Search

The topic of the Federal Reserve's (the Fed's) implementation of monetary policy has a significant presence in economics textbooks as well as standards and guidelines for economics instruction. This presence likely reflects the fact that it is the implementation framework that helps ensure that the Fed's desired level of its policy interest rate is transmitted to financial markets, which helps it steer the economy toward the Congressional dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability. Over the past decade or so, the Fed has purposefully shifted the way it implements monetary policy to an environment with ample reserves in the banking system, and it has introduced new policy tools along the way. This paper shows that, unfortunately, many teaching resources are not in sync with the Fed's current framework. We review six, 2020 or 2021 edition, principles of economics textbooks, and we find they vary greatly in their coverage of the concepts associated with the way the Fed implements policy today and in the longer run. We provide recommendations on how the authors can improve the next editions of their textbooks. We also review standards and guidelines used by secondaryschool educators. All of these are out of date, and we provide proposals for how these materials can be updated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Federal Open Market Committee indicated in its September 2017 post-meeting statement that it will initiate in October a balance sheet normalization program to gradually reduce its securities holdings. This action will put in place a policy of reinvesting and redeeming portions of the principal payments received by the Federal Reserve from its holdings of Treasury and agency securities. How are these adjustments to the Federal Reserve's securities holdings transacted and who is affected? This paper provides a primer regarding how the Federal Reserve accounts for these securities transactions. It also illustrates the numerous ways that the Federal Reserve's actions can play out across other sectors of the economy, including those that engage directly with the Federal Reserve and those that are involved indirectly as funds change hands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We study banks' post-crisis liquidity management. We construct time series of U.S. banks' holdings of high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) and examine how these assets have been managed in recent years to comply with the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) requirement. We find that, in becoming LCR compliant, banks initially ramped up their stock of reserve balances. However, once the requirement was met, some banks subsequently shifted the compositions of their liquid portfolios significantly. This raises the question: What drives the compositions of banks' HQLA? We show that a risk-return framework can account for a range of potential portfolio compositions depending on banks' tolerance for interest rate risk. And, our data indicate that banks have indeed adopted a range of portfolio compositions, with some components exhibiting a high degree of daily variance. These findings lead us to conclude that about half of large banks are largely focused on risk-return considerations in managing the compositions of their HQLA pools while the other half appear bound by other factors. We highlight the importance of our findings for both the transmission and implementation of monetary policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We explore the historical composition of the Federal Reserve's Treasury portfolio and its effect on Treasury yields. Using data from 1985 to 2016, we show that the divergence of the composition of the Federal Reserve's portfolio from overall Treasury securities outstanding is associated with a statistically significant effect on interest rates. In aggregate, when the Federal Reserve's portfolio has shorter maturity than overall Treasury debt outstanding, measures of the term premium are higher at all horizons; likewise, when the Federal Reserve's portfolio has longer maturity, term premiums are lower. In addition, at the individual security level, differences in Federal Reserve holdings from overall Treasury debt outstanding are correlated with measures of pricing errors and liquidity premiums. We discuss the mechanism for this effect, which could include elements of preferred-habitat theory as well as the fiscal theory of the price level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Federal Reserve conducts monetary policy in order to achieve its statutory mandate of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates as prescribed by the Congress and laid out in the Federal Reserve Act. For many years prior to the financial crisis, the FOMC set a target for the federal funds rate and achieved that target through small purchases and sales of securities in the open market. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, with a superabundant level of reserve balances in the banking system having been created as a result of the Federal Reserve's large scale asset purchase programs, this approach to implementing monetary policy will no longer work. This paper provides a primer on the Fed's implementation of monetary policy. We use the standard textbook model to illustrate why the approach used by the Federal Reserve before the financial crisis to keep the federal funds rate near the FOMC's target will not work in current circumstances, and explain the approach that the Committee intends to use instead when it decides to begin raising short-term interest rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper develops a model of the financial system that provides a framework for analyzing monetary policy implementation in a world with multiple Federal Reserve liabilities and a superabundant supply of reserves. The analysis demonstrates that the Federal Reserve's suite of policy tools including interest on excess reserves (IOER), overnight and term reverse repurchase agreements, and term deposits should allow the Federal Reserve to raise the level of short-term interest rates at the appropriate time. The model also demonstrates that these tools could be used in different ways to achieve any given desired level of interest rates. The choices among alternative combinations of tools, of course, have implications for patterns of financial intermediation. Specifically, the quantity of Federal Reserve liabilities held outside of the banking system is shown to depend importantly on the spread between various policy rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past few years, the Federal Reserve's use of unconventional monetary policy tools has led it to hold a large portfolio of securities. The asset purchases are intended to put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, but also affect the Federal Reserve's balance sheet and income. We begin with a primer on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet and income statement. Then, we present a framework for projecting Federal Reserve assets and liabilities and income through time. The projections are based on public economic forecasts and announced Federal Open Market Committee policy principles. The projections imply that for the next several years, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet remains large by historical standards, and earnings remain high. Using the FOMC's stated exit strategy principles and the Blue Chip financial forecasts of the federal funds rate, the projections have the Federal Reserve's portfolio beginning to contract in 2015. The portfolio returns to a more normal size in early 2018 or 2019, and returns to a more normal composition a year thereafter. The projections imply that Federal Reserve remittances to the Treasury will likely decline for a time, and in some cases fall to zero. Once the portfolio is normalized, however, earnings are projected to return to their long-run trend. On net over the entire period of unconventional monetary policy actions, cumulative earnings are higher than what they likely would have been without the Federal Reserve asset purchase programs. To illustrate the interest rate sensitivity of the portfolio and earnings, we consider scenarios where interest rates are 100 basis points higher or 100 basis points lower than in the baseline projections. With higher interest rates, earnings tend to fall a bit more and remittances to the Treasury stop for a longer period than in our baseline projections, while with lower interest rates earnings are a bit larger and remittances continue throughout the projection period. With either interest rate path, earnings follow the same general contour as in the baseline analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the effect that biofuels production has had on commodity and global food prices. The innovative contribution of this paper is the interactive spreadsheet that allows the reader to choose the assumptions behind the estimates. By allowing the reader to choose the country, time period, supply and demand elasticities, and the size of indirect effects we explicitly illustrate the sensitivity of the estimated effect of biofuels production on prices. Our best estimates suggest that the increase in biofuels production over the past two years has had a sizeable impact on corn, sugar, barley and soybean prices, but a much smaller impact on global food prices. Over the past two years (ending June 2008), we estimate that the increase in worldwide biofuels production pushed up corn, soybean and sugar prices by 27, 21 and 12 percentage points respectively. The countries that account for most of the upward pressure on these prices are the United States and Brazil. Our best estimates suggest that the increase in U.S. biofuels production (ethanol and biodiesel) pushed up corn prices by more than 22 percentage points and soybean prices (soybeans and soybean oil) by more than 15 percentage points, while the increase in EU biofuels production pushed corn and soybean prices up around 3 percentage points. Brazil's increase in sugar-based ethanol production accounts for the entire rise in the price of sugar. Although biofuels had a noticeable impact on individual crop prices, they had a much smaller impact on global food prices. Our best estimate suggests that the increase in worldwide biofuels production over the past two years accounts for just over 12 percent of the rise in the IMF's food price index. The increase in U.S. biofuels production accounts for roughly 60 percent of this effect, while Brazil accounts for 14 percent and the EU accounts for 15 percent. The key take-away point is that nearly 90 percent of the rise in global food prices comes from factors other than biofuels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]