Studies in Applied Economics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Memorandum of Discussion
MEMORANDUM OF DISCUSSION A meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee was held in the offices of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D. C., on Monday, November 27, 1967, at 9:30 a.m., at the call of Chairman Martin. PRESENT: Mr. Martin, Chairman 1/ Mr. Brimmer Mr. Francis Mr. Maisel Mr. Mitchell Mr. Robertson Mr. Scanlon Mr. Sherrill Mr. Swan Mr. Wayne 1/ Messrs. Ellis, Hickman, and Galusha, Alternate Members of the Federal Open Market Committee Mr. Irons, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Mr. Holland, Secretary Mr. Sherman, Assistant Secretary Mr. Kenyon, Assistant Secretary Mr. Broida, Assistant Secretary Mr. Hackley, General Counsel Mr. Brill, Economist Messrs. Baughman, Garvy, Hersey, Koch, Partee, and Solomon, Associate Economists Mr. Holmes, Manager, System Open Market Account Mr. Cardon, Legislative Counsel, Board of Governors Mr. Fauver, Assistant to the Board of Governors Mr, Williams, Adviser, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors Mr. Reynolds, Adviser, Division of International Finance, Board of Governors 1/ Left the meeting at the point indicated. 11/27/67 -2 Mr. Axilrod, Associate Adviser, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors Miss Eaton, General Assistant, Office of the Secretary, Board of Governors Miss McWhirter, Analyst, Office of the Secretary, Board of Governors Messrs. Bilby, Eastburn, Mann, Brandt, and Tow, Vice Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks of New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Atlanta, and Kansas City, respectively Mr. MacLaury, Assistant Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Mr. Deming, Manager, Securities Department, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Mr. -
Gold Returns
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES GOLD RETURNS Robert J. Barro Sanjay P. Misra Working Paper 18759 http://www.nber.org/papers/w18759 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 February 2013 We have benefited from research assistance by Tao Jin and from comments by John Campbell, Xavier Gabaix, Ian Martin, Jose Ursúa, and Adrien Verdelhan. We appreciate help with data from Chen Di, Kai Guo, Mark Harrison, Elena Osokina, and Dwight Perkins. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2013 by Robert J. Barro and Sanjay P. Misra. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Gold Returns Robert J. Barro and Sanjay P. Misra NBER Working Paper No. 18759 February 2013 JEL No. E44,G12,N20 ABSTRACT From 1836 to 2011, the average real rate of price change for gold in the United States is 1.1% per year and the standard deviation is 13.1%, implying a one-standard-deviation confidence band for the mean of (0.1%, 2.1%). The covariances of gold’s real rate of price change with consumption and GDP growth rates are small and statistically insignificantly different from zero. These negligible covariances suggest that gold’s expected real rate of return—which includes an unobserved dividend yield—would be close to the risk-free rate, estimated to be around 1%. -
FOMC Statement
For release at 2 p.m. EDT July 28, 2021 The Federal Reserve is committed to using its full range of tools to support the U.S. economy in this challenging time, thereby promoting its maximum employment and price stability goals. With progress on vaccinations and strong policy support, indicators of economic activity and employment have continued to strengthen. The sectors most adversely affected by the pandemic have shown improvement but have not fully recovered. Inflation has risen, largely reflecting transitory factors. Overall financial conditions remain accommodative, in part reflecting policy measures to support the economy and the flow of credit to U.S. households and businesses. The path of the economy continues to depend on the course of the virus. Progress on vaccinations will likely continue to reduce the effects of the public health crisis on the economy, but risks to the economic outlook remain. The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. With inflation having run persistently below this longer-run goal, the Committee will aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time so that inflation averages 2 percent over time and longer‑term inflation expectations remain well anchored at 2 percent. The Committee expects to maintain an accommodative stance of monetary policy until these outcomes are achieved. The Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and expects it will be appropriate to maintain this target range until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee’s assessments of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on (more) For release at 2 p.m. -
Monetary Policy and the Taylor Rule
July 9, 2014 Monetary Policy and the Taylor Rule Overview Changes in inflation enter the Taylor rule in two places. Some Members of Congress, dissatisfied with the Federal First, the nominal neutral rate rises with inflation (in order Reserve’s (Fed’s) conduct of monetary policy, have looked to keep the inflation-adjusted neutral rate constant). Second, for alternatives to the current regime. H.R. 5018 would the goal of maintaining price stability is represented by the trigger congressional and GAO oversight when interest factor 0.5 x (I-IT), which states that the FFR should be 0.5 rates deviated from a Taylor rule. This In Focus provides a percentage points above the inflation-adjusted neutral rate brief description of the Taylor rule and its potential uses. for every percentage point that inflation (I) is above its target (IT), and lowered by the same proportion when What Is a Taylor Rule? inflation is below its target. Unlike the output gap, the Normally, the Fed carries out monetary policy primarily by inflation target can be set at any rate desired. For setting a target for the federal funds rate, the overnight illustration, it is set at 2% inflation here, which is the Fed’s inter-bank lending rate. The Taylor rule was developed by longer-term goal for inflation. economist John Taylor to describe and evaluate the Fed’s interest rate decisions. It is a simple mathematical formula While a specific example has been provided here for that, in the best known version, relates interest rate changes illustrative purposes, a Taylor rule could include other to changes in the inflation rate and the output gap. -
Table 1 Œ CENTRAL BANK STATUORTY GOLD RESERVE REQUIREMENTS
Appendix 3. Central Bank Gold Reserve Statutes Table 1 – CENTRAL BANK STATUTORY GOLD RESERVE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLASSICAL GOLD STANDARD (1880 – 1914) COUNTRY LEGAL RESERVE REQUIREMENTS Argentina – Currency Board 1899 1913 Australia 25% in gold on bank notes up to £7,000,000, 100% above that (law of 1910). Before 1910 no government notes, no legal reserve requirements on commercial bank notes. Belgium 33 1/3% on notes and other demand liabilities Brazil 33 1/3% in gold on note issue (Act of 1890); 100% in gold and convertible securities: Currency Board (1906-1914) Canada 25% on Dominion notes in excess of 20 million. No legal reserve requirements on chartered banks. Chile None Denmark 37.5% in gold coin or bullion on notes until 1907; thereafter 50%. Finland maximum uncovered note issue of 40,000,000 marks, 100% cover in gold, foreign exchange above that France None Germany 33 1/3% in gold coin or bullion on note liabilities Greece 3 1/3% in gold coin or bullion on notes Italy 40% in gold or silver on notes Japan on note liability in gold coin or bullion in excess of fiduciary issue of 120,000,000 yen (1899) Netherlands 40% in gold coin on notes and deposits Norway on note liabilities, 100% in gold coin or bullion in excess of fiduciary issue of 35,000,000 crowns Table 1 – CENTRAL BANK STATUTORY GOLD RESERVE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLASSICAL GOLD STANDARD (1880 - 1914) COUNTRY LEGAL RESERVE REQUIREMENTS Portugal 33 1/3% in gold coin or bullion on note circulation and demand liabilities Spain 33 1/3% cash reserve on a maximum note issue of 1,500,000 pesetas, at least one half to be held in gold Sweden 40 million kroner in gold on notes Switzerland 40% in gold coin on notes United Kingdom 100% in gold coin or bullion on notes in excess of fiduciary issue (£ 14 million plus two - third of lapsed bank notes) United States as of 1900, Treasury minimum of 100 million in gold coin Sources: Germany, Sweden, Italy in Michael D. -
Recent Monetary Policy in the US
Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons School of Business: Faculty Publications and Other Works Faculty Publications 6-2005 Recent Monetary Policy in the U.S.: Risk Management of Asset Bubbles Anastasios G. Malliaris Loyola University Chicago, [email protected] Marc D. Hayford Loyola University Chicago, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/business_facpubs Part of the Business Commons Author Manuscript This is a pre-publication author manuscript of the final, published article. Recommended Citation Malliaris, Anastasios G. and Hayford, Marc D.. Recent Monetary Policy in the U.S.: Risk Management of Asset Bubbles. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 2, 1: 25-39, 2005. Retrieved from Loyola eCommons, School of Business: Faculty Publications and Other Works, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jeca.2005.01.002 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Business: Faculty Publications and Other Works by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. © Elsevier B. V. 2005 Recent Monetary Policy in the U.S.: Risk Management of Asset Bubbles Marc D. Hayford Loyola University Chicago A.G. Malliaris1 Loyola University Chicago Abstract: Recently Chairman Greenspan (2003 and 2004) has discussed a risk management approach to the implementation of monetary policy. This paper explores the economic environment of the 1990s and the policy dilemmas the Fed faced given the stock boom from the mid to late 1990s to after the bust in 2000-2001. -
Greenspan's Conundrum and the Fed's Ability to Affect Long-Term
Research Division Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Paper Series Greenspan’s Conundrum and the Fed’s Ability to Affect Long- Term Yields Daniel L. Thornton Working Paper 2012-036A http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-036.pdf September 2012 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS Research Division P.O. Box 442 St. Louis, MO 63166 ______________________________________________________________________________________ The views expressed are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Federal Reserve System, or the Board of Governors. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Papers are preliminary materials circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. References in publications to Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Papers (other than an acknowledgment that the writer has had access to unpublished material) should be cleared with the author or authors. Greenspan’s Conundrum and the Fed’s Ability to Affect Long-Term Yields Daniel L. Thornton Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Phone (314) 444-8582 FAX (314) 444-8731 Email Address: [email protected] August 2012 Abstract In February 2005 Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan noticed that the 10-year Treasury yields failed to increase despite a 150-basis-point increase in the federal funds rate as a “conundrum.” This paper shows that the connection between the 10-year yield and the federal funds rate was severed in the late 1980s, well in advance of Greenspan’s observation. The paper hypothesize that the change occurred because the Federal Open Market Committee switched from using the federal funds rate as an operating instrument to using it to implement monetary policy and presents evidence from a variety of sources supporting the hypothesis. -
FEDERAL FUNDS Marvin Goodfriend and William Whelpley
Page 7 The information in this chapter was last updated in 1993. Since the money market evolves very rapidly, recent developments may have superseded some of the content of this chapter. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Richmond, Virginia 1998 Chapter 2 FEDERAL FUNDS Marvin Goodfriend and William Whelpley Federal funds are the heart of the money market in the sense that they are the core of the overnight market for credit in the United States. Moreover, current and expected interest rates on federal funds are the basic rates to which all other money market rates are anchored. Understanding the federal funds market requires, above all, recognizing that its general character has been shaped by Federal Reserve policy. From the beginning, Federal Reserve regulatory rulings have encouraged the market's growth. Equally important, the federal funds rate has been a key monetary policy instrument. This chapter explains federal funds as a credit instrument, the funds rate as an instrument of monetary policy, and the funds market itself as an instrument of regulatory policy. CHARACTERISTICS OF FEDERAL FUNDS Three features taken together distinguish federal funds from other money market instruments. First, they are short-term borrowings of immediately available money—funds which can be transferred between depository institutions within a single business day. In 1991, nearly three-quarters of federal funds were overnight borrowings. The remainder were longer maturity borrowings known as term federal funds. Second, federal funds can be borrowed by only those depository institutions that are required by the Monetary Control Act of 1980 to hold reserves with Federal Reserve Banks. -
The Gold Pool (1961-1968) and the Fall of the Bretton Woods System
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE GOLD POOL (1961-1968) AND THE FALL OF THE BRETTON WOODS SYSTEM. LESSONS FOR CENTRAL BANK COOPERATION. Michael Bordo Eric Monnet Alain Naef Working Paper 24016 http://www.nber.org/papers/w24016 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 November 2017 The views expressed in this paper do not represent the opinion of the Banque de France, Eurosystem, or the National Bureau of Economic Research. We thank the archivists of the Bank for International Settlements, the Bank of England, the New York Fed and the Banque de France for their help. Piet Clement kindly shared by email some additional documents. Kathleen Rasmussen guided us to the US Department of State online archives. We are grateful to seminar participants at the University Paris 1 Sorbonne, the credit, currency and commerce conference (University of Cambridge), Saint Louis Fed and World Cliometrics Congress for comments. We are indebted to Owen Humpage, Walter Jansson and Catherine Schenk for comments on previous drafts. We also thank David Chambers for sharing data. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2017 by Michael Bordo, Eric Monnet, and Alain Naef. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. The Gold Pool (1961-1968) and the Fall of the Bretton Woods System. Lessons for Central Bank Cooperation. -
List of Certain Foreign Institutions Classified As Official for Purposes of Reporting on the Treasury International Capital (TIC) Forms
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY JANUARY 2001 Revised Aug. 2002, May 2004, May 2005, May/July 2006, June 2007 List of Certain Foreign Institutions classified as Official for Purposes of Reporting on the Treasury International Capital (TIC) Forms The attached list of foreign institutions, which conform to the definition of foreign official institutions on the Treasury International Capital (TIC) Forms, supersedes all previous lists. The definition of foreign official institutions is: "FOREIGN OFFICIAL INSTITUTIONS (FOI) include the following: 1. Treasuries, including ministries of finance, or corresponding departments of national governments; central banks, including all departments thereof; stabilization funds, including official exchange control offices or other government exchange authorities; and diplomatic and consular establishments and other departments and agencies of national governments. 2. International and regional organizations. 3. Banks, corporations, or other agencies (including development banks and other institutions that are majority-owned by central governments) that are fiscal agents of national governments and perform activities similar to those of a treasury, central bank, stabilization fund, or exchange control authority." Although the attached list includes the major foreign official institutions which have come to the attention of the Federal Reserve Banks and the Department of the Treasury, it does not purport to be exhaustive. Whenever a question arises whether or not an institution should, in accordance with the instructions on the TIC forms, be classified as official, the Federal Reserve Bank with which you file reports should be consulted. It should be noted that the list does not in every case include all alternative names applying to the same institution. -
The Guide to Mining Arbitrations
Global Arbitration Review The Guide to Mining Arbitrations Editors Jason Fry and Louis-Alexis Bret © 2019 Law Business Research Ltd The Guide to Mining Arbitrations Editors Jason Fry and Louis-Alexis Bret Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd This article was first published in June 2019 For further information please contact [email protected] arg © 2019 Law Business Research Ltd Publisher David Samuels Business Development Manager Gemma Chalk Editorial Coordinator Hannah Higgins Head of Production Adam Myers Production editor Harry Turner Copy-editor Gina Mete Proofreader Rakesh Rajani Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK © 2019 Law Business Research Ltd www.globalarbitrationreview.com No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided is accurate as of May 2019, be advised that this is a developing area. Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to Law Business Research, at the address above. Enquiries concerning editorial content should be directed to the Publisher – [email protected] ISBN 978-1-83862-206-0 Printed in Great -
How Do Central Banks Invest? Embracing Risk in Official Reserves
How do Central Banks Invest? Embracing Risk in Official Reserves Elliot Hentov, PhD, Head of Policy and Research, Official Institutions Group, State Street Global Advisors Alexander Petrov, Senior Strategist, Official Institutions Group, State Street Global Advisors Danae Kyriakopoulou, Chief Economist and Director of Research, OMFIF Pierre Ortlieb, Economist, OMFIF How do Central Banks Invest? Embracing Risk in Official Reserves This is an update to the 2017 SSGA study of central bank asset allocation.1 In contrast to the last study which focused on the allocation of excess reserves (i.e. the investment tranche) exclusively, this study reviews the entire reserve portfolio. Two years on, the main findings are: • Overall, there is greater diversity of asset • Central banks hold around $800bn (6% of classes and a broader use of risk assets, portfolio) in equities and over one trillion with roughly 15% ($2tn out of total $13tn) (9% of portfolio) in return-enhancing2 bonds in unconventional reserve instruments. (mainly investment-grade corporates and • Based on official reserves, central banks asset-backed securities) compared with are significant, frequently dominant, close to zero at the beginning of the century. capital markets participants: they hold about a third of all supranational debt and nearly a fifth of high-grade sovereign debt (or nearly half if domestic QE holdings are added). Central Banks as Asset Owners In December 2017, total global central bank reserves5 stood at around $13.3tn, recovering from their end- After a decade of unconventional monetary policy, one 2015 trough but below the mid-2014 peak of over could be forgiven for confusion around central bank $13.6tn (see Figure 1).