WASHINGTON—The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decision earlier this week to maintain the federal funds target rate at its current range of 0% to 0.25% is an acknowledgment the economic recovery has stalled in recent months due to increased COVID-19 cases, according to one economist.
"While there was a reference to the progress on vaccine distribution and its potential to alter the path of economy, there was no indication that a change in asset purchase volume is anywhere in view,” said NAFCU Chief Economist and Vice President of Research Curt Long.
As it has in its recent meetings, the FOMC again issued a statement that the Fed 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."
During the meeting, the committee also unanimously reaffirmed its "Statement of Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy," originally adopted in August 2020 following a review of monetary policy strategy, tools, and communications practices.
Long said the new strategy framework seeks to better reflect economic changes and monetary policy approaches. Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the Fed has made clear its intention to use its tools to their fullest potential until the economic recovery is well underway and Long previously said the statement "looks to avoid the mistakes of the past."
The FOMC is expected to next meet March 16-17. Its tentative meeting schedule for 2021 can be viewed here.
Grant Sheehan CCUE | CEO Opinion: When Vendors Price for Giants, They Shrink the Future of Small Credit Unions ! There’s a quiet squeeze happening in the credit union industry, and it’s not coming from regulators or competition from big banks. It’s coming from the very vendors that claim to support the ecosystem. For small credit unions, the problem is increasingly simple and factual: the tools required to compete with digital banking platforms, fraud systems, compliance software, analytics, and payments infrastructure are priced for institutions ten or even 100 times their size. The result is a market where access to essential services is determined not by mission or member need, but by asset size. This isn’t just inconvenient. It’s structurally threatening. Vendors often defend their pricing models as a reflection of complexity or scale. Larger credit unions have more users, more transactions, more integrations, so they pay more, and that seems fair on the surface. But t...
Comments
Post a Comment
Please no profanity or political comments.