FOMC Minutes
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1
Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee
July 30–31, 2019
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, July 30, 2019, at
10:00 a.m. and continued on Wednesday, July 31, 2019,
at 9:00 a.m.1
PRESENT:
Jerome H. Powell, Chair
John C. Williams, Vice Chair
Michelle W. Bowman
Lael Brainard
James Bullard
Richard H. Clarida
Charles L. Evans
Esther L. George
Randal K. Quarles
Eric Rosengren
Patrick Harker, Robert S. Kaplan, Neel Kashkari,
Loretta J. Mester, and Michael Strine, Alternate
Members of the Federal Open Market Committee
Thomas I. Barkin, Raphael W. Bostic, and Mary C.
Daly, Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks of
Richmond, Atlanta, and San Francisco, 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
Steven B. Kamin, Economist
Thomas Laubach, Economist
Stacey Tevlin, Economist
Rochelle M. Edge, Beverly Hirtle, Christopher J.
Waller, William Wascher, and Beth Anne Wilson,
Associate Economists
The Federal Open Market Committee is referenced as the
“FOMC” and the “Committee” in these minutes.
2 Attended through the discussion of economic developments
and outlook.
3 Attended the discussion of the review of monetary policy
framework.
1
Lorie K. Logan, Manager pro tem, System Open
Market Account
Ann E. Misback,2 Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Board of Governors
Eric Belsky,3 Director, Division of Consumer and
Community Affairs, Board of Governors; Matthew
J. Eichner,4 Director, Division of Reserve Bank
Operations and Payment Systems, Board of
Governors; Andreas Lehnert, Director, Division of
Financial Stability, Board of Governors
Margie Shanks,5 Deputy Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Board of Governors
Arthur Lindo, Deputy Director, Division of
Supervision and Regulation, Board of Governors;
Trevor A. Reeve, Deputy Director, Division of
Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors
Jon Faust, Senior Special Adviser to the Chair, Office
of Board Members, Board of Governors
Joshua Gallin, Special Adviser to the Chair, Office of
Board Members, Board of Governors
Brian M. Doyle,6 Wendy E. Dunn, Joseph W. Gruber,
Ellen E. Meade, and John M. Roberts, 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, Senior Associate Director, Division of
International Finance, Board of Governors; David
E. Lebow and Michael G. Palumbo, Senior
Associate Directors, Division of Research and
Statistics, Board of Governors
Attended through the discussion of developments in financial markets and open market operations.
5 Attended the discussion of economic developments and outlook through discussion of monetary policy.
6 Attended Tuesday session only.
4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2
Federal Open Market Committee
Don Kim, Edward Nelson, and Robert J. Tetlow,
Senior Advisers, Division of Monetary Affairs,
Board of Governors; S. Wayne Passmore, Senior
Adviser, Division of Research and Statistics, Board
of Governors
Marnie Gillis DeBoer and Min Wei, Associate
Directors, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board of
Governors; Elizabeth Klee, Associate Director,
Division of Financial Stability, Board of
Governors; John J. Stevens, Associate Director,
Division of Research and Statistics, Board of
Governors
Norman J. Morin, Deputy Associate Director, Division
of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors;
Andrea Raffo, Deputy Associate Director, Division
of International Finance, Board of Governors;
Jeffrey D. Walker,4 Deputy Associate Director,
Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment
Systems, Board of Governors
Etienne Gagnon, Section Chief, Division of Monetary
Affairs, Board of Governors
Penelope A. Beattie,3 Assistant to the Secretary, Office
of the Secretary, Board of Governors
David H. Small, Project Manager, Division of
Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors
Alyssa G. Anderson, Principal Economist, Division of
Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors; Dario
Caldara3 and Albert Queralto,3 Principal
Economists, Division of International Finance,
Board of Governors
Isabel Cairó,3 Senior Economist, Division of Research
and Statistics, Board of Governors
Randall A. Williams, Senior Information Manager,
Division of Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors
Ellen J. Bromagen, First Vice President, Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago
David Altig, Michael Dotsey, and Jeffrey Fuhrer,
Executive Vice Presidents, Federal Reserve Banks
of Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Boston, respectively
Marc Giannoni,3 Spencer Krane, and Paula Tkac,3
Senior Vice Presidents, Federal Reserve Banks of
Dallas, Chicago, and Atlanta, respectively
Robert G. Valletta, Group Vice President, Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Terry Fitzgerald, Christopher J. Neely,3 and Patricia
Zobel, Vice Presidents, Federal Reserve Banks of
Minneapolis, St. Louis, and New York, respectively
Andreas L. Hornstein, Senior Advisor, Federal Reserve
Bank of Richmond
Karel Mertens, Senior Economic Policy Advisor,
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Joseph G. Haubrich, Senior Economic and Policy
Advisor, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
Brent Bundick, Research and Policy Advisor, Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City
Vasco Curdia,3 Research Advisor, Federal Reserve
Bank of San Francisco
Review of Monetary Policy Strategy, Tools, and
Communication Practices
Committee participants began their discussions related
to the ongoing review of the Federal Reserve’s monetary
policy strategy, tools, and communication practices.
Staff briefings provided a retrospective on the Federal
Reserve’s monetary policy actions since the financial crisis, together with background and analysis regarding
some key issues. In its policy response during the recession and the subsequent economic recovery, the Committee lowered the federal funds rate to its effective
lower bound (ELB) and provided additional monetary
policy accommodation through both forward guidance
about the expected path of the policy rate and balance
sheet policy. These actions eased financial conditions
and provided substantial support to economic activity;
they therefore figured importantly in helping promote
the recovery in the labor market and in preventing inflation from falling substantially below the Committee’s
objective. The presentation noted, however, that over
the past several years, inflation had tended to run modestly below the Committee’s longer-run goal of 2 percent, while some indicators of longer-run inflation expectations currently stood at low levels. The staff also
provided results from model simulations that illustrated
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Minutes of the Meeting of July 30–31, 2019
Page 3
possible challenges to the achievement of the Committee’s dual-mandate goals over the medium term. These
challenges included the proximity of the policy rate to
the ELB, imprecise knowledge about the neutral value
of the policy rate and the longer-run normal level of the
unemployment rate, the diminished response of inflation to resource utilization, and uncertainty about the relationship between inflation expectations and inflation
outcomes.
In their discussion, participants welcomed the review of
the monetary policy framework. They noted that the inclusion of feedback from the public as part of the review,
via the Fed Listens events, had improved the transparency
of the review process, enhanced the Federal Reserve’s
public accountability, and provided insights into the positive implications of strong labor markets and high rates
of employment for various communities. Furthermore,
participants agreed that the review was timely and warranted, in light of the use over the past decade of new
policy tools and the emergence of changes in the structure and operation of the U.S. economy. These changes
included the long period during which the federal funds
rate was at the ELB, the probable recurrence of ELB
episodes if the neutral level of the policy rate remains at
historically low levels, and the challenges that policymakers face in influencing inflation and inflation expectations when the response of inflation to resource utilization has diminished. Participants generally agreed that
the Committee’s consideration of possible modifications
to its policy strategy, tools, and communication practices
would take some time and that the process would be
careful, deliberate, and patient.
With regard to the current monetary policy framework,
participants agreed that this framework had served the
Committee and the U.S. economy well over the past decade. They judged that forward guidance and balance
sheet actions had provided policy accommodation during the ELB period and had supported economic activity
and a return to strong labor market conditions while also
bringing inflation closer to the Committee’s longer-run
goal of 2 percent than would otherwise have been the
case. In addition, participants noted that the Committee’s balanced approach to promoting its dual mandate
of maximum employment and price stability had facilitated Committee policy actions aimed at supporting the
labor market and economic activity even during times
when the provision of accommodation was potentially
associated with the risk of inflation running persistently
above 2 percent. Participants further observed that such
inflation risks—along with several of the other perceived
risks of providing substantial accommodation through
nontraditional policy tools, including possible adverse
implications for financial stability—had not been realized. In particular, a number of participants commented
that, as many of the potential costs of the Committee’s
asset purchases had failed to materialize, the Federal Reserve might have been able to make use of balance sheet
tools even more aggressively over the past decade in
providing appropriate levels of accommodation. However, several participants remarked that considerable uncertainties remained about the costs and efficacy of asset
purchases, and a couple of participants suggested that,
taking account of the uncertainties and the perceived
constraints facing policymakers in the years following
the recession, the Committee’s decisions on the amount
of policy accommodation to provide through asset purchases had been appropriate.
In their discussion of policy tools, participants noted
that the experience acquired by the Committee with the
use of forward guidance and asset purchases has led to
an improved understanding of how these tools operate;
as a result, the Committee could proceed more confidently and preemptively in using these tools in the future
if economic circumstances warranted. Participants discussed the extent to which forward guidance and balance
sheet actions could substitute for reductions in the policy rate when the policy rate is constrained by the ELB.
Overall, participants judged that the Federal Reserve’s
ability to provide monetary policy accommodation at the
ELB through the use of forward guidance and balance
sheet tools, while helpful in mitigating the effects of the
constraint on monetary policy arising from the lower
bound, did not eliminate the risk of protracted periods
in which the ELB hinders the conduct of policy. If policymakers are not able to provide sufficient accommodation at the ELB through the use of forward guidance
or balance sheet actions, the constraints posed by the
ELB could be an impediment to the attainment of the
Federal Reserve’s dual-mandate objectives over time and
put at risk the anchoring of inflation expectations at the
Committee’s longer-run inflation objective.
Participants looked forward to a detailed discussion over
coming meetings of alternative strategies for monetary
policy. Some participants offered remarks on general
features of some of the monetary policy strategies that
they would be discussing and on the relationship between those strategies and the current framework. A
few of the options mentioned were “makeup strategies,”
in which the realization of inflation below the 2 percent
objective would give rise to policy actions designed to
deliver inflation above the objective for a time. In prin-
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4
Federal Open Market Committee
ciple, such makeup strategies could be designed to promote a 2 percent inflation rate, on average, over some
period. In such circumstances, market expectations that
the central bank would seek to “make up” inflation
shortfalls following periods during which the ELB was
binding could help ease overall financial conditions and
thus help support economic activity during ELB episodes. However, many participants noted that the benefits of makeup strategies in supporting economic activity and stabilizing inflation depended heavily on the private sector’s understanding of those strategies and confidence that future policymakers would take actions consistent with those strategies. A few participants suggested that an alternative means of delivering average inflation equal to the Committee’s longer-run objective
might involve aiming for inflation somewhat in excess
of 2 percent when the policy rate was away from the
ELB, recognizing that inflation would tend to move
lower when the policy rate was constrained by the ELB.
Another possibility might be for the Committee to express the inflation goal as a range centered on 2 percent
and aim to achieve inflation outcomes in the upper end
of the range in periods when resource utilization was
high. A couple of participants noted that an adoption of
a target range would be consistent with the practice of
some other central banks. A few other participants suggested that the adoption of a range could convey a message that small deviations of inflation from 2 percent
were unlikely to give rise to sizable policy responses. A
couple of participants expressed concern that if policymakers regularly failed to respond appropriately to persistent, relatively small shortfalls of inflation below the
2 percent longer-run objective, inflation expectations
and average observed inflation could drift below that objective.
Participants also discussed the Committee’s Statement
on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy.
Participants noted that this statement had been helpful
in articulating and clarifying the Federal Reserve’s approach to monetary policy. The Committee first released this document in January 2012 and had renewed
it, with a few modifications, every year since then. On
the basis of the monetary policy and economic experience of the past decade, participants cited a number of
topics that they would likely discuss in detail in their deliberations during the review and that might motivate
possible modifications to the statement. These topics
included the conduct of monetary policy in the presence
of the ELB constraint, the role of inflation expectations
in monetary policy, the best means of conveying the
Committee’s balanced approach to monetary policy and
the symmetry of its inflation goal, the relationship between the Committee’s strategy and its decisions about
the settings of its policy tools, the implications of the low
value of the neutral policy rate and of uncertainty about
the values of the neutral policy rate and the longer-run
normal rate of unemployment, the potential benefits and
costs of unemployment running below its longer-run
normal rate in conditions of muted inflation pressures,
and the time frame over which policymakers aimed to
achieve their dual-mandate goals. A couple of participants emphasized the availability to policymakers of
other communication tools through which the Committee could elaborate on its policy strategy and the challenges that monetary policy faced in the current environment, while also indicating that the Committee retains
flexibility and optionality to achieve its objectives. Participants highlighted the importance of the Summary of
Economic Projections (SEP) in conveying participants’
modal outlooks, with several participants suggesting that
modifications to the SEP’s format might enhance policy
communications. Participants also commented on the
importance of considering the connections between
monetary policy and financial stability.
Participants expected that, at upcoming meetings, they
would continue their deliberations on the review of the
Federal Reserve’s monetary policy strategy, tools, and
communication practices. These additional discussions
would consider various topics, such as alternative policy
strategies, options for enhanced use of existing monetary
policy tools, possible additions to the policy toolkit, potential changes to communication practices, the relationship between monetary policy and financial stability, and
the distributional effects of monetary policy.
Developments in Financial Market Developments
and Open Market Operations
The manager pro tem discussed developments in financial markets over the intermeeting period. Regarding
market participants’ views about the July FOMC meeting, nearly all respondents from the July Open Market
Desk surveys of dealers and market participants expected a 25 basis point cut in the target range for the
federal funds rate, a substantial shift from the June surveys when a significant majority had a modal forecast for
no change. Survey responses also suggested that expectations had coalesced around a modal forecast for a total
of two 25 basis point cuts in the target range in 2019 and
no change thereafter through year-end 2021. Regarding
balance sheet policy, survey respondents that expected a
rate cut at this meeting were almost evenly split on
whether the Committee would also choose to end balance runoff immediately after the meeting or to maintain
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Minutes of the Meeting of July 30–31, 2019
Page 5
the existing plan to halt runoff at the end of September.
Market participants generally judged that a two-month
change in the timing of the end of the balance sheet runoff would have only a small effect on the path of the
balance sheet and thus very little, if any, economic effect.
Expectations for near-term domestic policy easing had
occurred against the backdrop of a global shift toward
more accommodative monetary policy. Several central
banks had eased policy over the past month and a number of others shifted to an easing bias. Market participants were particularly attentive to a statement after the
European Central Bank’s Governing Council meeting
that was perceived as affirming expectations for further
easing and additional asset purchases. These changes to
the policy outlook in the United States and across a number of countries appeared to play an important role in
supporting financial conditions and offsetting some of
the drag on growth from trade tensions and other risks.
Somewhat reduced concern among market participants
about important risks to the global outlook also appeared to support risk asset prices. Following the G-20
(Group of Twenty) meeting in late June, fewer Desk
contacts and respondents to the Desk surveys expected
a significant escalation of U.S.-China trade tensions. In
addition, investor sentiment was bolstered by news that
the Administration and Congress had reached a budget
and debt ceiling agreement that, if passed, would remove
another source of risk later this year. That said, contacts
recognized that some potentially sizeable downside risks
remained. Many survey respondents still viewed U.S.China trade risks as skewed to the downside, and many
Desk contacts judged that the risks of a “no-deal” Brexit
had increased.
The manager pro tem next discussed developments in
money markets and open market operations. The
spreads of the effective federal funds rate (EFFR) and
the median Eurodollar rate relative to the interest on excess reserves (IOER) rate had increased some and become more variable over recent months, with a notable
pickup in daily changes in these spreads since late March.
Moreover, the range of rates in unsecured markets each
day had widened. Market participants pointed to pressures in repurchase agreement (repo) markets as one factor contributing to the uptick in volatility in unsecured
rates. These pressures, in turn, seemed to stem partly
from elevated dealer inventories of Treasury securities
and dealers’ associated financing needs. Market participants also pointed to lower reserve balances as a factor
affecting rates in unsecured money market rates. Over
the intermeeting period, the level of reserves was little
changed on net; however, some market participants
noted the association between the gradual increase in unsecured rates relative to the IOER rate over recent
months and the declining level of reserves since System
Open Market Account (SOMA) redemptions began.
The level of reserves was expected to decline appreciably
over coming months, partly reflecting an anticipated sizable increase in the Treasury’s balance at the Federal Reserve following the agreement on the federal budget and
debt ceiling.
The manager pro tem updated the Committee on Desk
plans to resume CUSIP (Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures) aggregation of SOMA
holdings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) to reduce administrative
costs and operational complexity, and the Desk expects
to release a statement in August with details on the aggregation strategy.
By unanimous vote, the Committee ratified the 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 available for the July 30–31 meeting indicated that labor market conditions remained strong
and that real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at
a moderate rate in the second quarter. Consumer price
inflation, as measured by the 12-month percentage
change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures (PCE), was below 2 percent in June. Surveybased measures of longer-run inflation expectations
were little changed.
Total nonfarm payroll employment expanded at a solid
rate, on average, in recent months, supported by a brisk
gain in June. The unemployment rate edged up to
3.7 percent in June but was still at a historically low level.
The labor force participation rate also moved up somewhat but was close to its average over the previous few
years, and the employment-to-population ratio stayed
flat. The unemployment rates for African Americans
and Asians declined in June, the rate for whites was unchanged, and the rate for Hispanics edged up; the unemployment rate for each group was below its level at the
end of the previous economic expansion, though persistent differentials between these rates remained. The
share of workers employed part time for economic reasons in June continued to be below the lows reached in
late 2007. The rate of private-sector job openings held
steady in May, while the rate of quits edged down but
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6
Federal Open Market Committee
was still at a high level; the four-week moving average of
initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits
through mid-July was near historically low levels. Average hourly earnings for all employees rose 3.1 percent
over the 12 months ending in June, somewhat faster
than a year earlier. The employment cost index for private-sector workers increased 2.6 percent over the
12 months ending in June, the same as a year earlier.
(Data on compensation per hour that reflected the recent annual update of the national income and product
accounts by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
were not available at the time of the meeting.)
Total consumer prices, as measured by the PCE price
index, increased 1.4 percent over the 12 months ending
in June. This increase was slower than a year earlier, as
core PCE price inflation (which excludes changes in
consumer food and energy prices) moved down to
1.6 percent, consumer food price inflation remained below core inflation, and consumer energy prices declined.
The average monthly change in the core PCE price index
during the second quarter was faster than in the first
quarter, suggesting that some of the soft inflation readings early in the year were transitory. The trimmed mean
measure of 12-month PCE price inflation constructed
by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas remained at or
near 2 percent in recent months. The consumer price
index (CPI) rose 1.6 percent over the 12 months ending
in June, while core CPI inflation was 2.1 percent. Recent
survey-based measures of longer-run inflation expectations were little changed on balance. The preliminary
July reading from the University of Michigan Surveys of
Consumers moved back up after dipping in June but was
still at a relatively low level; the measures from the
Desk’s Survey of Primary Dealers and Survey of Market
Participants were little changed.
Real consumer expenditures rose briskly in the second
quarter after a sluggish gain in the first quarter, supported in part by a robust pace of light motor vehicle
sales in May and June. However, real PCE rose more
slowly in June than in the first five months of the year,
suggesting some deceleration in consumer spending going into the third quarter. Key factors that influence
consumer spending—including a low unemployment
rate, further gains in real disposable income, and elevated measures of households’ net worth—were supportive of solid real PCE growth in the near term. In
addition, the preliminary July reading on the Michigan
survey measure of consumer sentiment remained at an
upbeat level.
Real residential investment declined again in the second
quarter. Although starts of new single-family homes
rose in June, the average in the second quarter was lower
than in the first quarter; starts of multifamily units fell
back in June but rose for the second quarter as a whole.
Building permit issuance for new single-family homes—
which tends to be a good indicator of the underlying
trend in construction of such homes—was at roughly
the same level in June as its first-quarter average. On net
in May and June, sales of new homes declined, while
sales of existing homes rose.
Real nonresidential private fixed investment edged down
in the second quarter, as a decline in expenditures on
nonresidential structures more than offset an increase in
expenditures for business equipment and intellectual
property. Forward-looking indicators of fixed investment were mixed. Orders for nondefense capital goods
excluding aircraft increased in June, and some measures
of business sentiment improved. However, analysts’ expectations of firms’ longer-term profit growth remained
soft, trade policy concerns appeared to be weighing on
investment, and 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 decrease in recent weeks.
Industrial production (IP) was unchanged in June, as a
decrease in the output of utilities offset increases in the
output of manufacturers and mines. For the second
quarter as a whole, both total IP and manufacturing output declined, while mining output rose notably, supported by a strong gain in crude oil extraction. Automakers’ assembly schedules suggested that production
of light motor vehicles would move up somewhat in the
third quarter. However, new orders indexes from national and regional manufacturing surveys pointed toward continued softness in manufacturing production in
coming months.
Total real government purchases rose solidly in the second quarter. Federal defense spending increased, and
nondefense purchases returned to more typical levels after the partial federal government shutdown in the first
quarter. Real purchases by state and local governments
rose moderately, boosted by a strong gain in spending
on structures and an increase in the payrolls of those
governments.
The nominal U.S. international trade deficit widened in
May relative to April, as imports increased more than exports. In June, preliminary data indicated declining
nominal goods exports and imports. Within exports, declines were particularly notable for exports of consumer
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Minutes of the Meeting of July 30–31, 2019
Page 7
goods and capital goods, the latter of which had already
been depressed by the suspension of Boeing 737 MAX
exports. All told, the BEA estimates that net exports,
after adding moderately to first-quarter GDP growth,
subtracted a similar amount from GDP growth in the
second quarter on declining exports and flat imports.
Incoming data suggested that growth in the foreign
economies remained subdued in the second quarter. In
several key advanced foreign economies, including the
euro area, recent indicators pointed to slowing economic
growth amid continued weakness in manufacturing and
persistent policy-related uncertainty. Similarly, in China,
real GDP growth slowed notably in the second quarter
after a first-quarter jump. In contrast, growth in Canada
and, to a lesser extent, Latin America appeared to pick
up from a weak first-quarter pace. Foreign inflation remained muted but rose a bit from lows earlier in the year,
largely reflecting higher energy prices.
Staff Review of the Financial Situation
Over the intermeeting period, financial market developments reflected noticeable shifts in expectations for
monetary policy in response to Federal Reserve communications, economic data releases, and trade policy developments. Federal Reserve communications were
generally regarded as more accommodative than had
been anticipated, exerting downward pressure on
measures of the expected path for the federal funds rate.
However, some better-than-expected economic data releases and a slight improvement in the outlook regarding
trade partially offset these declines. Yields on nominal
Treasury securities were little changed on net. Equity
prices increased, corporate bond spreads narrowed, and
inflation compensation rose modestly. Financing conditions for businesses and households were little changed
over the intermeeting period and remained generally
supportive of spending.
Measures of expectations for near-term domestic monetary policy exhibited notable shifts and reversals over
the intermeeting period and ended the period little
changed, on net, with market participants still attaching
high odds to a 25 basis point reduction in the target
range for the federal funds rate at the July FOMC meeting. Consistent with significant variation in near-term
expectations for monetary policy, market-based indicators of interest rate uncertainty for shorter maturities
over the near term remained somewhat elevated. Over
the intermeeting period, market-based expectations for
the federal funds rate for the end of this year and beyond
moved down slightly on net. A straight read of OIS
(overnight index swap) forward rates implied that the
federal funds rate would decline about 60 basis points in
2019 and about 35 basis points in 2020.
The nominal U.S. Treasury yield curve was little
changed, on net, over the intermeeting period. Both the
near-term forward spread and the spread between
10-year and 3-month Treasury yields are still in the bottom decile of their respective distributions since 1971.
On net, in the weeks following the June FOMC meeting,
5-year and 5-to-10-year inflation compensation based on
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) moved
up modestly. More-accommodative-than-expected Federal Reserve communications, stronger-than-expected
inflation data releases, and rising oil prices—amid increased geopolitical tensions with Iran—contributed to
the upward pressure on inflation compensation.
Broad stock price indexes increased, on net, over the intermeeting period, with notable increases following the
June FOMC communications, the Chair’s July Monetary
Policy Report testimony, and announcements regarding
trade negotiations following the G-20 meeting. Additionally, there was a slight positive reaction to news of
an agreement on the federal budget and debt limit. Equity price increases were broad based across major sectors, with technology, financial, and communication services firms outperforming broad indexes. One-month
option-implied volatility on the S&P 500 index—the
VIX—decreased slightly, on net, and corporate credit
spreads narrowed.
Conditions in domestic short-term funding markets remained fairly stable. Overnight interest rates in both unsecured and secured markets were somewhat elevated
over the period. In particular, repo rates were elevated
on and after the June quarter-end, with the SOFR (Secured Overnight Financing Rate) averaging 8 basis
points above the IOER rate over the intermeeting period. However, the EFFR remained well within the target range, averaging 5 basis points above the IOER rate.
Rates on commercial paper and negotiable certificates of
deposit declined somewhat.
Accommodative central bank communications, both in
the United States and abroad, and some easing of trade
tensions generally supported foreign risky assets over the
intermeeting period. Global equity indexes increased
modestly, while emerging market sovereign spreads narrowed. On balance, the broad dollar index ended the
period modestly lower. Notably, the British pound depreciated significantly against the U.S. dollar, reportedly
as developments led investors to raise the probability
they attached to a no-deal Brexit.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8
Federal Open Market Committee
Most sovereign long-term bond yields edged lower, on
net, reflecting firming expectations for further policy accommodation amid growing concerns about the global
economic outlook. Italian yields declined notably, in
part as the government passed some fiscal consolidation
measures. The European Central Bank left its policy rate
unchanged at its July meeting but signaled possible rate
cuts at coming meetings and said it will explore options
for additional asset purchases. Several emerging market
central banks, including South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia, lowered policy rates over the period.
Financing conditions for nonfinancial businesses remained accommodative. Gross issuance of corporate
bonds remained robust in June, followed by a typical seasonal decline in July. Issuance of institutional leveraged
loans increased notably in May but in June, it returned
to the more moderate pace observed earlier this year.
Respondents to the July 2019 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices (SLOOS) reported that, on net, banks continued to ease standards
and terms on commercial and industrial loans to large
and middle-market firms in the second quarter, with
many citing aggressive competition as the reason for doing so. Gross equity issuance has been strong in recent
months. The credit quality of nonfinancial corporations
continued to show signs of stabilization in June following some deterioration earlier in the year. Credit conditions for both small businesses and municipalities remained accommodative on balance.
In the commercial real estate (CRE) sector, financing
conditions remained generally accommodative despite a
modest deceleration in bank loan growth. Banks in the
July SLOOS reported that standards were about unchanged, on net, in the second quarter for most CRE
loan categories. Agency and non-agency commercial
MBS issuance was strong in the second quarter, as yield
spreads ticked down.
Financing conditions in the residential mortgage market
remained accommodative over the intermeeting period.
Mortgage rates were little changed since the June FOMC
meeting but remained about 1 percentage point below
their late-2018 level. These conditions have supported a
modest increase in home-purchase origination volume
in recent months. Refinance originations have risen as
well but remain near historical lows.
In consumer credit markets, financing conditions were
little changed in recent months and remained generally
supportive of consumer spending. Growth in consumer
credit in April and May was up a bit from earlier in the
year due to a pickup in credit card balances. Banks in
the July SLOOS continued to report tightened standards
for credit cards over the second quarter.
The staff provided an update on its assessments of potential risks to financial stability. On balance, the staff
continued to view vulnerabilities as moderate. The staff
judged asset valuation pressures to be notable in a number of markets, supported in part by the low level of
Treasury yields. In assessing vulnerabilities stemming
from leverage in the household and business sectors, the
staff noted that business leverage was high while household leverage was moderate. The staff viewed the
buildup in nonfinancial business-sector debt as a factor
that could amplify adverse shocks to the business sector
and the economy more generally. Within business debt,
the staff also reported that in the leveraged loan market,
the share of new loans to risky borrowers was at a record
high, and credit extended by private equity firms had
continued to grow. At the same time, financial institutions were viewed as resilient, as the risks associated with
financial leverage and funding risk were still viewed as
low despite some signs of rising leverage and continued
inflows into run-prone funds. Separately, the staff noted
that market liquidity was, overall, in good shape, although sudden price drops had become more frequent
in some markets.
Staff Economic Outlook
The projection for U.S. economic activity prepared by
the staff for the July FOMC meeting was revised up
somewhat in the near term, as an upward revision to
households’ real disposable income in the first half of
the year led to a slightly higher second-half forecast for
consumer spending. Even so, real GDP growth was still
forecast to rise more slowly in the second half of the year
than in the first half, primarily reflecting continued soft
business investment and a slower increase in government spending. The projection for real GDP growth
over the medium term was a little stronger, supported by
the effects of a higher projected path for equity prices
and a lower trajectory for interest rates. Real GDP was
forecast to expand at a rate a little above the staff’s estimate of potential output growth in 2019 and 2020 and
then slow to a pace slightly below potential output
growth in 2021. The unemployment rate was projected
to be roughly flat through 2021 and to remain below the
staff’s estimate of its longer-run natural rate. With labor
market conditions judged to be tight, the staff continued
to assume that projected employment gains would manifest in smaller-than-usual downward pressure on the
unemployment rate and in larger-than-usual upward
pressure on the labor force participation rate.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Minutes of the Meeting of July 30–31, 2019
Page 9
The staff’s forecast of total PCE price inflation this year
was revised up a touch, reflecting a slightly higher projected path for consumer energy prices, while the forecast for core PCE price inflation was unrevised at a level
below 2 percent. Both total and core inflation were projected to move up slightly next year, as the low readings
early this year were expected to be transitory, but nevertheless to continue to run below 2 percent.
The staff continued to view the uncertainty around its
projections for real GDP growth, the unemployment
rate, and inflation as generally similar to the average of
the past 20 years. Moreover, the staff still judged that
the risks to the forecast for real GDP growth were tilted
to the downside, with a corresponding skew to the upside for the unemployment rate. Important factors in
that assessment were that international trade tensions
and foreign economic developments seemed more likely
to move in directions that could have significant negative effects on the U.S. economy than to resolve more
favorably than assumed. In addition, softness in business investment and manufacturing so far this year was
seen as pointing to the possibility of a more substantial
slowing in economic growth than the staff projected.
With the risks to the forecast for economic activity tilted
to the downside, the risks to the inflation projection
were also viewed as having a downward skew.
Participants’ Views on Current Conditions and the
Economic Outlook
Participants agreed that the labor market had remained
strong over the intermeeting period and that economic
activity had risen at a moderate rate. Job gains had been
solid, on average, in recent months, and the unemployment rate had remained low. Although growth of
household spending had picked up from earlier in the
year, growth of business fixed investment had been soft.
On a 12-month basis, overall inflation and inflation for
items other than food and energy were running below
2 percent. Market-based measures of inflation compensation remained low; survey-based measures of longerterm inflation expectations were little changed.
Participants continued to view a sustained expansion of
economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and
inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective as the most likely outcomes. This outlook was
predicated on financial conditions that were more accommodative than earlier this year. More accommodative financial conditions, in turn, partly reflected market
reaction to the downward adjustment through the
course of the year in the Committee’s assessment of the
appropriate path for the target range of the federal funds
rate in light of weak global economic growth, trade policy uncertainty, and muted inflation pressures.
Participants generally noted that incoming data over the
intermeeting period had been largely positive and that
the economy had been resilient in the face of ongoing
global developments. The economy continued to expand at a moderate pace, and participants generally expected GDP growth to slow a bit to around its estimated
potential rate in the second half of the year. However,
participants also observed that global economic growth
had been disappointing, especially in China and the euro
area, and that trade policy uncertainty, although waning
some over the intermeeting period, remained elevated
and looked likely to persist. Furthermore, inflation pressures continued to be muted, notwithstanding the firming in the overall and core PCE price indexes in the three
months ending in June relative to earlier in the year.
In their discussion of the business sector, participants
generally saw uncertainty surrounding trade policy and
concerns about global growth as continuing to weigh on
business confidence and firms’ capital expenditure plans.
Participants generally judged that the risks associated
with trade uncertainty would remain a persistent headwind for the outlook, with a number of participants reporting that their business contacts were making decisions based on their view that uncertainties around trade
were not likely to dissipate anytime soon. Some participants observed that trade uncertainties had receded
somewhat, especially with the easing of trade tensions
with Mexico and China. Several participants noted that,
over the intermeeting period, business sentiment seemed
to improve a bit and commented that the data for new
capital goods orders had improved. Some participants
expressed the view that the effects of trade uncertainty
had so far been modest and referenced reports from
business contacts in their Districts that investment plans
were continuing, though with a more cautious posture.
Participants also discussed developments across the
manufacturing, agriculture, and energy sectors of the
U.S. economy. Manufacturing production had declined
so far this year, dragged down in part by weak real exports, the ongoing global slowdown, and trade uncertainties. Several participants noted ongoing challenges
in the agricultural sector, including those associated with
increased trade uncertainty, weak export demand, and
the effects of wet weather and severe flooding. A couple
of participants commented on the decline in energy
prices since last fall and the associated reduction in economic activity in the energy sector.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10
Federal Open Market Committee
Participants commented on the robust pace of consumer spending. Noting the important role that household spending was currently playing in supporting the
expansion, participants judged that household spending
would likely continue to be supported by strong labor
market conditions, rising incomes, and upbeat consumer
sentiment. A few participants noted that the continued
softness in residential investment was a concern, and
that the expected boost to housing activity from the decline in mortgage rates since last fall had not yet materialized. In contrast, a couple of participants reported that
some recent indicators of housing activity in their Districts had been somewhat more positive of late.
In their discussion of the labor market, participants
judged that conditions remained strong, with the unemployment rate near historical lows and continued solid
job gains, on average, in recent months. Job gains in
June were stronger than expected, following a weak
reading in May. Looking ahead, participants expected
the labor market to remain strong, with the pace of job
gains slower than last year but above what is estimated
to be necessary to hold labor utilization steady. Reports
from business contacts pointed to continued strong labor demand, with many firms reporting difficulty finding
workers to meet current demand. Several participants
reported seeing notable wage pressures for lower-wage
workers. However, participants viewed overall wage
growth as broadly consistent with the modest average
rates of labor productivity growth in recent years and,
consequently, as not exerting much upward pressure on
inflation. Several participants remarked that there
seemed to be little sign of overheating in labor markets,
citing the combination of muted inflation pressures and
moderate wage growth.
Regarding inflation developments, some participants
stressed that, even with the firming of readings for consumer prices in recent months, both overall and core
PCE price inflation rates continued to run below the
Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective; the latest
reading on the 12-month change in the core PCE price
index was 1.6 percent. Furthermore, continued weakness in global economic growth and ongoing trade tensions had the potential to slow U.S. economic activity
and thus further delay a sustained return of inflation to
the 2 percent objective. Many other participants, however, saw the recent inflation data as consistent with the
view that the lower readings earlier this year were largely
transitory, and noted that the trimmed mean measure of
PCE price inflation constructed by the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas was running around 2 percent. A few
participants noted differences in the behavior of
measures of cyclical and acyclical components of inflation. By some estimates, the cyclical component of inflation continued to firm; the acyclical component,
which appeared to be influenced by sectoral and technological changes, was largely responsible for the low level
of inflation and not likely to respond much to monetary
policy actions.
In their discussion of the outlook for inflation, participants generally anticipated that with appropriate policy,
inflation would move up to the Committee’s 2 percent
objective over the medium term. However, marketbased measures of inflation compensation and some survey measures of consumers’ inflation expectations remained low, although they had moved up some of late.
A few participants remarked that inflation expectations
appeared to be reasonably well anchored at levels consistent with the Committee’s 2 percent inflation objective. However, some participants stressed that the prolonged shortfall in inflation from the long-run goal could
cause inflation expectations to drift down—a development that might make it more difficult to achieve the
Committee’s mandated goals on a sustained basis, especially in the current environment of global disinflationary pressures. A couple of participants observed that,
although some indicators of longer-term inflation expectations, like TIPS-based inflation compensation and the
Michigan survey measure, had not changed substantially
this year, on net, they were notably lower than their levels several years ago.
Participants generally judged that downside risks to the
outlook for economic activity had diminished somewhat
since their June meeting. The strong June employment
report suggested that the weak May payroll figures were
not a precursor to a more material slowdown in job
growth. The agreement between the United States and
China to resume negotiations appeared to ease trade tensions somewhat. In addition, many participants noted
that the recent agreement on the federal debt ceiling and
budget appropriations substantially reduced near-term
fiscal policy uncertainty. Moreover, the possibility of favorable outcomes of trade negotiations could be a factor
that would provide a boost to economic activity in the
future. Still, important downside risks persisted. In particular, participants were mindful that trade tensions
were far from settled and that trade uncertainties could
intensify again. Continued weakness in global economic
growth remained a significant downside risk, and some
participants noted that the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit
had increased.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Minutes of the Meeting of July 30–31, 2019
Page 11
In their discussion of financial market developments,
participants observed that financial conditions remained
supportive of economic growth, with borrowing rates
low and stock prices near all-time highs. Participants observed that current financial conditions appeared to be
premised importantly on expectations that the Federal
Reserve would ease policy to help offset the drag on economic growth stemming from the weaker global outlook
and uncertainties associated with international trade as
well as to provide some insurance to address various
downside risks. Participants also discussed the decline
in yields on longer-term nominal Treasury securities in
recent months. A few participants expressed the concern that the inversion of the Treasury yield curve, as
evidenced by the 10-year yield falling below the 3-month
yield, had persisted for about two months, which could
indicate that market participants anticipated weaker economic conditions in the future and that the Federal Reserve would soon need to lower the federal funds rate
substantially in response. The longer-horizon real forward rate implied by TIPS had also declined, suggesting
that the longer-run normal level of the real federal funds
rate implicit in market prices was lower.
Among those participants who commented on financial
stability, most highlighted recent credit market developments, the elevated valuations in some asset markets,
and the high level of nonfinancial corporate indebtedness. Several participants noted that high levels of corporate debt and leveraged lending posed some risks to
the outlook. A few participants discussed the fast
growth of private credit markets—a sector not subject
to the same degree of regulatory scrutiny and requirements that applies in the banking sector—and commented that it was important to monitor this market.
Several participants observed that valuations in equity
and corporate bond markets were near all-time highs and
that CRE valuations were also elevated. A couple of participants noted that the low level of Treasury yields—a
factor seen as supporting asset prices across a range of
markets—was a potential source of risk if yields moved
sharply higher. However, these participants judged that
in the near term, such risks were small in light of the
monetary policy outlooks in the United States and
abroad and generally subdued inflation. A few participants expressed the concern that capital ratios at the
largest banks had continued to fall at a time when they
should ideally be rising and that capital ratios were expected to decline further. Another view was that financial stability risks at present are moderate and that the
largest banks would continue to maintain very substantial capital cushions in light of a range of regulatory requirements, including rigorous stress tests.
In their discussion of monetary policy decisions at this
meeting, those participants who favored a reduction in
the target range for the federal funds rate pointed to
three broad categories of reasons for supporting that action.
First, while the overall outlook remained favorable,
there had been signs of deceleration in economic activity in recent quarters, particularly in business fixed
investment and manufacturing. A pronounced
slowing in economic growth in overseas economies—perhaps related in part to developments in,
and uncertainties surrounding, international trade—
appeared to be an important factor in this deceleration. More generally, such developments were
among those that had led most participants over recent quarters to revise down their estimates of the
policy rate path that would be appropriate to promote maximum employment and stable prices.
Second, a policy easing at this meeting would be a
prudent step from a risk-management perspective.
Despite some encouraging signs over the intermeeting period, many of the risks and uncertainties surrounding the economic outlook that had been a
source of concern in June had remained elevated,
particularly those associated with the global economic outlook and international trade. On this
point, a number of participants observed that policy
authorities in many foreign countries had only limited policy space to support aggregate demand
should the downside risks to global economic
growth be realized.
Third, there were concerns about the outlook for inflation. A number of participants observed that
overall inflation had continued to run below the
Committee’s 2 percent objective, as had inflation for
items other than food and energy. Several of these
participants commented that the fact that wage pressures had remained only moderate despite the low
unemployment rate could be a sign that the longerrun normal level of the unemployment rate is appreciably lower than often assumed. Participants discussed indicators for longer-term inflation expectations and inflation compensation. A number of
them concluded that the modest increase in marketbased measures of inflation compensation over the
intermeeting period likely reflected market participants’ expectation of more accommodative monetary policy in the near future; others observed that,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12
Federal Open Market Committee
while survey measures of inflation expectations were
little changed from June, the level of expectations by
at least some measures was low. Most participants
judged that long-term inflation expectations either
were already below the Committee’s 2 percent goal
or could decline below the level consistent with that
goal should there be a continuation of the pattern of
inflation coming in persistently below 2 percent.
A couple of participants indicated that they would have
preferred a 50 basis point cut in the federal funds rate at
this meeting rather than a 25 basis point reduction. They
favored a stronger action to better address the stubbornly low inflation rates of the past several years, recognizing that the apparent low sensitivity of inflation to
levels of resource utilization meant that a notably
stronger real economy might be required to speed the
return of inflation to the Committee’s inflation objective.
Several participants favored maintaining the same target
range at this meeting, judging that the real economy continued to be in a good place, bolstered by confident consumers, a strong job market, and a low rate of unemployment. These participants acknowledged that there were
lingering risks and uncertainties about the global economy in general, and about international trade in particular, but they viewed those risks as having diminished
over the intermeeting period. In addition, they viewed
the news on inflation over the intermeeting period as
consistent with their forecasts that inflation would move
up to the Committee’s 2 percent objective at an acceptable pace without an adjustment in policy at this meeting.
Finally, a few participants expressed concerns that further monetary accommodation presented a risk to financial stability in certain sectors of the economy or that a
reduction in the target range for the federal funds rate at
this meeting could be misinterpreted as a negative signal
about the state of the economy.
Participants also discussed the timing of ending the reduction in the Committee’s aggregate securities holdings
in the SOMA. Ending the reduction of securities holdings in August had the advantage of avoiding the appearance of inconsistency in continuing to allow the balance
sheet to run off while simultaneously lowering the target
range for the federal funds rate. But ending balance
sheet reduction earlier than under its previous plan
posed some risk of fostering the erroneous impression
that the Committee viewed the balance sheet as an active
tool of policy. Because the proposed change would end
the reduction of its aggregate securities holdings only
two months earlier than previously indicated, policymakers concluded that there were only small differences between the two options in their implications for the balance sheet and thus also in their economic effects.
In their discussion of the outlook for monetary policy
beyond this meeting, participants generally favored an
approach in which policy would be guided by incoming
information and its implications for the economic outlook and that avoided any appearance of following a preset course. Most participants viewed a proposed quarter-point policy easing at this meeting as part of a recalibration of the stance of policy, or mid-cycle adjustment,
in response to the evolution of the economic outlook
over recent months. A number of participants suggested
that the nature of many of the risks they judged to be
weighing on the economy, and the absence of clarity regarding when those risks might be resolved, highlighted
the need for policymakers to remain flexible and focused
on the implications of incoming data for the outlook.
Committee Policy Action
In their discussion of monetary policy for this meeting,
members noted that while there had been some improvement in economic conditions over the intermeeting period and the overall outlook remained favorable,
significant risks and uncertainties attending the outlook
remained. In particular, sluggish U.S. business fixed investment spending and manufacturing output had lingered, suggesting that risks and uncertainties associated
with weak global economic growth and in international
trade were weighing on the domestic economy. Strong
labor markets and rising incomes continued to support
the outlook for consumer spending, but modest growth
in prices and wages suggested that inflation pressures remained muted. Inflation had continued to run below the
Committee’s 2 percent symmetric objective. Marketbased measures of inflation compensation moved up
modestly from the low levels recorded in June, but a portion of this change likely reflected the expectation by
market participants of additional near-term monetary accommodation. Survey-based measures of longer-term
inflation expectations were little changed. On this basis,
all but two members agreed to lower the target range for
the federal funds rate to 2 to 2¼ percent at this meeting.
With this adjustment to policy, those members who
voted for the policy action sought to better position the
overall stance of policy to help counter the effects on the
outlook of weak global growth and trade policy uncertainty, insure against any further downside risks from
those sources, and promote a faster return of inflation
to the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective than
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Minutes of the Meeting of July 30–31, 2019
Page 13
would otherwise be the case. Those members noted that
the action taken at this meeting should be viewed as part
of an ongoing reassessment of the appropriate path of
the federal funds rate that began in late 2018. Two members preferred to maintain the current target range for
the federal funds rate. In explaining their policy views,
those members noted that economic data collected over
the intermeeting period had been largely positive and
that they anticipated continued strong labor markets and
solid growth in activity, with inflation gradually moving
up to the Committee’s 2 percent target. One member
also noted that a further easing in policy at a time when
the economy is very strong and asset prices are elevated
could have adverse implications for financial stability.
Members agreed that in determining the timing and size
of future adjustments to the target range for the federal
funds rate, the Committee would assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to the Committee’s
maximum-employment and symmetric 2 percent inflation objectives. 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 generally agreed that it was important to maintain optionality in setting the future target range for the
federal funds rate and, more generally, that near-term adjustments of the stance of monetary policy would appropriately remain dependent on the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook.
With regard to the postmeeting statement, the Committee implemented several adjustments in the description
of the economic situation, including a revision to recognize that market-based measures of inflation compensation “remain low.” The Committee stated that the reduction in the target range for the federal funds rate supported its view that “sustained expansion of economic
activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation
near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective” remained the most likely outcomes, but “uncertainties
about this outlook remain.” The phrase “as the Committee contemplates the future path” of the target range
for the federal funds rate was added to underscore the
Committee’s intention to carefully assess incoming information before deciding on future policy adjustments.
The statement noted that the Committee would “continue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook” and would “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion, with a strong labor
market and inflation near its symmetric 2 percent objective.” Finally, the Committee announced the conclusion
of the reduction of securities holdings in the SOMA.
Ending the runoff of securities holdings two months
earlier than initially planned was seen as having only very
small effects on the balance sheet, with negligible implications for the economic outlook, and was helpful in
simplifying communications regarding the usage of the
Committee’s policy tools.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the Committee
voted to authorize and direct the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York, until 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 August 1, 2019, 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 2 to 2¼ 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 2.00 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.
Effective August 1, 2019, the Committee directs the Desk to roll over at auction all principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury securities and to reinvest all
principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s
holdings of agency debt and agency mortgagebacked securities received during each calendar
month. Principal payments from agency debt
and agency mortgage-backed securities up to
$20 billion per month will be reinvested in
Treasury securities to roughly match the maturity composition of Treasury securities outstanding; principal payments in excess of
$20 billion per month will continue to be reinvested in agency mortgage-backed securities.
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.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 14
Federal Open Market Committee
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 June indicates that
the labor market remains strong and that economic activity has been rising at a moderate
rate. Job gains have been solid, on average, in
recent months, and the unemployment rate has
remained low. Although growth of household
spending has picked up from earlier in the year,
growth of business fixed investment has been
soft. On a 12-month basis, overall inflation and
inflation for items other than food and energy
are running below 2 percent. Market-based
measures of inflation compensation remain low;
survey-based measures of longer-term inflation
expectations are little changed.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment
and price stability. In light of the implications
of global developments for the economic outlook as well as muted inflation pressures, the
Committee decided to lower the target range for
the federal funds rate to 2 to 2¼ percent. This
action supports the Committee’s view that sustained expansion of economic activity, strong
labor market conditions, and inflation near the
Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective are
the most likely outcomes, but uncertainties
about this outlook remain. As the Committee
contemplates the future path of the target range
for the federal funds rate, it will continue to
monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook and will act as
appropriate to sustain the expansion, with a
strong labor market and inflation near its symmetric 2 percent objective.
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
In taking this action, the Board approved requests to establish that rate submitted by the boards of directors of the Federal Reserve Banks of Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, Dallas,
and San Francisco. This vote also encompassed approval by
the Board of Governors of the establishment of a 2.75 percent
primary credit rate by the remaining Federal Reserve Banks,
effective on the later of August 1, 2019, and the date such Reserve Banks informed the Secretary of the Board of such a
request. (Secretary’s note: Subsequently, the Federal Reserve
7
maximum employment objective and its symmetric 2 percent inflation objective. 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 conclude the reduction of
its aggregate securities holdings in the System
Open Market Account in August, two months
earlier than previously indicated.”
Voting for this action: Jerome H. Powell, John C. Williams, Michelle W. Bowman, Lael Brainard, James
Bullard, Richard H. Clarida, Charles L. Evans, Randal K.
Quarles.
Voting against this action: Esther L. George and Eric
Rosengren.
President George dissented because she believed that an
unchanged setting of policy was appropriate based on
the incoming data and the outlook for economic activity
over the medium term. Recognizing risks to the outlook
from the crosscurrents emanating from trade policy uncertainty and weaker global activity, President George
would be prepared to adjust policy should incoming data
point to a materially weaker outlook for the economy.
President Rosengren dissented because he did not see a
clear and compelling case for additional accommodation
at this time given that the unemployment rate stood near
50-year lows, inflation seemed likely to rise toward the
Committee’s 2 percent target, and financial stability concerns were elevated, as indicated by near-record equity
prices and corporate leverage.
Consistent with the Committee’s decision to lower the
target range for the federal funds rate to 2 to 2¼ percent, the Board of Governors voted unanimously to
lower the interest rate paid on required and excess reserve balances to 2.10 percent and voted unanimously to
approve a ¼ percentage point decrease in the primary
credit rate to 2.75 percent, effective August 1, 2019.7
Banks of Boston, New York, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta,
Minneapolis, and Kansas City were informed of the Secretary
of the Board’s approval of their establishment of a primary
credit rate of 2.75 percent, effective August 1, 2019.) A second vote of the Board encompassed approval of the establishment of the interest rates for secondary and seasonal credit
under the existing formulas for computing such rates.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Minutes of the Meeting of July 30–31, 2019
Page 15
Reinvestment Plans
The manager pro tem described the Desk’s plans for reinvestments in light of the Committee’s decision to conclude the reduction of aggregate securities holdings in
the SOMA portfolio effective August 1. In accordance
with the directive to the Desk, beginning on August 1,
all principal payments from Treasury securities, agency
debt, and agency MBS will be reinvested. Principal payments from Treasury securities held in the SOMA portfolio will be reinvested through rollovers in Treasury
auctions. The Desk also will reinvest principal payments
from agency debt and agency MBS securities of up to
$20 billion per month in Treasury securities in a manner
that roughly matches the maturity composition of Treasury securities outstanding. The Desk plans to purchase
these Treasury securities in the secondary market across
11 sectors of different maturities and security types approximately in proportion to the 12-month average of
the amount outstanding in each sector relative to the total amount outstanding across sectors, as measured at
the end of July. The Desk will continue to reinvest
agency debt and agency MBS principal payments in excess of $20 billion per month in agency MBS. Given the
Committee’s decision to bring forward the timing of
these purchases to August, the Desk planned to release
an operational statement to provide more details on the
plans for reinvestment operations.
It was agreed that the next meeting of the Committee
would be held on Tuesday–Wednesday, September 17–
18, 2019. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m. on
July 31, 2019.
Notation Vote
By notation vote completed on July 9, 2019, the Committee unanimously approved the minutes of the Committee meeting held on June 18–19, 2019.
_______________________
James A. Clouse
Secretary
Cite this document
Federal Reserve (2019, July 30). FOMC Minutes. Fomc Minutes, Federal Reserve. https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/fomc_minutes_20190731
@misc{wtfs_fomc_minutes_20190731,
author = {Federal Reserve},
title = {FOMC Minutes},
year = {2019},
month = {Jul},
howpublished = {Fomc Minutes, Federal Reserve},
url = {https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/fomc_minutes_20190731},
note = {Retrieved via When the Fed Speaks corpus}
}