FOMC Minutes
Page 1
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee
March 20–21, 2018
A joint meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee
and the Board of Governors was held in the offices of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at
1:00 p.m. and continued on Wednesday, March 21, 2018,
at 9:00 a.m. 1
PRESENT:
Jerome H. Powell, Chairman
William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman
Thomas I. Barkin
Raphael W. Bostic
Lael Brainard
Loretta J. Mester
Randal K. Quarles
John C. Williams
James Bullard, Charles L. Evans, Esther L. George,
Eric Rosengren, and Michael Strine, 2 Alternate
Members of the Federal Open Market Committee
Patrick Harker, Robert S. Kaplan, and Neel Kashkari,
Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks of
Philadelphia, Dallas, and Minneapolis, respectively
James A. Clouse, Secretary
Matthew M. Luecke, Deputy Secretary
David W. Skidmore, Assistant Secretary
Michelle A. Smith, Assistant Secretary
Mark E. Van Der Weide, General Counsel
Michael Held, Deputy General Counsel
Thomas Laubach, Economist
David W. Wilcox, Economist
David Altig, Kartik B. Athreya, Thomas A. Connors,
Trevor A. Reeve, Ellis W. Tallman, and William
Wascher, Associate Economists
Simon Potter, Manager, System Open Market Account
Lorie K. Logan, Deputy Manager, System Open
Market Account
1 The Federal Open Market Committee is referenced as the
“FOMC” and the “Committee” in these minutes.
2 Attended Tuesday session only.
Ann E. Misback, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Board of Governors
Matthew J. Eichner, 3 Director, Division of Reserve
Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of
Governors; Michael S. Gibson, Director, Division
of Supervision and Regulation, Board of
Governors; Andreas Lehnert, Director, Division of
Financial Stability, Board of Governors
Rochelle M. Edge, Deputy Director, Division of
Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors; Michael T.
Kiley, Deputy Director, Division of Financial
Stability, Board of Governors
Antulio N. Bomfim, Special Adviser to the Chairman,
Office of Board Members, Board of Governors
Joseph W. Gruber and John M. Roberts,2 Special
Advisers to the Board, Office of Board Members,
Board of Governors
Linda Robertson, Assistant to the Board, Office of
Board Members, Board of Governors
Shaghil Ahmed, Brian M. Doyle, and Christopher J.
Erceg, Senior Associate Directors, Division of
International Finance, Board of Governors; Eric
M. Engen and Diana Hancock, Senior Associate
Directors, Division of Research and Statistics,
Board of Governors
Ellen E. Meade, Stephen A. Meyer, Edward Nelson,
and Robert J. Tetlow, Senior Advisers, Division of
Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors
Stacey Tevlin, Associate Director, Division of Research
and Statistics, Board of Governors
Glenn Follette and Karen M. Pence,2 Assistant
Directors, Division of Research and Statistics,
Board of Governors
Attended through the discussion of developments in financial markets and open market operations.
3
Page 2
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Eric C. Engstrom, Adviser, Division of Monetary
Affairs, and Adviser, Division of Research and
Statistics, Board of Governors
Penelope A. Beattie,2 Assistant to the Secretary, Office
of the Secretary, Board of Governors
Etienne Gagnon, Section Chief, Division of Monetary
Affairs, Board of Governors
David H. Small, Project Manager, Division of
Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors
Kurt F. Lewis, Principal Economist, Division of
Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors
Anna Orlik, Senior Economist, Division of Monetary
Affairs, Board of Governors
Valerie Hinojosa, Information Manager, Division of
Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors
Meredith Black, First Vice President, Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas
Michael Dotsey, Glenn D. Rudebusch, and Daniel G.
Sullivan, Executive Vice Presidents, Federal
Reserve Banks of Philadelphia, San Francisco, and
Chicago, respectively
Marc Giannoni, Luke Woodward, and Mark L.J.
Wright, Senior Vice Presidents, Federal Reserve
Banks of Dallas, Kansas City, and Minneapolis,
respectively
David Andolfatto, Jonathan P. McCarthy, Giovanni
Olivei, and Jonathan L. Willis, Vice Presidents,
Federal Reserve Banks of St. Louis, New York,
Boston, and Kansas City, respectively
Developments in Financial Markets and Open Market Operations
The deputy manager of the System Open Market Account (SOMA) provided a summary of developments in
domestic and global financial markets over the intermeeting period; she also reported on open market operations and related issues. Financial markets experienced
a notable bout of volatility early in the intermeeting period; volatility was particularly pronounced in equity
markets. Market participants pointed to incoming economic data released in early February—particularly data
on average hourly earnings—as raising concerns about
the prospects for higher inflation and higher interest
rates. These concerns reportedly contributed to a steep
decline in equity prices and an associated rise in
measures of volatility. Some reports suggested that the
increase in volatility was amplified by the unwinding of
trading positions based on various types of volatility
trading strategies. Measures of equity market volatility
declined over subsequent weeks but remained above levels that prevailed earlier in the year, and stock prices finished lower, on net, over the intermeeting period. Interest rates rose modestly over the period. Respondents to
the Open Market Desk’s surveys of primary dealers and
market participants suggested that revisions in investors’
views regarding the fiscal outlook were an important factor boosting yields and contributing to a slightly steeper
expected trajectory of the federal funds rate. The deputy
manager noted that a rapid and sizable increase in Treasury bill issuance over recent weeks had put upward pressure on money market yields over the period. Threemonth Treasury bill yields moved up significantly and
those increases passed through to rates on other shortterm instruments such as three-month Eurodollar deposits and commercial paper. The spread of market
rates on overnight repurchase agreements over the offering rate at the Federal Reserve’s overnight reverse repurchase (ON RRP) facility widened, and take-up at the
facility fell to quite low levels as a result. Rates on overnight federal funds and Eurodollar transactions edged
higher relative to the interest rate on excess reserves.
The Desk continued to execute the FOMC’s balance
sheet normalization plan initiated in October of last year.
By unanimous vote, the Committee ratified the Open
Market Desk’s domestic transactions over the
intermeeting period. There were no intervention
operations in foreign currencies for the System’s account
during the intermeeting period.
Staff Review of the Economic Situation
The information reviewed for the March 20–21 meeting
indicated that labor market conditions continued to
strengthen through February and suggested that real
gross domestic product (GDP) was rising at a moderate
pace in the first quarter. Consumer price inflation, as
measured by the 12-month percentage change in the
price index for personal consumption expenditures
(PCE), remained below 2 percent in January.
Survey-based measures of longer-run inflation expectations were little changed on balance.
Gains in total nonfarm payroll employment were strong
over the two months ending in February. The labor
force participation rate held steady in January and then
stepped up markedly in February, with the participation
Minutes of the Meeting of March 20–21, 2018
Page 3
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
rates for prime-age (defined as ages 25 to 54) women and
men moving up on net. The national unemployment
rate remained at 4.1 percent. Similarly, the unemployment rates for African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics
were roughly flat, on balance, in recent months. The
share of workers employed part time for economic reasons edged up but remained close to its pre-recession
levels. The rates of private-sector job openings and quits
increased slightly, on net, over the two months ending
in January, and the four-week moving average of initial
claims for unemployment insurance benefits continued
to be low in early March. Recent readings showed that
increases in labor compensation remained modest.
Compensation per hour in the nonfarm business sector
advanced 2¾ percent over the four quarters of last year,
and average hourly earnings for all employees rose
2½ percent over the 12 months ending in February.
Total industrial production expanded, on net, in January
and February, with gains in both manufacturing and
mining. Automakers’ schedules indicated that assemblies of light motor vehicles would likely edge down in
coming months. However, broader indicators of manufacturing production, such as the new orders indexes
from national and regional manufacturing surveys,
pointed to further solid increases in factory output in the
near term.
Consumer expenditures appeared likely to rise at a modest pace in the first quarter following a strong gain in the
preceding quarter. Real PCE edged down in January,
and the components of the nominal retail sales data used
by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to construct its estimate of PCE rose somewhat in February while the pace
of light motor vehicle sales declined slightly. However,
household spending was probably held back somewhat
in February because of a delay in many federal tax refunds, and the subsequent delivery of those refunds
would likely contribute to an increase in consumer
spending in March. Moreover, the lower tax withholding resulting from the tax cuts enacted late last year,
which was beginning to show through in consumers’
paychecks, would likely provide some impetus to spending in coming months. More broadly, recent readings
on key factors that influence consumer spending—including gains in employment and real disposable personal income, along with households’ elevated net
worth—continued to be supportive of solid real PCE
growth in the near term. In addition, consumer sentiment in early March, as measured by the University of
Michigan Surveys of Consumers, was at its highest level
since 2004.
Real residential investment looked to be slowing in the
first quarter after rising briskly in the fourth quarter.
Starts of new single-family homes increased in January
and February, although building permit issuance moved
down somewhat. Starts of multifamily units jumped in
January but fell back in February. Sales of both new and
existing homes declined in January.
Growth in real private expenditures for business equipment and intellectual property appeared to be moderating in the first quarter after increasing at a solid pace in
the preceding quarter. Nominal shipments of nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft edged down in January. However, recent forward-looking indicators of
business equipment spending—such as the backlog of
unfilled capital goods orders, along with upbeat readings
on business sentiment from national and regional surveys—pointed to further solid gains in equipment
spending in the near term. Firms’ nominal spending for
nonresidential structures outside of the drilling and mining sector declined in January. In contrast, the number
of crude oil and natural gas rigs in operation—an indicator of business spending for structures in the drilling and
mining sector—continued to move up through midMarch.
Total real government purchases seemed to be flattening
out, on balance, in the first quarter after rising solidly in
the fourth quarter. Nominal defense spending in January and February was consistent with a decline in real
federal purchases. In contrast, real purchases by state
and local governments looked to be rising, as the payrolls of these governments increased in January and February and nominal state and local construction spending
advanced somewhat in January.
The change in net exports was a significant drag on real
GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2017, as imports
grew rapidly. The nominal U.S. international trade deficit widened in January; exports declined, led by lower exports of capital goods and industrial supplies, while imports were about flat. The slowing of real import growth
following the rapid increase in the fourth quarter suggested that the drag on real GDP growth from net exports would lessen in the first quarter.
Total U.S. consumer prices, as measured by the PCE
price index, increased 1¾ percent over the 12 months
ending in January. Core PCE price inflation, which excludes changes in consumer food and energy prices, was
1½ percent over that same period. The consumer price
index (CPI) rose 2¼ percent over the 12 months ending
in February, while core CPI inflation was 1¾ percent.
Recent readings on survey-based measures of longer-run
Page 4
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
inflation expectations—including those from the Michigan survey, the Survey of Professional Forecasters, and
the Desk’s Survey of Primary Dealers and Survey of
Market Participants—were little changed on balance.
Foreign economic activity expanded at a moderate pace
in the fourth quarter. Real GDP growth picked up in
Mexico but slowed a bit in some advanced foreign economies (AFEs) and in emerging Asia. Recent indicators
pointed to solid economic growth abroad in the first
quarter of this year. Inflation abroad continued to be
boosted by the pass-through to consumer prices of past
increases in oil prices. However, excluding food and energy prices, inflation remained subdued in many foreign
economies, including the euro area and Japan.
Staff Review of the Financial Situation
Financial markets were turbulent over the intermeeting
period, and market volatility increased notably. On net,
U.S. equity prices declined, corporate bond spreads widened, and nominal Treasury yields rose.
Broad equity price indexes decreased over the intermeeting period. Market participants pointed to a larger-thanexpected increase in average hourly earnings in the January employment report as a factor triggering increased
investor concerns about inflation and the associated
pace of interest rate increases. Those concerns appeared
to induce a substantial decline in equity prices. The decline may have been exacerbated by broader concerns
about the level of stock market valuations. On February 5, the VIX—an index of option-implied volatility for
one-month returns on the S&P 500 index—rose to its
highest level since 2015, reportedly driven in part by the
unwinding of investment strategies designed to profit
from low volatility. Subsequently, equity prices recovered about half of their decline, and the VIX partially
retraced its earlier increase.
Monetary policy communications over the intermeeting
period—including the January FOMC statement, the
minutes of the January FOMC meeting, and the Chairman’s semiannual testimony to the Congress—were
generally viewed by market participants as signaling a
somewhat stronger economic outlook and thus reinforced expectations for further gradual increases in the
target range for the federal funds rate. The probability
of the next rate hike occurring at the March FOMC
meeting, as implied by quotes on federal funds futures
contracts, increased to near certainty. Conditional on a
March rate hike, the market-implied probability of another increase in the federal funds rate target range at the
June FOMC meeting edged up to just above 70 percent.
Expectations for the federal funds rate at the end of
2019 and 2020, derived from overnight index swap
(OIS) quotes, moved up somewhat since late January.
On net, the nominal Treasury yield curve shifted up and
flattened a bit. Monetary policy communications,
higher-than-expected domestic price data, and expectations for increases in the supply of Treasury securities
following the federal budget agreement in early February
contributed to the increase in Treasury yields. Measures
of inflation compensation derived from Treasury
Inflation-Protected Securities were little changed on net.
Option-implied volatility on longer-term rates rose notably following the jump in equity market volatility on
February 5 but mostly retraced that increase by the end
of the intermeeting period. On balance, spreads on
investment- and speculative-grade corporate bond yields
over comparable-maturity Treasury yields widened but
remained near the lower end of their historical ranges.
In short-term funding markets, increased issuance of
Treasury bills lifted Treasury bill yields above
comparable-maturity OIS rates for the first time in almost a decade. The rise in bill yields was a factor that
pushed up money market rates and widened the spreads
of certificates of deposit and term London interbank offered rates relative to OIS rates. The upward pressure
on money market rates also showed up in slight increases
in the effective federal funds rate and the overnight bank
funding rate relative to the interest rate on excess reserves. The rise in market rates on overnight repurchase
agreements relative to the offering rate on the Federal
Reserve’s ON RRP facility resulted in low levels of takeup at the facility. Reductions in the size of the Federal
Reserve’s balance sheet continued as scheduled without
a notable effect on markets.
Despite the recent volatility in some financial markets,
financing conditions for nonfinancial corporations and
households remained accommodative over the intermeeting period and continued to support further expansion of economic activity. Gross issuance of investment- and speculative-grade bonds was slightly lower
than usual in January and February, while gross issuance
of institutional leveraged loans stayed strong. The provision of bank-intermediated credit to businesses slowed
further, likely reflecting weak loan demand rather than
tight supply. Small business owners continued to report
accommodative credit supply conditions but also weak
demand for credit. Credit conditions in municipal bond
markets remained accommodative.
In commercial real estate markets, loan growth at banks
slowed further in January and February. Financing conditions in commercial mortgage-backed securities
(CMBS) markets remained accommodative, as issuance
Minutes of the Meeting of March 20–21, 2018
Page 5
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
was robust (relative to the usual seasonal slowdown) and
CMBS spreads continued to be at low levels. Financing
conditions in the residential mortgage market remained
accommodative for most borrowers, though credit conditions stayed tight for borrowers with low credit scores
or with hard-to-document incomes. Mortgage rates
moved up, on net, over the period, along with the rise in
other long-term rates.
Consumer credit grew at a solid pace in January following a rapid expansion in the fourth quarter. Aggregate
credit card balances continued to expand steadily in January. Nonetheless, for subprime borrowers, conditions
remained tight, with credit limits and balances still low
by historical standards. Auto lending continued to grow
at a moderate pace in recent months; although underwriting standards in the subprime segment continued to
tighten, there were few signs of a significant restriction
in credit supply for auto loans.
Since the January FOMC meeting, foreign equity prices
moved notably lower, on net, and generally declined
more in the AFEs than in the United States. Longerterm yields on sovereign debt in AFEs either decreased
moderately or ended the period little changed, in contrast to the increase in U.S. Treasury yields. Weakerthan-expected economic data weighed on market-based
measures of expected policy rate paths and on longerterm yields in Canada and in the euro area. Communications from the Bank of Canada also seemed to contribute to the decline in Canadian yields. In the United
Kingdom, longer-term yields were little changed, on net,
although the market-based path of expected policy rates
moved up moderately in response to Bank of England
communications. In emerging market economies
(EMEs), sovereign yield spreads widened modestly, and
flows into EME mutual funds were volatile over the period.
The broad nominal dollar index appreciated moderately
over the period, largely reflecting an outsized depreciation of the Canadian dollar and a massive devaluation of
the Venezuelan bolivar. (The Venezuelan government
devalued the official Venezuelan exchange rate by more
than 99 percent against the dollar, bringing the official
rate closer to its black market value.) Lower oil prices,
weaker-than-expected economic data, and uncertainty
over U.S. trade policy likely contributed to the weakness
in the Canadian dollar. In contrast, the Japanese yen appreciated against the dollar, in part supported by safehaven demand. Late in the intermeeting period, the British pound was boosted by news of a preliminary agreement between U.K. and European Union authorities regarding the transition period of the Brexit process, but
the pound still ended the intermeeting period modestly
weaker against the dollar.
Staff Economic Outlook
The staff projection for U.S. economic activity prepared
for the March FOMC meeting was somewhat stronger,
on balance, than the forecast at the time of the January
meeting. The near-term forecast for real GDP growth
was revised down a little; the incoming spending data
were a bit softer than the staff had expected, and the
staff judged that the softness was not associated with residual seasonality in the data. However, the slowing in
the pace of spending in the first quarter was expected to
be transitory, and the medium-term projection for GDP
growth was revised up modestly, largely reflecting the
expected boost to GDP from the federal budget agreement enacted in February. Real GDP was projected to
increase at a faster pace than potential output through
2020. The unemployment rate was projected to decline
further over the next few years and to continue to run
below the staff’s estimate of its longer-run natural rate
over this period.
The projection for inflation over the medium term was
revised up a bit, reflecting the slightly tighter resource
utilization in the new forecast. The rates of both total
and core PCE price inflation were projected to be faster
in 2018 than in 2017. The staff projected that inflation
would reach the Committee’s 2 percent objective in
2019.
The staff viewed the uncertainty around its projections
for real GDP growth, the unemployment rate, and inflation as similar to the average of the past 20 years. The
staff saw the risks to the forecasts for real GDP growth
and the unemployment rate as balanced. On the upside,
recent fiscal policy changes could lead to a greater expansion in economic activity over the next few years
than the staff projected. On the downside, those fiscal
policy changes could yield less impetus to the economy
than the staff expected if the economy was already operating above its potential level and resource utilization
continued to tighten, as the staff projected. Risks to the
inflation projection also were seen as balanced. An upside risk was that inflation could increase more than expected in an economy that was projected to move further above its potential. Downside risks included the
possibilities that longer-term inflation expectations may
have edged lower or that the run of low core inflation
readings last year could prove to be more persistent than
the staff expected.
Page 6
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Participants’ Views on Current Conditions and the
Economic Outlook
In conjunction with this FOMC meeting, members of
the Board of Governors and Federal Reserve Bank presidents submitted their projections of the most likely outcomes for real GDP growth, the unemployment rate,
and inflation for each year from 2018 through 2020 and
over the longer run, based on their individual assessments of the appropriate path for the federal funds rate.
The longer-run projections represented each participant’s assessment of the rate to which each variable
would be expected to converge, over time, under appropriate monetary policy and in the absence of further
shocks to the economy. These projections and policy
assessments are described in the Summary of Economic
Projections (SEP), which is an addendum to these
minutes.
In their discussion of economic conditions and the outlook, meeting participants agreed that information received since the FOMC met in January indicated that
economic activity had been rising at a moderate rate and
that the labor market had continued to strengthen. Job
gains had been strong in recent months, and the unemployment rate had stayed low. On a 12-month basis,
both overall inflation and inflation for items other than
food and energy continued to run below 2 percent.
Market-based measures of inflation compensation had
increased in recent months but remained low; surveybased measures of longer-term inflation expectations
were little changed, on balance.
Participants noted incoming data suggesting some slowing in the rate of growth of household spending and
business fixed investment after strong fourth-quarter
readings. However, they expected that the first-quarter
softness would be transitory, pointing to a variety of factors, including delayed payment of some personal tax refunds, residual seasonality in the data, and more generally to strong economic fundamentals. Among the fundamentals that participants cited were high levels of consumer and business sentiment, supportive financial conditions, improved economic conditions abroad, and recent changes in fiscal policy. Participants generally saw
the news on spending and the labor market over the past
few quarters as being consistent with continued abovetrend growth and a further strengthening in labor markets. Participants expected that, with further gradual increases in the federal funds rate, economic activity would
expand at a solid rate during the remainder of this year
and a moderate pace in the medium term, and that labor
market conditions would remain strong. Inflation on a
12-month basis was expected to move up in coming
months and to stabilize around the Committee’s 2 percent objective over the medium term. Several participants noted that the 12-month PCE price inflation rate
would likely shift upward when the March data are released because the effects of the outsized decline in the
prices of cell phone service plans in March of last year
will drop out of that calculation. Near-term risks to the
economic outlook appeared to be roughly balanced, but
participants agreed that it would be important to continue to monitor inflation developments closely.
Many participants reported considerable optimism
among the business contacts in their Districts, consistent
with a firming in business expenditures. Respondents to
District surveys in both the manufacturing and service
sectors were generally upbeat about the economic outlook. In some Districts, reports from business contacts
or evidence from surveys pointed to continuing shortages of workers in segments of the labor market. Activity in the energy sector continued to expand, with contacts suggesting that further increases were likely, provided that sufficient labor resources were forthcoming.
In contrast, contacts in the agricultural sector reported
that farm income continued to experience downward
pressure due to low crop prices.
A number of participants reported concern among their
business contacts about the possible ramifications of the
recent imposition of tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. Participants did not see the steel and aluminum
tariffs, by themselves, as likely to have a significant effect
on the national economic outlook, but a strong majority
of participants viewed the prospect of retaliatory trade
actions by other countries, as well as other issues and
uncertainties associated with trade policies, as downside
risks for the U.S. economy. Contacts in the agricultural
sector reported feeling particularly vulnerable to retaliation.
Tax changes enacted late last year and the recent federal
budget agreement, taken together, were expected to provide a significant boost to output over the next few
years. However, participants generally regarded the
magnitude and timing of the economic effects of the fiscal policy changes as uncertain, partly because there have
been few historical examples of expansionary fiscal policy being implemented when the economy was operating
at a high level of resource utilization. A number of participants also suggested that uncertainty about whether
all elements of the tax cuts would be made permanent,
or about the implications of higher budget deficits for
fiscal sustainability and real interest rates, represented
sources of downside risk to the economic outlook. A
Minutes of the Meeting of March 20–21, 2018
Page 7
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
few participants noted that the changes in tax policy
could boost the level of potential output.
Most participants described labor market conditions as
strong, noting that payroll gains had remained well
above the pace regarded as consistent with absorbing
new labor force entrants over time, the unemployment
rate had stayed low, job openings had been high, or that
initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits had
been low. Many participants observed that the labor
force participation rate had been higher recently than
they had expected, helping to keep the unemployment
rate flat over the past few months despite strong payroll
gains. The firmness in the overall participation rate—
relative to its demographically driven downward trend—
and the rising participation rate of prime-age adults were
regarded as signs of continued strengthening in labor
market conditions. A few participants thought that these
favorable developments could continue for a time,
whereas others expressed doubts. A few participants
warned against inferring too much from comparisons of
the current low level of the unemployment rate with historical benchmarks, arguing that the much higher levels
of education of today’s workforce—and the lower average unemployment rate of more highly educated workers than less educated workers—suggested that the U.S.
economy might be able to sustain lower unemployment
rates than was the case in the 1950s or 1960s.
In some Districts, reports from business contacts or evidence from surveys pointed to a pickup in wages, particularly for unskilled or entry-level workers. However,
business contacts or national surveys led a few participants to conclude that some businesses facing labor
shortages were changing job requirements so that they
matched more closely the skills of available workers, increasing training, or offering more flexible work arrangements, rather than increasing wages in a broad-based
fashion. Regarding wage growth at the national level,
several participants noted a modest increase, but most
still described the pace of wage gains as moderate; a few
participants cited this fact as suggesting that there was
room for the labor market to strengthen somewhat further.
In some Districts, surveys or business contacts reported
increases in nonwage costs, particularly in the cost of
materials, and in a few Districts, contacts reported passing on some of those costs in the form of higher prices.
Contacts in a few Districts suggested that widely known,
observable cost increases—such as those associated with
rising commodity prices—would be more likely to be accepted and passed through to final goods prices than
would less observable costs such as wage increases. A
few participants argued that either an absence of pricing
power among at least some firms—perhaps stemming
from globalization and technological innovations, including ones that facilitate price comparisons—or the
ability of firms to find ways to cut costs of production
has been damping inflationary pressures. Many participants stated that recent readings from indicators on inflation and inflation expectations increased their confidence that inflation would rise to the Committee’s 2 percent objective in coming months and then stabilize
around that level; others suggested that downside risks
to inflation were subsiding. In contrast, a few participants cautioned that, despite increases in market-based
measures of inflation compensation in recent months
and the stabilization of some survey measures of inflation expectations, the levels of these indicators remained
too low to be consistent with the Committee’s 2 percent
inflation objective.
In their discussion of developments in financial markets,
some participants observed that financial conditions remained accommodative despite the rise in market volatility and repricing of assets that had occurred in February. Many participants reported that their contacts had
taken the previous month’s turbulence in stride, although a few participants suggested that financial developments over the intermeeting period highlighted some
downside risks associated with still-high valuations for
equities or from market volatility more generally. A few
participants expressed concern that a lengthy period in
which the economy operates beyond potential and financial conditions remain highly accommodative could,
over time, pose risks to financial stability.
In their consideration of monetary policy, participants
discussed the implications of recent economic and financial developments for the appropriate path of the federal
funds rate. All participants agreed that the outlook for
the economy beyond the current quarter had strengthened in recent months. In addition, all participants expected inflation on a 12-month basis to move up in coming months. This expectation partly reflected the arithmetic effect of the soft readings on inflation in early
2017 dropping out of the calculation; it was noted that
the increase in the inflation rate arising from this source
was widely expected and, by itself, would not justify a
change in the projected path for the federal funds rate.
Most participants commented that the stronger economic outlook and the somewhat higher inflation readings in recent months had increased the likelihood of
progress toward the Committee’s 2 percent inflation objective. A few participants suggested that a modest in-
Page 8
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
flation overshoot might help push up longer-term inflation expectations and anchor them at a level consistent
with the Committee’s 2 percent inflation objective. A
number of participants offered their views on the potential benefits and costs associated with an economy operating well above potential for a prolonged period while
inflation remained low. On the one hand, the associated
tightness in the labor market might help speed the return
of inflation to the Committee’s 2 percent goal and induce a further increase in labor force participation; on
the other hand, an overheated economy could result in
significant inflation pressures or lead to financial instability.
Based on their current assessments, almost all participants expressed the view that it would be appropriate for
the Committee to raise the target range for the federal
funds rate 25 basis points at this meeting. These participants agreed that, even after such an increase in the target range, the stance of monetary policy would remain
accommodative, supporting strong labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation. A
couple of participants pointed to possible benefits of
postponing an increase in the target range for the federal
funds rate until a subsequent meeting; these participants
suggested that waiting for additional data to provide
more evidence of a sustained return of the 12-month inflation rate to 2 percent might more clearly demonstrate
the data dependence of the Committee’s decisions and
its resolve to achieve the price-stability component of its
dual mandate.
With regard to the medium-term outlook for monetary
policy, all participants saw some further firming of the
stance of monetary policy as likely to be warranted. Almost all participants agreed that it remained appropriate
to follow a gradual approach to raising the target range
for the federal funds rate. Several participants commented that this gradual approach was most likely to be
conducive to maintaining strong labor market conditions and returning inflation to 2 percent on a sustained
basis without resulting in conditions that would eventually require an abrupt policy tightening. A number of
participants indicated that the stronger outlook for economic activity, along with their increased confidence
that inflation would return to 2 percent over the medium
term, implied that the appropriate path for the federal
funds rate over the next few years would likely be slightly
steeper than they had previously expected. Participants
agreed that the longer-run normal federal funds rate was
likely lower than in the past, in part because of secular
forces that had put downward pressure on real interest
rates. Several participants expressed the judgment that
it would likely become appropriate at some point for the
Committee to set the federal funds rate above its longerrun normal value for a time. Some participants suggested that, at some point, it might become necessary to
revise statement language to acknowledge that, in pursuit of the Committee’s statutory mandate and consistent with the median of participants’ policy rate projections in the SEP, monetary policy eventually would
likely gradually move from an accommodative stance to
being a neutral or restraining factor for economic activity. However, participants expressed a range of views on
the amount of policy tightening that would likely be required over the medium term to achieve the Committee’s goals. Participants agreed that the actual path of
the federal funds rate would depend on the economic
outlook as informed by incoming data.
Committee Policy Action
In their discussion of monetary policy for the period
ahead, members judged that information received since
the Committee met in January indicated that the labor
market had continued to strengthen and that economic
activity had been rising at a moderate rate. Job gains had
been strong in recent months, and the unemployment
rate had stayed low. Recent data suggested that growth
rates of household spending and business fixed investment had moderated from their strong fourth-quarter
readings. On a 12-month basis, both overall inflation
and inflation for items other than food and energy had
continued to run below 2 percent. Market-based
measures of inflation compensation had increased in recent months but remained low; survey-based measures
of longer-term inflation expectations were little changed,
on balance.
All members viewed the recent data and other developments bearing on real economic activity as suggesting
that the outlook for the economy beyond the current
quarter had strengthened in recent months. In addition,
notwithstanding increased market volatility over the intermeeting period, financial conditions had stayed accommodative, and developments since the January
meeting had indicated that fiscal policy was likely to provide greater impetus to the economy over the next few
years than members had previously thought. Consequently, members expected that, with further gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity would expand at a moderate pace in the medium
term, and labor market conditions would remain strong.
Members generally continued to judge the risks to the
economic outlook as remaining roughly balanced.
Most members noted that recent readings on inflation,
along with the strengthening of the economic outlook,
Minutes of the Meeting of March 20–21, 2018
Page 9
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
provided support for the view that inflation on a
12-month basis would likely move up in coming months
and stabilize around the Committee’s 2 percent objective
over the medium term. Members agreed to continue to
monitor inflation developments closely.
After assessing current conditions and the outlook for
economic activity, the labor market, and inflation, members voted to raise the target range for the federal funds
rate to 1½ to 1¾ percent. They indicated that the stance
of monetary policy remained accommodative, thereby
supporting strong labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation.
Members agreed that the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate
would depend on their assessments of realized and expected economic conditions relative to the Committee’s
objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. They reiterated that this assessment would take
into account a wide range of information, including
measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings
on financial and international developments. Members
also agreed that they would carefully monitor actual and
expected developments in inflation in relation to the
Committee’s symmetric inflation goal. Members expected that economic conditions would evolve in a manner that would warrant further gradual increases in the
federal funds rate. They judged that raising the target
range gradually would balance the risks to the outlook
for inflation and unemployment and was most likely to
support continued economic expansion. Members
agreed that the strengthening in the economic outlook
in recent months increased the likelihood that a gradual
upward trajectory of the federal funds rate would be appropriate. Members continued to anticipate that the federal funds rate would likely remain, for some time, below
levels that were expected to prevail in the longer run.
Nonetheless, they again stated that the actual path for
the federal funds rate would depend on the economic
outlook as informed by incoming data.
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 SOMA in accordance with
the following domestic policy directive, to be released at
2:00 p.m.:
“Effective March 22, 2018, the Federal Open
Market Committee directs the Desk to undertake open market operations as necessary to
maintain the federal funds rate in a target range
of 1½ to 1¾ percent, including overnight reverse repurchase operations (and reverse repurchase operations with maturities of more than
one day when necessary to accommodate weekend, holiday, or similar trading conventions) at
an offering rate of 1.50 percent, in amounts limited only by the value of Treasury securities held
outright in the System Open Market Account
that are available for such operations and by a
per-counterparty limit of $30 billion per day.
The Committee directs the Desk to continue
rolling over at auction the amount of principal
payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings
of Treasury securities maturing during March
that exceeds $12 billion, and to continue reinvesting in agency mortgage-backed securities
the amount of principal payments from the
Federal Reserve’s holdings of agency debt and
agency mortgage-backed securities received
during March that exceeds $8 billion. Effective
in April, the Committee directs the Desk to roll
over at auction the amount of principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of
Treasury securities maturing during each calendar month that exceeds $18 billion, and to reinvest in agency mortgage-backed securities the
amount of principal payments from the Federal
Reserve’s holdings of agency debt and agency
mortgage-backed securities received during
each calendar month that exceeds $12 billion.
Small deviations from these amounts for operational reasons are acceptable.
The Committee also directs the Desk to engage
in dollar roll and coupon swap transactions as
necessary to facilitate settlement of the Federal
Reserve’s agency mortgage-backed securities
transactions.”
The vote also encompassed approval of the statement
below to be released at 2:00 p.m.:
“Information received since the Federal Open
Market Committee met in January indicates that
the labor market has continued to strengthen
and that economic activity has been rising at a
moderate rate. Job gains have been strong in
recent months, and the unemployment rate has
stayed low. Recent data suggest that growth
rates of household spending and business fixed
investment have moderated from their strong
fourth-quarter readings. On a 12-month basis,
both overall inflation and inflation for items
other than food and energy have continued to
Page 10
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
run below 2 percent. Market-based measures of
inflation compensation have increased in recent
months but remain low; survey-based measures
of longer-term inflation expectations are little
changed, on balance.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment
and price stability. The economic outlook has
strengthened in recent months. The Committee
expects that, with further gradual adjustments in
the stance of monetary policy, economic activity
will expand at a moderate pace in the medium
term and labor market conditions will remain
strong. Inflation on a 12-month basis is expected to move up in coming months and to
stabilize around the Committee’s 2 percent objective over the medium term. Near-term risks
to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced, but the Committee is monitoring inflation developments closely.
In view of realized and expected labor market
conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal
funds rate to 1½ to 1¾ percent. The stance of
monetary policy remains accommodative,
thereby supporting strong labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation.
monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal.
The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant
further gradual increases in the federal funds
rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for
some time, below levels that are expected to
prevail in the longer run. However, the actual
path of the federal funds rate will depend on the
economic outlook as informed by incoming
data.”
Voting for this action: Jerome H. Powell, William C.
Dudley, Thomas I. Barkin, Raphael W. Bostic, Lael
Brainard, Loretta J. Mester, Randal K. Quarles, and John
C. Williams.
Voting against this action: None.
To support the Committee’s decision to raise the target
range for the federal funds rate, the Board of Governors
voted unanimously to raise the interest rates on required
and excess reserve balances ¼ percentage point, to
1¾ percent, effective March 22, 2018. The Board of
Governors also voted unanimously to approve a ¼ percentage point increase in the primary credit rate (discount rate) to 2¼ percent, effective March 22, 2018. 4
It was agreed that the next meeting of the Committee
would be held on Tuesday–Wednesday, May 1–2, 2018.
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m. on March 21, 2018.
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal
funds rate, the Committee will assess realized
and expected economic conditions relative to its
objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including
measures of labor market conditions, indicators
of inflation pressures and inflation expectations,
and readings on financial and international developments. The Committee will carefully
Notation Vote
By notation vote completed on February 20, 2018, the
Committee unanimously approved the minutes of the
Committee meeting held on January 30–31, 2018.
In taking this action, the Board approved requests submitted
by the boards of directors of the Federal Reserve Banks of
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, St. Louis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco. This
vote also encompassed approval by the Board of Governors
of the establishment of a 2¼ percent primary credit rate by
the remaining Federal Reserve Banks, effective on the later of
March 22, 2018, and the date such Reserve Banks informed
the Secretary of the Board of such a request. (Secretary’s note:
Subsequently, the Federal Reserve Banks of Chicago and Minneapolis were informed by the Secretary of the Board of the
Board’s approval of their establishment of a primary credit
rate of 2¼ percent, effective March 22, 2018.) The second
vote of the Board also encompassed approval of the establishment of the interest rates for secondary and seasonal credit
under the existing formulas for computing such rates.
4
_____________________________
James A. Clouse
Secretary
Page 1
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Economic Projections
In conjunction with the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting held on March 20–21, 2018, meeting participants submitted their projections of the most
likely outcomes for real gross domestic product (GDP)
growth, the unemployment rate, and inflation for each
year from 2018 to 2020 and over the longer run. 1 Each
participant’s projections were based on information
available at the time of the meeting, together with his or
her assessment of appropriate monetary policy—including a path for the federal funds rate and its longer-run
value—and assumptions about other factors likely to affect economic outcomes. The longer-run projections
represent each participant’s assessment of the value to
which each variable would be expected to converge, over
time, under appropriate monetary policy and in the absence of further shocks to the economy. 2 “Appropriate
monetary policy” is defined as the future path of policy
that each participant deems most likely to foster outcomes for economic activity and inflation that best satisfy his or her individual interpretation of the statutory
mandate to promote maximum employment and price
stability.
All participants who submitted longer-run projections
expected that real GDP in 2018 would expand at a pace
exceeding their individual estimates of the longer-run
growth rate of real GDP. Participants generally saw real
GDP growth moderating somewhat in each of the following two years, with almost all participants who submitted longer-run projections anticipating that real GDP
growth in 2020 would be at or within a few tenths of a
percentage point of their longer-run estimates. All participants who submitted longer-run projections expected
that, throughout the projection period, the unemployment rate would run below their estimates of its longerrun level. All participants projected that inflation, as
measured by the four-quarter percentage change in the
price index for personal consumption expenditures
(PCE), would rise to or toward the Committee’s 2 percent objective this year and would be at or a little above
that objective by 2020. Compared with the Summary of
Economic Projections (SEP) from December, a substantial majority of participants marked up their projections for real GDP growth and lowered their projections
for the unemployment rate; participants indicated that
these revisions reflected a number of factors, such as
Three members of the Board of Governors were in office at
the time of the March 2018 meeting, one member fewer than
in December 2017.
1
changes in fiscal policy, a stronger outlook for economic
growth abroad, or recent strong job gains. For inflation,
a majority of participants made slight upward revisions
to their projections; these revisions were attributed to recent price data and the effects of a stronger economic
outlook than in the December SEP. Table 1 and figure 1 provide summary statistics for the projections.
As shown in figure 2, participants generally continued to
expect that the evolution of the economy relative to their
objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation would likely warrant further gradual increases in
the federal funds rate. Although the median of participants’ projections for the federal funds rate at the end of
2018 was unchanged relative to the December SEP, a
number of participants marked up their projections for
this year. Moreover, a substantial majority of participants revised up their federal funds rate projections for
2019 and 2020. The median of participants’ projections
for the longer-run level of the federal funds rate was
slightly higher relative to the December SEP. Nearly all
participants who submitted longer-run projections expected that evolving economic conditions would make
it appropriate for the federal funds rate to move above
their estimates of its longer-run level during part of the
projection period.
In general, participants continued to view the uncertainty attached to their economic projections as broadly
similar to the average of the past 20 years. As in December, most participants judged the risks around their projections for real GDP growth, the unemployment rate,
and inflation to be broadly balanced.
The Outlook for Economic Activity
The median of participants’ projections for the growth
rate of real GDP, conditional on their individual assessments of appropriate monetary policy, was 2.7 percent
for this year and 2.4 percent for next year. The median
projection for real GDP growth in 2020 was 2.0 percent,
a touch above the 1.8 percent median of participants’
longer-run estimates. Most participants cited federal fiscal policy developments—specifically, the enactment of
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2018—as boosting their projections for economic activity over the next couple of years. Several participants
mentioned other factors that influenced their economic
2 One participant did not submit longer-run projections for
real GDP growth, the unemployment rate, or the federal funds
rate.
1.9
1.9
Core PCE inflation4
December projection
2.9
2.7
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.6
3.9
3.4
3.1
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.0
3.6
4.0
2.9
2.8
2.0
2.0
4.5
4.6
2.0
2.0
1.8 – 2.1 1.9 – 2.3 2.0 – 2.3
1.7 – 2.0 1.8 – 2.3 1.9 – 2.3
1.8 – 2.1 1.9 – 2.3 2.0 – 2.3
1.7 – 2.1 1.8 – 2.3 1.9 – 2.2
2.0
2.0
2.1 – 2.4 2.8 – 3.4 3.1 – 3.6 2.8 – 3.0 1.6 – 2.6 1.6 – 3.9 1.6 – 4.9 2.3 – 3.5
1.9 – 2.4 2.4 – 3.1 2.6 – 3.1 2.8 – 3.0 1.1 – 2.6 1.4 – 3.6 1.4 – 4.1 2.3 – 3.0
1.8 – 2.0 2.0 – 2.2 2.1 – 2.2
1.7 – 1.9
2.0
2.0 – 2.1
1.8 – 2.0 2.0 – 2.2 2.1 – 2.2
1.7 – 1.9
2.0
2.0 – 2.1
3.6 – 3.8 3.4 – 3.7 3.5 – 3.8 4.3 – 4.7 3.6 – 4.0 3.3 – 4.2 3.3 – 4.4 4.2 – 4.8
3.7 – 4.0 3.6 – 4.0 3.6 – 4.2 4.4 – 4.7 3.6 – 4.0 3.5 – 4.2 3.5 – 4.5 4.3 – 5.0
Note: Projections of change in real gross domestic product (GDP) and projections for both measures of inflation are percent changes from the
fourth quarter of the previous year to the fourth quarter of the year indicated. PCE inflation and core PCE inflation are the percentage rates of change
in, respectively, the price index for personal consumption expenditures (PCE) and the price index for PCE excluding food and energy. Projections for
the unemployment rate are for the average civilian unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of the year indicated. Each participant’s projections are
based on his or her assessment of appropriate monetary policy. Longer-run projections represent each participant’s assessment of the rate to which each
variable would be expected to converge under appropriate monetary policy and in the absence of further shocks to the economy. The projections for the
federal funds rate are the value of the midpoint of the projected appropriate target range for the federal funds rate or the projected appropriate target
level for the federal funds rate at the end of the specified calendar year or over the longer run. The December projections were made in conjunction with
the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee on December 12–13, 2017. One participant did not submit longer-run projections for the change in
real GDP, the unemployment rate, or the federal funds rate in conjunction with the December 12–13, 2017, meeting, and one participant did not submit
such projections in conjunction with the March 20–21, 2018, meeting.
1. For each period, the median is the middle projection when the projections are arranged from lowest to highest. When the number of projections
is even, the median is the average of the two middle projections.
2. The central tendency excludes the three highest and three lowest projections for each variable in each year.
3. The range for a variable in a given year includes all participants’ projections, from lowest to highest, for that variable in that year.
4. Longer-run projections for core PCE inflation are not collected.
Federal funds rate
December projection
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.9
PCE inflation
December projection
Memo: Projected
appropriate policy path
3.8
3.9
Unemployment rate
December projection
Median1
Central tendency2
Range3
Variable
2018 2019 2020 Longer 2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
Longer
Longer
run
run
run
Change in real GDP
2.7
2.4
2.0
1.8
2.6 – 3.0 2.2 – 2.6 1.8 – 2.1 1.8 – 2.0 2.5 – 3.0 2.0 – 2.8 1.5 – 2.3 1.7 – 2.2
December projection 2.5
2.1
2.0
1.8
2.2 – 2.6 1.9 – 2.3 1.7 – 2.0 1.8 – 1.9 2.2 – 2.8 1.7 – 2.4 1.1 – 2.2 1.7 – 2.2
Percent
Table 1. Economic projections of Federal Reserve Board members and Federal Reserve Bank presidents,
under their individual assessments of projected appropriate monetary policy, March 2018
Page 2
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Economic Projections of the Meeting of March 20–21, 2018
Page 3
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1. Medians, central tendencies, and ranges of economic projections, 2018–20 and over the longer run
Percent
Change in real GDP
Median of projections
Central tendency of projections
Range of projections
3
Actual
2
1
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Longer
run
Percent
Unemployment rate
7
6
5
4
3
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Longer
run
Percent
PCE inflation
3
2
1
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Longer
run
Percent
Core PCE inflation
3
2
1
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Longer
run
Note: Definitions of variables and other explanations are in the notes to table 1. The data for the actual values of
the variables are annual.
Page 4
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2. FOMC participants’ assessments of appropriate monetary policy: Midpoint of target range or target level for
the federal funds rate
Percent
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2018
2019
2020
Longer run
Note: Each shaded circle indicates the value (rounded to the nearest 1/8 percentage point) of an individual participant’s judgment of the midpoint of the appropriate target range for the federal funds rate or the appropriate target
level for the federal funds rate at the end of the specified calendar year or over the longer run. One participant did not
submit longer-run projections for the federal funds rate.
Summary of Economic Projections of the Meeting of March 20–21, 2018
Page 5
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
projections, including accommodative monetary policy
and financial conditions, strength in the global economic
outlook, and continued momentum in the labor market.
Compared with the December SEP, the medians of participants’ projections for real GDP growth this year and
next year were up a few tenths of a percentage point.
Consistent with their projections for economic activity,
almost all participants expected labor market conditions
to strengthen further over the projection period. The
medians of projections for the unemployment rate
showed that rate stepping down from 4.1 percent in the
final quarter of 2017 to 3.8 percent in the final quarter
of this year, and then to 3.6 percent in the final quarters
of 2019 and 2020. The median of participants’ estimates
of the longer-run unemployment rate was 4.5 percent.
Compared with the December SEP, almost all participants marked down their unemployment rate projections. Some participants also lowered their estimates of
the longer-run level of the unemployment rate, leading
to a small decline in the corresponding median projection.
Figures 3.A and 3.B show the distributions of participants’ projections for real GDP growth and the unemployment rate from 2018 to 2020 and in the longer run.
The distributions of individual projections for real GDP
growth this year and next year shifted up noticeably from
those in the December SEP; participants’ projections
ranged from 2.5 to 3.0 percent in 2018 and from 2.0 to
2.8 percent in 2019. By contrast, the distributions of
projected real GDP growth in 2020 and in the longer run
shifted up modestly since December. Consistent with
participants’ generally more upbeat outlook for real
GDP growth, the distributions of individual projections
for the unemployment rate were lower than the corresponding distributions in December for each year of the
projection period.
The Outlook for Inflation
The medians of participants’ projections for both total
and core PCE price inflation were 1.9 percent in 2018—
with all participants anticipating that each measure
would rise from its 2017 rate—and 2.1 percent by 2020.
Compared with the December SEP, the medians of participants’ projections for each measure were unchanged
this year and up 0.1 percentage point in 2020.
Figures 3.C and 3.D provide information on the distributions of participants’ views about the outlook for inflation. Participants generally made minor upward adjustments to their inflation projections, resulting in slight
shifts of the distributions to the right relative to the distributions in December. Participants generally expected
each measure to increase to no more than 2 percent this
year and to rise to, or edge above, 2 percent in 2019 and
2020.
Appropriate Monetary Policy
Figure 3.E provides the distribution of participants’
judgments regarding the appropriate target—or midpoint of the target range—for the federal funds rate at
the end of each year from 2018 to 2020 and in the longer
run. The distributions of projected policy rates through
2020 shifted modestly higher, consistent with the revisions to participants’ projections of real GDP growth,
the unemployment rate, and inflation. For 2018, there
was a notable reduction in the dispersion of participants’
views, with most participants now regarding the appropriate target at the end of the year as being between 2.13
and 2.62 percent. For each subsequent year, the dispersion of participants’ year-end projections was somewhat
greater than that in the December SEP, and the range of
participants’ projections was noticeably larger than for
2018.
The median of participants’ projections of the federal
funds rate rises gradually to a level of 2.1 percent at the
end of this year, 2.9 percent at the end of 2019, and
3.4 percent at the end of 2020. The median of participants’ longer-run estimates, at 2.9 percent, was a bit
higher than in the December SEP. Nearly all participants projected that it would likely be appropriate for
the federal funds rate to rise above their individual
longer-run estimates at some point over the forecast period.
In discussing their projections, many participants continued to express the view that the appropriate trajectory
of the federal funds rate over the next few years would
likely involve gradual increases. This view was predicated on several factors, including a judgment that a
gradual path likely would appropriately balance the risks
associated with, among other considerations, the possibility that inflation pressures and financial imbalances
could build if economic activity were to run well above
its long-run sustainable level and the possibility that the
forces depressing inflation could prove to be more persistent than currently anticipated. Another factor mentioned was the view that the neutral real interest rate was
historically low and would likely move up only slowly.
As always, the appropriate path of the federal funds rate
would depend on evolving economic conditions and
their implications for participants’ economic outlooks
and assessments of risks.
Page 6
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3.A. Distribution of participants’ projections for the change in real GDP, 2018–20 and over the longer run
Number of participants
2018
March projections
December projections
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1.0 1.1
1.2 1.3
1.4 1.5
1.6 1.7
1.8 1.9
2.0 2.1
2.2 2.3
2.4 2.5
2.6 2.7
2.8 2.9
3.0 3.1
Percent range
Number of participants
2019
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1.0 1.1
1.2 1.3
1.4 1.5
1.6 1.7
1.8 1.9
2.0 2.1
2.2 2.3
2.4 2.5
2.6 2.7
2.8 2.9
3.0 3.1
Percent range
Number of participants
2020
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1.0 1.1
1.2 1.3
1.4 1.5
1.6 1.7
1.8 1.9
2.0 2.1
2.2 2.3
2.4 2.5
2.6 2.7
2.8 2.9
3.0 3.1
Percent range
Number of participants
Longer run
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1.0 1.1
1.2 1.3
1.4 1.5
1.6 1.7
1.8 1.9
2.0 2.1
2.2 2.3
2.4 2.5
Percent range
Note: Definitions of variables and other explanations are in the notes to table 1.
2.6 2.7
2.8 2.9
3.0 3.1
Summary of Economic Projections of the Meeting of March 20–21, 2018
Page 7
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3.B. Distribution of participants’ projections for the unemployment rate, 2018–20 and over the longer run
Number of participants
2018
March projections
December projections
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
3.0 3.1
3.2 3.3
3.4 3.5
3.6 3.7
3.8 3.9
4.0 4.1
4.2 4.3
4.4 4.5
4.6 4.7
4.8 4.9
5.0 5.1
Percent range
Number of participants
2019
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
3.0 3.1
3.2 3.3
3.4 3.5
3.6 3.7
3.8 3.9
4.0 4.1
4.2 4.3
4.4 4.5
4.6 4.7
4.8 4.9
5.0 5.1
Percent range
Number of participants
2020
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
3.0 3.1
3.2 3.3
3.4 3.5
3.6 3.7
3.8 3.9
4.0 4.1
4.2 4.3
4.4 4.5
4.6 4.7
4.8 4.9
5.0 5.1
Percent range
Number of participants
Longer run
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
3.0 3.1
3.2 3.3
3.4 3.5
3.6 3.7
3.8 3.9
4.0 4.1
4.2 4.3
4.4 4.5
Percent range
Note: Definitions of variables and other explanations are in the notes to table 1.
4.6 4.7
4.8 4.9
5.0 5.1
Page 8
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3.C. Distribution of participants’ projections for PCE inflation, 2018–20 and over the longer run
Number of participants
2018
March projections
December projections
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1.7 1.8
1.9 2.0
2.1 2.2
2.3 2.4
Percent range
Number of participants
2019
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1.7 1.8
1.9 2.0
2.1 2.2
2.3 2.4
Percent range
Number of participants
2020
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1.7 1.8
1.9 2.0
2.1 2.2
2.3 2.4
Percent range
Number of participants
Longer run
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1.7 1.8
1.9 2.0
2.1 2.2
Percent range
Note: Definitions of variables and other explanations are in the notes to table 1.
2.3 2.4
Summary of Economic Projections of the Meeting of March 20–21, 2018
Page 9
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3.D. Distribution of participants’ projections for core PCE inflation, 2018–20
Number of participants
2018
March projections
December projections
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1.7 1.8
1.9 2.0
2.1 2.2
2.3 2.4
Percent range
Number of participants
2019
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1.7 1.8
1.9 2.0
2.1 2.2
2.3 2.4
Percent range
Number of participants
2020
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1.7 1.8
1.9 2.0
2.1 2.2
Percent range
Note: Definitions of variables and other explanations are in the notes to table 1.
2.3 2.4
Page 10
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3.E. Distribution of participants’ judgments of the midpoint of the appropriate target range for the federal funds
rate or the appropriate target level for the federal funds rate, 2018–20 and over the longer run
Number of participants
2018
March projections
December projections
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0.88 1.12
1.13 1.37
1.38 1.62
1.63 1.87
1.88 2.12
2.13 2.37
2.38 2.62
2.63 2.87
2.88 3.12
3.13 3.37
3.38 3.62
3.63 3.87
3.88 4.12
4.13 4.37
4.38 4.62
4.63 4.87
4.88 5.12
Percent range
Number of participants
2019
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0.88 1.12
1.13 1.37
1.38 1.62
1.63 1.87
1.88 2.12
2.13 2.37
2.38 2.62
2.63 2.87
2.88 3.12
3.13 3.37
3.38 3.62
3.63 3.87
3.88 4.12
4.13 4.37
4.38 4.62
4.63 4.87
4.88 5.12
Percent range
Number of participants
2020
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0.88 1.12
1.13 1.37
1.38 1.62
1.63 1.87
1.88 2.12
2.13 2.37
2.38 2.62
2.63 2.87
2.88 3.12
3.13 3.37
3.38 3.62
3.63 3.87
3.88 4.12
4.13 4.37
4.38 4.62
4.63 4.87
4.88 5.12
Percent range
Number of participants
Longer run
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0.88 1.12
1.13 1.37
1.38 1.62
1.63 1.87
1.88 2.12
2.13 2.37
2.38 2.62
2.63 2.87
2.88 3.12
3.13 3.37
3.38 3.62
3.63 3.87
3.88 4.12
Percent range
Note: Definitions of variables and other explanations are in the notes to table 1.
4.13 4.37
4.38 4.62
4.63 4.87
4.88 5.12
Summary of Economic Projections of the Meeting of March 20–21, 2018
Page 11
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Uncertainty and Risks
In assessing the path for the federal funds rate that, in
their view, is likely to be appropriate, FOMC participants
take account of the range of possible economic outcomes, the likelihood of those outcomes, and the potential benefits and costs should they occur. As a reference,
table 2 provides measures of forecast uncertainty, based
on the forecast errors of various private and government
forecasts over the past 20 years, for real GDP growth,
the unemployment rate, and total PCE inflation. Those
measures are represented graphically in the “fan charts”
shown in the top panels of figures 4.A, 4.B, and 4.C. The
fan charts display the median SEP projections for the
three variables surrounded by symmetric confidence intervals derived from the forecast errors reported in table 2. If the degree of uncertainty attending these projections is similar to the typical magnitude of past forecast errors and the risks around the projections are
broadly balanced, then future outcomes of these variables would have about a 70 percent probability of being
within these confidence intervals. For all three variables,
this measure of uncertainty is substantial and generally
increases as the forecast horizon lengthens.
Participants’ assessments of the level of uncertainty surrounding their individual economic projections are
shown in the bottom-left panels of figures 4.A, 4.B, and
4.C. Nearly all participants viewed the degree of uncertainty attached to their economic projections about real
GDP growth, the unemployment rate, and inflation as
broadly similar to the average of the past 20 years, a view
that was essentially unchanged from December. 3
Because the fan charts are constructed to be symmetric
around the median projections, they do not reflect any
asymmetries in the balance of risks that participants may
see in their economic projections. Participants’ assessments of the balance of risks to their economic projections are shown in the bottom-right panels of figures 4.A, 4.B, and 4.C. As in December, most participants judged the risks to their projections of real GDP
growth, the unemployment rate, total inflation, and core
inflation as broadly balanced—in other words, as
broadly consistent with a symmetric fan chart. Participants who saw the risks as skewed typically judged that
the balance of risks was tilted toward stronger GDP
growth, lower unemployment rates, and higher inflation.
Compared with the December SEP, participants’ assessments of the balance of risks attending their projections
At the end of this summary, the box “Forecast Uncertainty”
discusses the sources and interpretation of uncertainty surrounding the economic forecasts and explains the approach
3
Table 2. Average historical projection error ranges
Percentage points
Variable
2018
2019
2020
Change in real GDP1 . . . . . . .
±1.5
±2.0
±2.0
±0.5
±1.3
±1.7
±0.9
±1.0
±1.1
±0.9
±2.0
±2.5
Unemployment
rate1
Total consumer
prices2
Short-term interest
.......
.....
rates3
....
NOTE: Error ranges shown are measured as plus or minus the root
mean squared error of projections for 1998 through 2017 that were released in the spring by various private and government forecasters. As
described in the box “Forecast Uncertainty,” under certain assumptions,
there is about a 70 percent probability that actual outcomes for real
GDP, unemployment, consumer prices, and the federal funds rate will
be in ranges implied by the average size of projection errors made in the
past. For more information, see David Reifschneider and Peter Tulip
(2017), “Gauging the Uncertainty of the Economic Outlook Using Historical Forecasting Errors: The Federal Reserve’s Approach,” Finance
and Economics Discussion Series 2017-020 (Washington: Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February), www.federal
reserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2017/files/2017020pap.pdf.
1. Definitions of variables are in the general note to table 1.
2. Measure is the overall consumer price index, the price measure
that has been most widely used in government and private economic
forecasts. Projections are percent changes on a fourth quarter to fourth
quarter basis.
3. For Federal Reserve staff forecasts, measure is the federal funds
rate. For other forecasts, measure is the rate on 3-month Treasury bills.
Projection errors are calculated using average levels, in percent, in the
fourth quarter.
were little changed overall, with one more participant reporting that the risks to the unemployment rate were
weighted to the downside and two fewer participants reporting that the risks to either total or core PCE inflation
were weighted to the downside.
In discussing the uncertainty and risks surrounding their
projections, most participants noted that the magnitude
and timing of the economic effects of recent changes in
fiscal policy were uncertain or that fiscal policy developments posed upside risks to real economic activity. Most
participants also cited trade policy as a source of either
uncertainty or downside risk. A few participants noted
that a prolonged period of tight labor markets posed
risks of higher inflation, could fuel financial imbalances,
and might contribute to heightened recession risks.
Participants’ assessments of the appropriate future path
of the federal funds rate are also subject to considerable
uncertainty. Because the Committee adjusts the federal
funds rate in response to actual and prospective developments over time in real GDP growth, the unemployment rate, and inflation, uncertainty surrounding the
used to assess the uncertainty and risks attending the participants’ projections.
Page 12
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.A. Uncertainty and risks in projections of GDP growth
Median projection and confidence interval based on historical forecast errors
Percent
Change in real GDP
Median of projections
70% confidence interval
4
3
2
Actual
1
0
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
FOMC participants’ assessments of uncertainty and risks around their economic projections
Number of participants
Uncertainty about GDP growth
Risks to GDP growth
March projections
December projections
Lower
18
Broadly
similar
Number of participants
Higher
March projections
December projections
18
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
Weighted to
downside
Broadly
balanced
Weighted to
upside
Note: The blue and red lines in the top panel show actual values and median projected values, respectively, of the
percent change in real gross domestic product (GDP) from the fourth quarter of the previous year to the fourth quarter
of the year indicated. The confidence interval around the median projected values is assumed to be symmetric and is
based on root mean squared errors of various private and government forecasts made over the previous 20 years; more
information about these data is available in table 2. Because current conditions may differ from those that prevailed,
on average, over the previous 20 years, the width and shape of the confidence interval estimated on the basis of the
historical forecast errors may not reflect FOMC participants’ current assessments of the uncertainty and risks around
their projections; these current assessments are summarized in the lower panels. Generally speaking, participants who
judge the uncertainty about their projections as “broadly similar” to the average levels of the past 20 years would view
the width of the confidence interval shown in the historical fan chart as largely consistent with their assessments of
the uncertainty about their projections. Likewise, participants who judge the risks to their projections as “broadly
balanced” would view the confidence interval around their projections as approximately symmetric. For definitions of
uncertainty and risks in economic projections, see the box “Forecast Uncertainty.”
Summary of Economic Projections of the Meeting of March 20–21, 2018
Page 13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.B. Uncertainty and risks in projections of the unemployment rate
Median projection and confidence interval based on historical forecast errors
Percent
Unemployment rate
10
Median of projections
70% confidence interval
9
8
7
6
Actual
5
4
3
2
1
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
FOMC participants’ assessments of uncertainty and risks around their economic projections
Number of participants
Uncertainty about the unemployment rate
Risks to the unemployment rate
March projections
December projections
Lower
18
Broadly
similar
Number of participants
Higher
March projections
December projections
18
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
Weighted to
downside
Broadly
balanced
Weighted to
upside
Note: The blue and red lines in the top panel show actual values and median projected values, respectively, of
the average civilian unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of the year indicated. The confidence interval around
the median projected values is assumed to be symmetric and is based on root mean squared errors of various private
and government forecasts made over the previous 20 years; more information about these data is available in table 2.
Because current conditions may differ from those that prevailed, on average, over the previous 20 years, the width
and shape of the confidence interval estimated on the basis of the historical forecast errors may not reflect FOMC
participants’ current assessments of the uncertainty and risks around their projections; these current assessments are
summarized in the lower panels. Generally speaking, participants who judge the uncertainty about their projections as
“broadly similar” to the average levels of the past 20 years would view the width of the confidence interval shown in the
historical fan chart as largely consistent with their assessments of the uncertainty about their projections. Likewise,
participants who judge the risks to their projections as “broadly balanced” would view the confidence interval around
their projections as approximately symmetric. For definitions of uncertainty and risks in economic projections, see the
box “Forecast Uncertainty.”
Page 14
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4.C. Uncertainty and risks in projections of PCE inflation
Median projection and confidence interval based on historical forecast errors
Percent
PCE inflation
Median of projections
70% confidence interval
3
2
1
Actual
0
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
FOMC participants’ assessments of uncertainty and risks around their economic projections
Number of participants
Uncertainty about PCE inflation
Risks to PCE inflation
March projections
December projections
Lower
18
Broadly
similar
Number of participants
March projections
December projections
18
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
Higher
Weighted to
downside
Broadly
balanced
Number of participants
Uncertainty about core PCE inflation
18
Broadly
similar
Number of participants
Risks to core PCE inflation
March projections
December projections
Lower
Weighted to
upside
Higher
March projections
December projections
18
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
Weighted to
downside
Broadly
balanced
Weighted to
upside
Note: The blue and red lines in the top panel show actual values and median projected values, respectively, of the
percent change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures (PCE) from the fourth quarter of the previous
year to the fourth quarter of the year indicated. The confidence interval around the median projected values is assumed
to be symmetric and is based on root mean squared errors of various private and government forecasts made over the
previous 20 years; more information about these data is available in table 2. Because current conditions may differ from
those that prevailed, on average, over the previous 20 years, the width and shape of the confidence interval estimated
on the basis of the historical forecast errors may not reflect FOMC participants’ current assessments of the uncertainty
and risks around their projections; these current assessments are summarized in the lower panels. Generally speaking,
participants who judge the uncertainty about their projections as “broadly similar” to the average levels of the past
20 years would view the width of the confidence interval shown in the historical fan chart as largely consistent with their
assessments of the uncertainty about their projections. Likewise, participants who judge the risks to their projections
as “broadly balanced” would view the confidence interval around their projections as approximately symmetric. For
definitions of uncertainty and risks in economic projections, see the box “Forecast Uncertainty.”
Summary of Economic Projections of the Meeting of March 20–21, 2018
Page 15
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
projected path for the federal funds rate importantly reflects the uncertainties about the paths for those key economic variables. Figure 5 provides a graphical representation of this uncertainty, plotting the median SEP projection for the federal funds rate surrounded by confi-
dence intervals derived from the results presented in table 2. As with the macroeconomic variables, forecast
uncertainty surrounding the appropriate path of the federal funds rate is substantial and increases for longer horizons.
Page 16
Federal Open Market Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 5. Uncertainty in projections of the federal funds rate
Median projection and confidence interval based on historical forecast errors
Percent
Federal funds rate
Midpoint of target range
Median of projections
70% confidence interval*
6
5
4
3
2
1
Actual
0
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Note: The blue and red lines are based on actual values and median projected values, respectively, of the Committee’s target for the federal funds rate at the end of the year indicated. The actual values are the midpoint of the
target range; the median projected values are based on either the midpoint of the target range or the target level.
The confidence interval around the median projected values is based on root mean squared errors of various private
and government forecasts made over the previous 20 years. The confidence interval is not strictly consistent with the
projections for the federal funds rate, primarily because these projections are not forecasts of the likeliest outcomes for
the federal funds rate, but rather projections of participants’ individual assessments of appropriate monetary policy.
Still, historical forecast errors provide a broad sense of the uncertainty around the future path of the federal funds rate
generated by the uncertainty about the macroeconomic variables as well as additional adjustments to monetary policy
that may be appropriate to offset the effects of shocks to the economy.
The confidence interval is assumed to be symmetric except when it is truncated at zero—the bottom of the lowest
target range for the federal funds rate that has been adopted in the past by the Committee. This truncation would
not be intended to indicate the likelihood of the use of negative interest rates to provide additional monetary policy
accommodation if doing so was judged appropriate. In such situations, the Committee could also employ other tools,
including forward guidance and large-scale asset purchases, to provide additional accommodation. Because current
conditions may differ from those that prevailed, on average, over the previous 20 years, the width and shape of the
confidence interval estimated on the basis of the historical forecast errors may not reflect FOMC participants’ current
assessments of the uncertainty and risks around their projections.
* The confidence interval is derived from forecasts of the average level of short-term interest rates in the fourth
quarter of the year indicated; more information about these data is available in table 2. The shaded area encompasses
less than a 70 percent confidence interval if the confidence interval has been truncated at zero.
Summary of Economic Projections of the Meeting of March 20–21, 2018
Page 17
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Forecast Uncertainty
The economic projections provided by the members of
the Board of Governors and the presidents of the Federal
Reserve Banks inform discussions of monetary policy among
policymakers and can aid public understanding of the basis
for policy actions. Considerable uncertainty attends these
projections, however. The economic and statistical models
and relationships used to help produce economic forecasts
are necessarily imperfect descriptions of the real world, and
the future path of the economy can be affected by myriad
unforeseen developments and events. Thus, in setting the
stance of monetary policy, participants consider not only
what appears to be the most likely economic outcome as embodied in their projections, but also the range of alternative
possibilities, the likelihood of their occurring, and the potential costs to the economy should they occur.
Table 2 summarizes the average historical accuracy of a
range of forecasts, including those reported in past Monetary
Policy Reports and those prepared by the Federal Reserve
Board’s staff in advance of meetings of the Federal Open
Market Committee (FOMC). The projection error ranges
shown in the table illustrate the considerable uncertainty associated with economic forecasts. For example, suppose a
participant projects that real gross domestic product (GDP)
and total consumer prices will rise steadily at annual rates of,
respectively, 3 percent and 2 percent. If the uncertainty attending those projections is similar to that experienced in the
past and the risks around the projections are broadly balanced, the numbers reported in table 2 would imply a probability of about 70 percent that actual GDP would expand
within a range of 1.5 to 4.5 percent in the current year and
1.0 to 5.0 percent in the second and third years. The corresponding 70 percent confidence intervals for overall inflation would be 1.1 to 2.9 percent in the current year, 1.0 to
3.0 percent in the second year, and 0.9 to 3.1 percent in the
third year. Figures 4.A through 4.C illustrate these confidence bounds in “fan charts” that are symmetric and centered on the medians of FOMC participants’ projections for
GDP growth, the unemployment rate, and inflation. However, in some instances, the risks around the projections may
not be symmetric. In particular, the unemployment rate cannot be negative; furthermore, the risks around a particular
projection might be tilted to either the upside or the downside, in which case the corresponding fan chart would be
asymmetrically positioned around the median projection.
Because current conditions may differ from those that
prevailed, on average, over history, participants provide
judgments as to whether the uncertainty attached to their
projections of each economic variable is greater than, smaller
than, or broadly similar to typical levels of forecast uncertainty seen in the past 20 years, as presented in table 2 and
reflected in the widths of the confidence intervals shown in
the top panels of figures 4.A through 4.C. Participants’ current assessments of the uncertainty surrounding their projec-
tions are summarized in the bottom-left panels of those figures. Participants also provide judgments as to whether the
risks to their projections are weighted to the upside, are
weighted to the downside, or are broadly balanced. That is,
while the symmetric historical fan charts shown in the top
panels of figures 4.A through 4.C imply that the risks to participants’ projections are balanced, participants may judge that
there is a greater risk that a given variable will be above rather
than below their projections. These judgments are summarized in the lower-right panels of figures 4.A through 4.C.
As with real activity and inflation, the outlook for the
future path of the federal funds rate is subject to considerable
uncertainty. This uncertainty arises primarily because each
participant’s assessment of the appropriate stance of monetary policy depends importantly on the evolution of real activity and inflation over time. If economic conditions evolve
in an unexpected manner, then assessments of the appropriate setting of the federal funds rate would change from that
point forward. The final line in table 2 shows the error ranges
for forecasts of short-term interest rates. They suggest that
the historical confidence intervals associated with projections
of the federal funds rate are quite wide. It should be noted,
however, that these confidence intervals are not strictly consistent with the projections for the federal funds rate, as these
projections are not forecasts of the most likely quarterly outcomes but rather are projections of participants’ individual assessments of appropriate monetary policy and are on an endof-year basis. However, the forecast errors should provide a
sense of the uncertainty around the future path of the federal
funds rate generated by the uncertainty about the macroeconomic variables as well as additional adjustments to monetary
policy that would be appropriate to offset the effects of
shocks to the economy.
If at some point in the future the confidence interval
around the federal funds rate were to extend below zero, it
would be truncated at zero for purposes of the fan chart
shown in figure 5; zero is the bottom of the lowest target
range for the federal funds rate that has been adopted by the
Committee in the past. This approach to the construction of
the federal funds rate fan chart would be merely a convention;
it would not have any implications for possible future policy
decisions regarding the use of negative interest rates to provide additional monetary policy accommodation if doing so
were appropriate. In such situations, the Committee could
also employ other tools, including forward guidance and asset
purchases, to provide additional accommodation.
While figures 4.A through 4.C provide information on
the uncertainty around the economic projections, figure 1
provides information on the range of views across FOMC
participants. A comparison of figure 1 with figures 4.A
through 4.C shows that the dispersion of the projections
across participants is much smaller than the average forecast
errors over the past 20 years.
Cite this document
Federal Reserve (2018, March 20). FOMC Minutes. Fomc Minutes, Federal Reserve. https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/fomc_minutes_20180321
@misc{wtfs_fomc_minutes_20180321,
author = {Federal Reserve},
title = {FOMC Minutes},
year = {2018},
month = {Mar},
howpublished = {Fomc Minutes, Federal Reserve},
url = {https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/fomc_minutes_20180321},
note = {Retrieved via When the Fed Speaks corpus}
}