Explanation of Federal Funds Rate Decisions
When the Federal Open Market Committee wishes to reduce interest rates they will increase the supply of money by buying government securities. When additional supply is added and everything else remains constant, price normally falls. The price here is the interest rate (cost of money) and specifically refers to the Federal Funds Rate. Conversely, when the Committee wishes to increase the Fed Funds Rate, they will instruct the Desk Manager to sell government securities, thereby taking the money they earn on the proceeds of those sales out of circulation and reducing the money supply. When supply is taken away and everything else remains constant, price (or in this case interest rates) will normally rise.
The Federal Reserve has responded to a potential slow-down by lowering the target federal funds rate during recessions and other periods of lower growth. In fact, the Committee's lowering has recently predated recessions, in order to stimulate the economy and cushion the fall. Reducing the Fed Funds Rate makes money cheaper, allowing an influx of credit in to the economy through all types of loans.
The charts linked below show the relation between S&P 500 and interest rates.
- July 13, 1990 — Sept 4, 1992: 8.00%–3.00% (Includes 1990–1991 recession) rate drop chart rate rise chart
- Feb 1, 1995 — Nov 17, 1998: 6.00–4.75 rate drop chart1 rate drop chart2 rate rise chart
- May 16, 2000 — June 25, 2003: 6.50–1.00 (Includes 2001 recession) rate drop chart1 rate drop chart2 rate rise chart
- June 29, 2006 — (Oct. 29 2008): 5.25–1.00 rate drop chart
- Dec 16, 2008: 0.0–0.25
Bill Gross of PIMCO has suggested that in the past 15 years, every time the fed funds rate was higher than the nominal GDP growth rate, assets such as stocks and/or housing always fell. He even suggested that the best way to price the fed funds rate would be 100 basis points, or 1%, below the nominal GDP growth rate.
Read more about this topic: Federal Funds Rate
Famous quotes containing the words explanation of, explanation, federal, rate and/or decisions:
“Are cans constitutionally iffy? Whenever, that is, we say that we can do something, or could do something, or could have done something, is there an if in the offing—suppressed, it may be, but due nevertheless to appear when we set out our sentence in full or when we give an explanation of its meaning?”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)
“The explanation of the propensity of the English people to portrait painting is to be found in their relish for a Fact. Let a man do the grandest things, fight the greatest battles, or be distinguished by the most brilliant personal heroism, yet the English people would prefer his portrait to a painting of the great deed. The likeness they can judge of; his existence is a Fact. But the truth of the picture of his deeds they cannot judge of, for they have no imagination.”
—Benjamin Haydon (1786–1846)
“Goodbye, boys; I’m under arrest. I may have to go to jail. I may not see you for a long time. Keep up the fight! Don’t surrender! Pay no attention to the injunction machine at Parkersburg. The Federal judge is a scab anyhow. While you starve he plays golf. While you serve humanity, he serves injunctions for the money powers.”
—Mother Jones (1830–1930)
“You are more than entitled not to know what the word ‘performative’ means. It is a new word and an ugly word, and perhaps it does not mean anything very much. But at any rate there is one thing in its favor, it is not a profound word.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)
“I really cannot know whether I am or am not the Genius you are pleased to call me, but I am very willing to put up with the mistake, if it be one. It is a title dearly enough bought by most men, to render it endurable, even when not quite clearly made out, which it never can be till the Posterity, whose decisions are merely dreams to ourselves, has sanctioned or denied it, while it can touch us no further.”
—George Gordon Noel Byron (1788–1824)