by nonmonetary factors, are subject to change over time, and are estimated with considerable uncertainty. In contrast, participants noted that the long-run level of inflation is determined primarily by monetary policy. Accordingly, many felt that if the Committee were to reach a consensus on more explicit statements of its longer-run objectives, it would need to provide an in-depth explanation to the public of how those objectives were determined and how they fit into the policymaking framework. Participants generally saw the Committee's post-meeting statements as not well suited to communicate fully the Committee's thinking about its objectives and its policy framework, and agreed that the Committee would need to use other means to communicate that information or to supplement information in the statement.

Most participants also indicated that they saw advantages in being more transparent about the conditionality in the Committee's forward guidance by providing more information about the economic conditions to which the guidance refers. They judged that such a step could make the Committee's forward guidance more effective and increase the likelihood that financial markets would respond to incoming economic information in ways that would help monetary policy achieve its goals. However, several participants saw a risk that any explicit statement of economic conditions specified in the Committee's forward guidance could be mistaken for a statement of its longer-run objectives. Others thought this risk of misinterpretation could be managed through careful communications. A number of participants suggested that the Committee's periodic Summary of Economic Projections could be used to provide more information about their views on the longer-run objectives and the likely evolution of monetary policy.

Participants discussed whether to reduce the IOR rate, weighing potential benefits and costs. A number of participants judged that a reduction would result in at least marginally lower money market rates and could help stimulate bank lending. Several noted that reducing the IOR rate could help signal the Committee's intention to keep the federal funds rate low. Some participants observed that keeping the IOR rate noticeably above the market rate on other safe, short-term instruments could be perceived as subsidizing some banking institutions. However, some others noted that a recent change in deposit insurance assessments had the effect of significantly reducing the net return that many banks receive from holding reserve balances. Moreover, many participants voiced concerns that reducing the IOR rate risked costly disruptions to money markets and to the intermediation of credit, and that the magnitude of such effects would be difficult to predict in advance. In addition, the federal funds market could contract as a result and the effective federal funds rate could become less reliably linked to other short-term interest rates. Participants generally agreed that they needed more information on the likely effects of a reduction in the IOR rate in order to judge its usefulness as a policy tool in the current environment.

Staff Review of the Economic Situation
The information reviewed at the September 20-21 meeting indicated that economic activity continued to expand at a slow pace and that labor market conditions remained weak. Consumer price inflation appeared to have moderated since earlier in the year, and measures of long-run inflation expectations remained stable.

Private nonfarm employment rose only slightly in August, and job gains were weak even after adjusting for the effects of a strike by communications workers during the month. Meanwhile, employment at state and local governments declined further, reflecting their tight budget conditions. The unemployment rate remained at 9.1 percent in August, and both long-duration unemployment and the share of workers employed part time for economic reasons were still elevated. Initial claims for unemployment insurance edged up, on net, over the previous few weeks, and many indicators of firms' hiring plans deteriorated somewhat in recent months.

Industrial production expanded solidly but unevenly in July and August, and the manufacturing capacity utilization rate moved up. Output increased markedly at both motor vehicle manufacturers and their upstream suppliers as the supply chain disruptions associated with the earthquake in Japan eased. In contrast, the pace of factory production softened among industries unlikely to have been affected by the supply disruptions. Motor vehicle assemblies were scheduled to rise noticeably in September and then increase further in the fourth quarter, but broader indicators of near-term manufacturing activity, such as the diffusion indexes of new orders from the national and regional manufacturing surveys, remained at levels consistent with only meager gains in output in the coming months.

Real consumer spending posted a solid gain in July, in part reflecting a rebound in motor vehicle purchases from their low level in the spring when the availability of some models was limited. However, nominal retail sales, excluding purchases at motor vehicles and parts outlets, only inched up in August, and sales of new light motor vehicles ticked down. Real disposable income edged lower in July, as gains in nominal income were offset by the rise in consumer prices. Consumer sentiment deteriorated significantly further in August and stayed downbeat in early September.

Activity in the housing market continued to be depressed by weak demand, uncertainty about future home prices, tight credit conditions for mortgages and construction loans, and a substantial inventory of foreclosed and distressed properties. Starts and permits for new single-family homes in July and August stayed near the very low levels seen since the middle of last year. Sales of new and existing homes remained subdued in recent months, and home prices edged down further.

Real business spending on equipment and software appeared to expand further. Nominal shipments of nondefense capital goods increased in July, and business purchases of new motor vehicles trended higher. New orders of nondefense capital goods continued to run ahead of shipments in July, and the expanding backlog of unfilled orders pointed toward further gains in outlays for business equipment in subsequent months. In contrast, survey measures of business conditions and sentiment remained at muted levels in August and September. Real business expenditures for office and commercial buildings moved up in recent months, but outlays were still at a very low level and continued to be restrained by high vacancy rates and tight credit conditions for construction loans. Meanwhile, spending for drilling and mining structures increased further. Businesses seemed to be adding to inventories at a more modest pace in July, as the re-stocking of motor vehicle inventories depleted by the earlier production disruptions was offset by slowing accumulation in other sectors. In most industries, inventories looked to be reasonably well aligned with sales.

Real federal government purchases appeared to increase in recent months as defense expenditures continued to rise from unusually low levels early in the year. At the state and local level, real government purchases seemed set to decline further as payrolls were reduced and construction spending decreased.

The nominal U.S. international trade deficit widened in June but narrowed significantly in July. Exports rose briskly in July, particularly in industrial supplies and capital goods, after having decreased in June. Imports moved down in both months, as declines in petroleum products--reflecting both lower prices and decreased volumes--more than offset large gains in automotive products following the easing of supply chain disruptions in Japan. Trade data for July suggested that net exports continued to boost U.S. real gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the third quarter.

Monthly U.S. consumer price inflation picked up in July and August after slowing in May and June, but remained a bit lower than earlier in the year. Consumer energy prices stepped up in July and August but only partially retraced their decline over the previous two months, and the increases in food prices were somewhat below the pace seen early in the year. The consumer price index excluding food and energy rose at about the same average monthly rate in July and August as in the second quarter. Near-term inflation expectations from the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers in August and September stayed well below the elevated level seen in the spring, and longer-term inflation expectations remained stable.

Available measures of labor compensation indicated that wage increases continued to be restrained by the large margin of slack in the labor market. Average hourly earnings for all employees posted a small gain, on net, over July and August, and their rate of increase from 12 months earlier remained subdued.

Foreign economic growth declined in the second quarter. Growth slowed notably in Europe; economic activity also decelerated in the emerging market economies. Real GDP contracted in Canada due to a large decline in exports. Output also fell in Japan, reflecting the dislocations caused by the March earthquake. Part of the downshift in global economic growth appeared to have been driven by temporary supply chain disruptions caused by Japan's earthquake. Although the waning of these disruptions seemed to be supporting a rebound in foreign GDP growth in the third quarter, recent indicators suggested only sluggish gains in underlying economic activity. With the intensification of fiscal and financial stress in the euro area, measures of consumer and business confidence declined in August, and indicators of manufacturing activity in the region deteriorated. For many emerging market economies, the recent slowing in growth of economic activity was most evident in exports, industrial production, and other indicators of manufacturing activity. Inflation abroad eased in the second quarter as the effects of earlier increases in food and energy prices began to fade. More recently, however, increases in domestic food prices appeared to be pushing up consumer price inflation in some economies.

Staff Review of the Financial Situation
Financial markets were volatile over the intermeeting period as investors responded to mostly downbeat news on economic activity in the United States and abroad. Fluctuations in investors' level of concern about European fiscal and financial prospects also contributed to market volatility.

The expected path of the federal funds rate moved down appreciably over the intermeeting period. Investors initially focused on the firmer forward guidance in the August FOMC statement indicating that the Committee anticipated that economic conditions were likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate at least through mid-2013. Over subsequent weeks, weak economic data contributed to rising expectations of additional monetary accommodation; those expectations and increasing concerns about the financial situation in Europe led to an appreciable decline in intermediate- and longer-term nominal Treasury yields. Partly in reaction to the softer economic outlook, measures of inflation compensation for the next 5 years as well as 5 to 10 years ahead derived from nominal and inflation-protected Treasury securities each fell to the low end of their ranges for this year.

Since early August, the equity prices of large U.S. financial institutions fell and their credit default swap (CDS) spreads widened. More-pronounced declines in equity prices and larger increases in CDS spreads occurred for some European financial institutions. Though many large European banks found it increasingly difficult, in recent weeks, to get unsecured dollar funding beyond the very short term, the conditions faced by U.S. financial institutions in these markets were little changed. In secured funding markets, term financing reportedly remained readily available for both domestic and European financial institutions through repurchase agreements backed by Treasury and agency collateral. However, some strains emerged late in the intermeeting period in the market for repurchase agreements backed by lower-quality, nontraditional collateral. In response to dollar funding pressures abroad, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the Swiss National Bank announced that they would offer banks in their jurisdictions dollar loans for periods of approximately three months as well as continue to offer dollar loans for one-week periods; the Bank of Japan added to its previously announced program of three-month and seven-day dollar loans.

Broad stock price indexes were volatile but increased, on net, since the August FOMC meeting, following sharp declines in the days just preceding that meeting. Gross public equity issuance by nonfinancial firms weakened substantially in recent weeks, and a large number of planned initial public offerings were shelved amid the heightened market volatility.

Spreads of yields on investment- and speculative-grade corporate bonds over those on comparable-maturity Treasury securities rose significantly over the intermeeting period, reaching levels last registered in late 2009, and average bid prices in the secondary market for syndicated leveraged loans declined. Credit flows in August offered additional evidence that debt markets had become less hospitable to lower-rated nonfinancial firms. Bond issuance by speculative-grade firms nearly came to a halt, and the volume of new leveraged loans financed by institutional investors appeared to drop sharply after having moved down in July. However, net bond issuance by investment-grade companies remained robust in August despite wider spreads, and nonfinancial commercial paper outstanding increased slightly.

In the September 2011 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms, dealers reported only small changes in credit terms across major classes of counterparties over the past three months. Respondents noted that the use of financial leverage by hedge funds decreased somewhat over the same period. Dealers also indicated that their clients' willingness to bear risk generally had declined somewhat; that was particularly true of hedge funds.

Financing conditions for commercial real estate remained weak. Issuance of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) slowed further in July and August, and investors appeared to demand greater compensation for risk. Prices of most types of commercial properties remained depressed despite a slight decline in vacancy rates in the second quarter. Delinquency rates on loans that back existing CMBS hovered at an elevated level in August, but delinquency rates on commercial real estate loans held by banks decreased in the second quarter.

Residential MBS yields and residential mortgage interest rates declined, on net, over the intermeeting period to historically low levels, but their spreads to yields on long-term Treasury securities increased. However, low mortgage rates spurred little refinancing activity, in part because of tight underwriting standards and low levels of home equity for many households. Residential mortgage debt contracted further in the second quarter, and the volume of mortgage applications to purchase homes moved down so far in the third quarter. Rates of serious mortgage delinquency continued to moderate but remained high, while the rate at which prime mortgages moved into delinquency stepped up, on balance, in recent months.

Consumer credit increased at a solid pace in July, as a sizable increase in nonrevolving credit--driven by a surge in federally funded student loans--more than offset a decrease in revolving credit. Issuance of consumer asset-backed securities moved down in August, but spreads on these securities remained low. Delinquency rates for several categories of consumer loans moved down further in recent months, with some reaching levels not seen since the 2008–09 recession began.

Core commercial bank loans--the sum of commercial and industrial (C&I), real estate, and consumer loans--expanded slightly in July and August. C&I loans grew strongly, consumer loans showed tepid growth, and real estate loans continued to decline. The upturn in lending was concentrated at large domestic and foreign institutions; at smaller banks, core loans declined in July and August at about the same pace as in recent quarters.

M2 surged in July and August, as investors and asset managers sought the relative safety and liquidity of bank deposits and other assets that make up the M2 aggregate. Notably, institutional investors, concerned about exposures of money funds to European financial institutions, shifted from prime money funds to bank deposits, and money fund managers accumulated sizable bank deposits in anticipation of potentially large redemptions by investors. In addition, retail investors evidently placed redemptions from equity and bond mutual funds into bank deposits and retail money market funds.

The foreign exchange value of the dollar increased over the intermeeting period, reflecting a flight to safety that also contributed to lower benchmark sovereign yields in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada. In contrast, the yield on two-year Greek sovereign bonds rose sharply as market participants became increasingly concerned that Greece might default on its sovereign debt. Equity prices in the euro area decreased over the intermeeting period, following sharp declines in early August. After falling steeply before the August FOMC meeting, emerging market equity prices were little changed, on net, over the period.

The European Central Bank continued to purchase, in the secondary market, sovereign debt of euro-area countries. Yields on Italian and Spanish debt, which declined following reported ECB purchases in early August, drifted higher during the intermeeting period. Prices of money market futures contracts indicated that monetary policy was expected to become more accommodative in both the euro area and the United Kingdom. The Swiss National Bank took several steps to ease monetary policy, including intervening in the foreign exchange market to counter further appreciation of its currency and eventually announcing that it is prepared to buy unlimited quantities of foreign currency to prevent the Swiss franc from trading in the foreign exchange market at a rate below 1.2 Swiss francs per euro. Citing concerns over the global economic outlook, the central bank of Brazil reduced its policy rate after having raised it several times earlier this year. In contrast, China continued to tighten its monetary policy, extending reserve requirements to a wider range of bank liabilities as it attempted to rein in off-balance-sheet lending by its banks.

Staff Economic Outlook
In the economic forecast prepared for the September FOMC meeting, the staff lowered its projection for the increase in real GDP in the second half of 2011 and in the medium term. The incoming data on household and business spending were about as expected, on balance, but labor market conditions and indicators of near-term economic activity, such as consumer and business sentiment, were weaker than anticipated. In addition, financial conditions deteriorated since the time of the previous forecast as investors pulled back from riskier assets. Nevertheless, the staff continued to forecast that economic activity would increase more rapidly in the second half of this year than over the first half, as supply chain disruptions in the motor vehicle sector eased. In the medium term, the staff still projected real GDP to accelerate gradually, supported by accommodative monetary policy, further increases in credit availability, and improvements in consumer and business confidence from their current low levels. The increase in real GDP was expected to be sufficient to reduce the unemployment rate only slowly over the projection period, and the jobless rate was anticipated to remain elevated at the end of 2013.

The staff's projection for inflation was little changed from its forecast at the time of the August FOMC meeting. The upward pressure on consumer prices from increases in import and commodity prices earlier in the year, along with the temporary boost to motor vehicle prices from low inventories, were expected to recede further in the coming quarters. With stable long-run inflation expectations and considerable slack in labor and product markets anticipated to persist over the forecast period, the staff continued to project that inflation would be subdued in 2012 and 2013.

Participants' Views on Current Conditions and the Economic Outlook
In their discussion of the economic situation and outlook, meeting participants agreed that the information received during the intermeeting period indicated that economic growth remained slow but did not suggest a contraction in activity. Temporary factors that had contributed to slower growth during the first half of the year had partly reversed, contributing to some rebound in final sales and production, particularly in the manufacturing sector where progress had been made in resolving supply chain disruptions. But stresses in global financial markets, sluggish growth in households' real incomes, and heightened uncertainty about economic prospects seemed to have contributed to lower consumer and business sentiment and to be weighing on economic growth. Recent indicators pointed to continuing weakness in overall labor market conditions, and the unemployment rate remained elevated. Inflation appeared to have moderated since earlier in the year as prices of energy and some commodities declined from their peaks, but inflation had not yet come down as much as participants had expected earlier this year. Labor costs remained subdued.

Looking ahead, participants continued to expect some pickup in the pace of recovery over coming quarters but anticipated that the unemployment rate would decline only gradually. They generally judged that risks to the growth outlook, including strains in global financial markets, were significant and tilted to the downside; moreover, slow growth left the recovery more vulnerable to negative shocks. With longer-term inflation expectations remaining stable and the effects of past increases in energy and commodity prices continuing to dissipate, most participants saw both core and headline inflation as likely to settle, over coming quarters, at or below the levels they see as most consistent with their dual mandate. Participants continued to see the outlook for growth and inflation as more uncertain than usual.

Participants noted modest growth in consumer spending on average in recent months, with some rebound in purchases of new motor vehicles as manufacturers made progress in resolving supply chain disruptions and increased the availability of popular models. Surveys suggested that households were pessimistic about their future incomes, and consumer confidence had dropped to historically low levels. Low confidence, continuing efforts to repair balance sheets, and heightened caution in the face of an uncertain economic environment were seen as factors likely to weigh on household spending. Several participants pointed to depressed home prices and financial constraints, including still-tight credit conditions for many households, as also likely to restrain consumer spending for a time. However, household debt-service burdens had declined, indicating that there had been further progress in repairing household balance sheets.

Business sentiment had worsened, seemingly in response to weaker economic prospects and increased downside risks to the outlook for U.S. and global growth. Contacts at communications, technology, and transportation firms indicated that growth had slowed in those sectors; surveys also indicated that growth in the manufacturing sector had weakened during the summer. One participant suggested that hurricanes and subsequent flooding had contributed to the slowing in some parts of the country. In contrast, business contacts reported that commodity-related sectors such as energy, agriculture, and mining continued to show strong gains; tourism also appeared to be doing well. Exports remained a bright spot for U.S. manufacturers and commodity producers. Business investment in equipment and software had continued to expand in recent months, but some contacts expressed concern that firms would cut capital spending if their sales slowed further.

The housing sector remained depressed, with construction at very low levels and seen as likely to remain so given the weakness in new home sales and the continuing flow of foreclosed properties into the market. Though mortgage rates were very low, spreads between mortgage rates and yields on Treasury securities were unusually wide. Moreover, still-tight credit standards meant that many households were unable to qualify for loans to buy a home, and the drop in house prices in recent years left others unable to refinance an existing higher-rate mortgage. Nonresidential construction generally remained weak, apart from investment in extractive industries, and forward-looking indicators of nonresidential construction had dropped.

Meeting participants generally noted that overall labor market conditions had shown no improvement or had deteriorated in recent months and the unemployment rate remained elevated. Even after adjusting for the effects of strikes on reported payrolls, the employment report for August showed weak job gains. Moreover, both the average workweek and aggregate hours worked declined. Contacts reported that slower growth, depressed business confidence, and uncertainty about the economic outlook were restraining hiring as well as capital investment; many also cited uncertainty about regulatory and tax policies as contributing to businesses' reluctance to spend. Some business contacts reported that their firms had made contingency plans to reduce output and employment if demand for their products were to turn down. Participants generally agreed that sluggish job growth and the elevated unemployment rate reflected both weak demand for goods and services and a mismatch between the characteristics of the unemployed and the needs of the employers that currently have jobs available, but they had varying views about the relative importance of these two factors. Many participants judged that weak demand was of most importance, while a few argued that structural and geographic mismatches were key. A few commented that business contacts reported receiving large numbers of applications for relatively low-skilled positions but having difficulty finding and hiring candidates for some highly skilled positions. Several participants again noted that the exceptionally high level of long-duration unemployment could lead to permanent negative effects on the skills and employment prospects of those affected and so reduce the economy's longer-run productive potential.

Participants noted that financial markets were volatile over the intermeeting period and that financial conditions were strained at times, as investors reacted to the incoming economic data and to news about European fiscal and financial developments. Several participants argued that broader financial conditions had become less accommodative over the intermeeting period: Risk spreads had widened appreciably, likely reflecting a reduced willingness of investors to bear risk, a weaker outlook for growth in the United States and globally, and greater uncertainty about economic prospects. On the positive side, some participants noted that the reduction in leverage and increase in financial firms' liquidity cushions since the height of the financial crisis likely had attenuated the adverse effects of heightened risk aversion. Contacts in the banking sector reported that U.S. banks remained willing to lend to qualified customers, but that loan demand was weak. While noting that conditions in bank funding markets had tightened, particularly for European banks, participants observed that the capital and liquidity positions of U.S. banks had strengthened in recent quarters and that the credit quality of both business and household loans had continued to improve. Nonetheless, some large U.S. banks had seen further pressure on their stock prices and CDS spreads. Participants agreed that, if European policymakers did not respond effectively, European sovereign debt and banking problems could intensify, with potentially serious spillovers to the U.S. economy. However, it was noted that the ECB was providing ample liquidity to European banks, and that it had substantial capacity to provide additional liquidity through its lending facilities if necessary.

Most participants agreed that inflation appeared to have moderated in recent months compared with earlier in the year as prices of energy and some commodities declined from their peaks, though the moderation was not as substantial as many participants had expected. Longer-term inflation expectations had remained stable. Most participants anticipated that, with stable inflation expectations, significant slack in labor and product markets, slow wage growth, and little evidence of pricing power among firms, inflation was likely to decline moderately over time. Several suggested that slowing growth in the United States and abroad made a new surge in commodity prices unlikely. However, some noted that core as well as headline inflation had moved up, on balance, since last fall. A few suggested that the juxtaposition of higher core inflation and somewhat lower unemployment could mean that the degree of slack in labor markets and the level of potential output were lower than the Committee had thought. Some argued that the rise in core inflation from very low levels reflected the accommodative stance of monetary policy and indicated that the large-scale asset purchases the Committee undertook from November through June had been a successful response to the deflation risks of a year ago. Many participants judged that the risks to the outlook for inflation were roughly balanced. Some saw medium-run inflation risks as tilted to the downside, in light of persistent resource slack; some others argued that the accommodative stance of monetary policy and the upward trend in measures of core inflation this year suggested inflation risks were tilted to the upside. Participants generally judged that there was relatively little risk of deflation. One commented that surveys showed that forecasters saw a low likelihood of deflation; a second, however, noted that a measure of the probability of deflation calculated from prices of Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS) had declined as the Federal Reserve conducted its second large-scale asset purchase program but more recently had been rising.

Participants saw considerable uncertainty surrounding the outlook for a gradual pickup in economic growth. It was again noted that the cyclical impetus to economic expansion appeared to be weaker than in past recoveries, but that the reasons for the weakness were unclear, contributing to greater uncertainty about the economic outlook. Several commented that, with households and businesses seeking to reduce leverage rather than to borrow and with housing markets in distress, some of the normal mechanisms through which monetary policy actions are transmitted to the real economy appeared to be attenuated. Many participants saw significant downside risks to economic growth. While they did not anticipate a downturn in economic activity, several remarked that, with growth slow, the recovery was more vulnerable to adverse shocks. Risks included the possibility of more pronounced or more protracted deleveraging by households, the chance of a larger-than-expected near-term fiscal tightening, and potential spillovers to the United States if the financial situation in Europe were to worsen appreciably. Participants agreed to consider further how best to use their monetary policy and liquidity tools to deal with such shocks if they were to occur.

Committee Policy Action
In the discussion of monetary policy for the period ahead, most members agreed that the revisions to the economic outlook warranted some additional monetary policy accommodation to support a stronger recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, was at a level consistent with the Committee's dual mandate. While they recognized that monetary policy alone could not completely address the economy's ills, most members judged that additional accommodation could contribute importantly to better outcomes in terms of the Committee's dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability. Those viewing greater policy accommodation as appropriate at this meeting generally supported a maturity extension program that would combine asset purchases and sales to extend the average maturity of securities held in the SOMA without generating a substantial expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet or reserve balances. Specifically, those members supported a program under which the Committee would announce its intention to purchase, by the end of June 2012, $400 billion of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 6 years to 30 years and to sell an equal amount of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 3 years or less. They expected this program to put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates and to help make broader financial conditions more accommodative. While the scale of such a maturity extension program was necessarily limited by the amount of shorter-term securities in the SOMA portfolio, most members judged the action as appropriate, given economic conditions and the outlook. Two members said that current conditions and the outlook could justify stronger policy action, but they supported undertaking the maturity extension program at this meeting as it did not rule out additional steps at future meetings. Three members concluded that additional accommodation was not appropriate at this time. The Committee discussed whether to specify the parameters of the maturity extension program by stating its intention to complete the full set of transactions by June 2012 or by stating that it would undertake these transactions at a specified monthly pace. Members saw benefits to both approaches: The former would provide the public greater clarity about the likely scale of the program and the latter might allow the Committee greater flexibility to adjust the scale of the program in response to unexpected economic developments. A majority favored the first approach. Members noted, however, that the Committee will continue to regularly review the size and composition of its securities holdings and that it is prepared to adjust those holdings as appropriate.

Most members also supported a change in the Committee's reinvestment policy. To help support conditions in mortgage markets, the Committee decided to reinvest principal received from its holdings of agency debt and agency MBS in agency MBS rather than continuing to reinvest in longer-term Treasury securities as had been the Committee's practice for more than a year. The effect of this change will be to keep the SOMA's holdings of agency securities at an approximately constant level; under the previous practice, those holdings were declining on an ongoing basis. This change in reinvestment policy was expected to help reduce the spread between yields on mortgage-backed securities and those on comparable-maturity Treasury securities seen this year and so contribute to lower mortgage rates. Members also noted that the change in reinvestment policy could help prevent the shares of outstanding longer-term Treasury securities held by the Federal Reserve from reaching levels high enough to result in a deterioration in Treasury market functioning. One member who opposed the maturity extension program also opposed the change in reinvestment policy because he judged that it would not benefit housing markets. At the same time, the Committee decided to maintain its existing policy of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction.

The Committee also decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and to reaffirm its anticipation that economic conditions--including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run--are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through mid-2013. A couple of members noted that they would prefer to change the Committee's forward guidance to provide greater clarity about the economic conditions that would be likely to warrant maintaining exceptionally low levels of the target federal funds rate, but no decision was taken on this point.

The Committee agreed that it was important to acknowledge, in the statement to be released following the meeting, that economic growth remained slow and that indicators pointed to continuing weakness in overall labor market conditions. It also agreed to note that inflation appeared to have moderated since earlier in the year as prices of energy and some commodities had declined from their recent peaks, and that longer-term inflation expectations remained stable. Members generally continued to expect some pickup in the pace of the economic recovery over coming quarters but anticipated that the unemployment rate would decline only gradually and agreed that there were significant downside risks to the economic outlook, including strains in global financial markets. The Committee again anticipated that inflation would settle, over coming quarters, at levels at or below those consistent with the Committee's mandate as the effects of past energy and commodity price increases dissipate further.

At the conclusion of the discussion, the Committee voted to authorize and direct the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, until it was instructed otherwise, to execute transactions in the System Account in accordance with the following domestic policy directive:

"The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with federal funds trading in a range from 0 to 1/4 percent. The Committee directs the Desk to purchase, by the end of June 2012, Treasury securities with remaining maturities of approximately 6 years to 30 years with a total face value of $400 billion, and to sell Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 3 years or less with a total face value of $400 billion. The Committee also directs the Desk to maintain its existing policy of rolling over maturing Treasury securities into new issues and to reinvest principal payments on all agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in the System Open Market Account in agency mortgage-backed securities in order to maintain the total face value of domestic securities at approximately $2.6 trillion. The Committee directs the Desk to engage in dollar roll transactions as necessary to facilitate settlement of the Federal Reserve's agency MBS transactions. The System Open Market Account Manager and the Secretary will keep the Committee informed of ongoing developments regarding the System's balance sheet that could affect the attainment over time of the Committee's objectives of maximum employment and price stability."

The vote encompassed approval of the statement below to be released at 2:15 p.m.:

"Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in August indicates that economic growth remains slow. Recent indicators point to continuing weakness in overall labor market conditions, and the unemployment rate remains elevated. Household spending has been increasing at only a modest pace in recent months despite some recovery in sales of motor vehicles as supply-chain disruptions eased. Investment in nonresidential structures is still weak, and the housing sector remains depressed. However, business investment in equipment and software continues to expand. Inflation appears to have moderated since earlier in the year as prices of energy and some commodities have declined from their peaks. Longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee continues to expect some pickup in the pace of recovery over coming quarters but anticipates that the unemployment rate will decline only gradually toward levels that the Committee judges to be consistent with its dual mandate. Moreover, there are significant downside risks to the economic outlook, including strains in global financial markets. The Committee also anticipates that inflation will settle, over coming quarters, at levels at or below those consistent with the Committee's dual mandate as the effects of past energy and other commodity price increases dissipate further. However, the Committee will continue to pay close attention to the evolution of inflation and inflation expectations.

To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with the dual mandate, the Committee decided today to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities. The Committee intends to purchase, by the end of June 2012, $400 billion of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 6 years to 30 years and to sell an equal amount of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 3 years or less. This program should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates and help make broader financial conditions more accommodative. The Committee will regularly review the size and composition of its securities holdings and is prepared to adjust those holdings as appropriate.

To help support conditions in mortgage markets, the Committee will now reinvest principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities. In addition, the Committee will maintain its existing policy of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction.

The Committee also decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that economic conditions--including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run--are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through mid-2013.

The Committee discussed the range of policy tools available to promote a stronger economic recovery in a context of price stability. It will continue to assess the economic outlook in light of incoming information and is prepared to employ its tools as appropriate."

Voting for this action: Ben Bernanke, William C. Dudley, Elizabeth Duke, Charles L. Evans, Sarah Bloom Raskin, Daniel K. Tarullo, and Janet L. Yellen.

Voting against this action: Richard W. Fisher, Narayana Kocherlakota, and Charles I. Plosser.

Messrs. Fisher, Kocherlakota, and Plosser dissented because they did not support additional policy accommodation at this time. Mr. Fisher saw a maturity extension program as providing few, if any, benefits in support of job creation or economic growth, while it could potentially constrain or complicate the timely removal of policy accommodation. In his view, any reduction in long-term Treasury rates resulting from this policy action would likely lead to further hoarding by savers, with counterproductive results on business and consumer confidence and spending behaviors. He felt that policymakers should instead focus their attention on improving the monetary policy transmission mechanism, particularly with regard to the activity of community banks, which are vital to small business lending and job creation. Mr. Kocherlakota's perspective on the policy decision was again shaped by his view that in November 2010, the Committee had chosen a level of accommodation that was well calibrated for the condition of the economy. Since November, inflation, and the one-year-ahead forecast for inflation, had risen, while unemployment, and the one-year-ahead forecast for unemployment, had fallen. He did not believe that providing more monetary accommodation was the appropriate response to those changes in the economy, given the current policy framework. Mr. Plosser felt that a maturity extension program would do little to improve near-term growth or employment, in light of the ongoing structural adjustments and fiscal challenges both in the United States and abroad. Moreover, in his view, with inflation continuing to run above earlier forecasts, such a program could risk adding unwanted inflationary pressures and complicate the eventual exit from the period of extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy.

Following the policy vote, the Manager of the System Open Market Account summarized how the Desk would implement the Committee's decisions. To implement the maturity extension program, the Desk would distribute purchases about evenly across nominal Treasury securities with 6 to 8 years to maturity, with 8 to 10 years to maturity, and with 10 to 30 years to maturity; the Desk would also buy a small amount of TIPS with remaining maturities of 6 to 30 years. This distribution would allocate a much larger share of purchases to longer maturities than was the case in the Committee's previous asset purchase programs. At the same time, the Desk would sell, from the SOMA portfolio, Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 3 months to 3 years. All Treasury purchases and sales would be conducted using competitive auctions. With respect to the MBS reinvestment program, the Desk would concentrate purchases in newly issued agency-backed MBS and would conduct purchases through a competitive bidding process.

It was agreed that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Tuesday-Wednesday, November 1-2, 2011. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. on September 21, 2011.

Editor's Note: Article should interest investors in Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), Freddie Mac (OTC: FMCC.OB), Fannie Mae (OTC: FNMA.OB), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), Toronto Dominion (NYSE: TD), BB&T (NYSE: BBT), CIT (NYSE: CIT), Bank United (NYSE: BKU), First Citizens (OTC: FCNCA.PK), Synovus (NYSE: SNV), United Bankshares (Nasdaq: UBSI), Hampton Roads Bankshares (Nasdaq: HMPR), WesBanco (Nasdaq: WSBC), City Holding (Nasdaq: CHCO), Sandy Spring (Nasdaq: SASR), First Citizens (OTC: FCBN.OB), SCBT Financial (Nasdaq: SCBT), Wilmington Trust (NYSE: WL), WSFS Financial (Nasdaq: WSFS), Southside Bancshares (Nasdaq: SBSI), Stellar One (Nasdaq: STEL), Union First Market (Nasdaq: UBSH), Eagle Bancorp (Nasdaq: EGBN), First Bancorp (Nasdaq: FBNC), Ameris (Nasdaq: ABCB), The Bancorp (Nasdaq: TBBK), First Community (Nasdaq: FCBC), Capital City (Nasdaq: CCBG), Financial Institutions (Nasdaq: FISI), National Bankshares (Nasdaq: NKSH), Citizens & Northern (Nasdaq: CZNC), Charter Financial (Nasdaq: CHFN), Seacoast Banking (Nasdaq: SBCF), TIB Financial (Nasdaq: TIBB), American National (Nasdaq: AMNB), United Community (Nasdaq: UCBI), Middleburg Financial (Nasdaq: MBRG), Heritage Financial (Nasdaq: HBOS), Zions Bancorp (Nasdaq: ZION), East West Bancorp (Nasdaq: EWBC), City National (NYSE: CYN), Bank of Hawaii (NYSE: BOH), SVB Financial (Nasdaq: SIVB), Westamerica (Nasdaq: WABC), Cathay General (Nasdaq: CATY), Umpqua (Nasdaq: UMPQ), Glacier Bancorp (Nasdaq: GBCI), Pacific Capital (Nasdaq: PCBC), PacWest (Nasdaq: PACW), Western Alliance (NYSE: WAL), First National Alaska (OTC: FBAK.OB), First Interstate Bancsystem (Nasdaq: FIBK), Nara (Nasdaq: NARA), West Coast (Nasdaq: WCBO), TriCo (Nasdaq: TCBK), Territorial (Nasdaq: TBNK), Washington Banking (Nasdaq: WCBO), Bank of Marin (Nasdaq: BMRC), Hanmi (Nasdaq: HAFC), PNC Bank (NYSE: PNC), J.P. Morgan Chase (NYSE: JPM), United Bankshares (Nasdaq: UBSI), Bank of New York Mellon (NYSE: BK), MB Financial (Nasdaq: MBFI), Astoria Financial (NYSE: AF), New York Community (NYSE: NYB), Hudson City (Nasdaq: HCBK), People’s United (Nasdaq: PBCT), First Niagra (Nasdaq: FNFG), Capitol Federal (Nasdaq: CFFN), Washington Federal (Nasdaq: WFSL), Investor’s Bancorp (Nasdaq: ISBC), Northwest Bankshares (Nasdaq: NWBI), Sterling Financial (Nasdaq: STSA), Ocwen (NYSE: OCN), Flagstar (NYSE: FBC), Provident (NYSE: PFS), Colombia Banking (Nasdaq: COLB), Kearny (Nasdaq: KRNY), Brookline (Nasdaq: BRKL), Dime Community (Nasdaq: DCOM), Flushing Financial (Nasdaq: FFIC), Danvers (Nasdaq: DNBK).

Please see our disclosures at the Wall Street Greek website and author bio pages found there. This article and website in no way offers or represents financial or investment advice. Information is provided for entertainment purposes only.

Wall Street

Labels:

free email financial newsletter Bookmark and Share