Update: Here is a key sentence:
"Many members judged that additional monetary accommodation would likely be warranted fairly soon unless incoming information pointed to a substantial and sustainable strengthening in the pace of the economic recovery"
From the Fed:
Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee, July 31-August 1, 2012. Excerpt:
Participants discussed a number of policy tools that the Committee might employ if it decided to provide additional monetary accommodation to support a stronger economic recovery in a context of price stability. One of the policy options discussed was an extension of the period
over which the Committee expected to maintain its target range for the
federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent. It was noted that such an
extension might be particularly effective if done in conjunction with a statement
indicating that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy was
likely to be maintained even as the recovery progressed. Given the
uncertainty attending the economic outlook, a few participants
questioned whether the conditionality of the forward guidance was
sufficiently clear, and they suggested that the Committee should
consider replacing the calendar date with guidance that was linked more
directly to the economic factors that the Committee would consider in
deciding to raise its target for the federal funds rate, or omit the
forward guidance language entirely.
Participants also exchanged views on the likely benefits and costs of a new large-scale asset purchase program. Many participants expected that such a program could provide additional support
for the economic recovery both by putting downward pressure on
longer-term interest rates and by contributing to easier financial
conditions more broadly. In addition, some participants noted that a new
program might boost business and consumer confidence and reinforce the
Committee's commitment to making sustained progress toward its mandated
objectives. Participants also discussed the merits of purchases of
Treasury securities relative to agency MBS. However, others questioned
the possible efficacy of such a program under present circumstances, and
a couple suggested that the effects on economic activity might be
transitory. In reviewing the costs
that such a program might entail, some participants expressed concerns
about the effects of additional asset purchases on trading conditions in
markets related to Treasury securities and agency MBS, but others
agreed with the staff's analysis showing substantial capacity for
additional purchases without disrupting market functioning. Several
worried that additional purchases might alter the process of normalizing
the Federal Reserve's balance sheet when the time came to begin
removing accommodation. A few participants were concerned that an
extended period of accommodation or an additional large-scale asset
purchase program could increase the risks to financial stability or lead
to a rise in longer-term inflation expectations. Many participants
indicated that any new purchase program should be sufficiently flexible
to allow adjustments, as needed, in response to economic developments or
to changes in the Committee's assessment of the efficacy and costs of
the program.
Some participants commented on other possible tools for adding policy
accommodation, including a reduction in the interest rate paid on
required and excess reserve balances. While a couple of participants
favored such a reduction, several others raised concerns about possible
adverse effects on money
markets. It was noted that the ECB's recent cut in its deposit rate to
zero provided an opportunity to learn more about the possible
consequences for market functioning of such a move. In light of the Bank
of England's Funding for Lending Scheme, a couple of participants
expressed interest in exploring possible programs aimed at encouraging
bank lending to households and firms, although the importance of
institutional differences between the two countries was noted.
No comments:
Post a Comment