FOMC Minutes

Minutes of the September meeting are on the Federal Reserve website.

Highlights:

The decline in real state does not appear to be affecting spending, but it is still a concern.

Thus far, the drop in housing market activity appeared not to have spilled over significantly to other sectors of the economy. Indeed, consumer expenditures appeared to have been expanding moderately over the previous few months, buoyed by increases in employment, personal income, and household wealth. Contacts in some Districts reported that retail sales had picked up a little most recently. Meeting participants noted that consumer spending going forward would be supported by the higher levels of personal income indicated by recent revisions to the national income and product accounts, by further gains in employment, and by the decline in consumer energy prices over recent months. However, considerable uncertainty was expressed regarding the ultimate extent of the downturn in the housing sector and the degree to which the slowing in housing activity and the deceleration in home prices would affect consumption and other expenditures going forward.

Inflation seems to be weighing heavily on many of the FOMC members. Some even worry that the public could lose confidence in the Fed's commitment to fighting inflation if the core measure remains at current levels. This is a decidedly stronger statement than at the August meeting.

Many meeting participants emphasized that they continued to be quite concerned about the outlook for inflation. Recent rates of core inflation, if they persisted, were seen as higher than consistent with price stability, and participants underscored the importance of ensuring a moderation in inflation. To be sure, very recent data on inflation suggested some improvement from the situation in the late spring, partly reflecting slower increases in owners' equivalent rent. Also, the considerably lower level of energy prices of recent weeks, if sustained, would help reduce overall inflation and damp increases in core prices. Moreover, businesses would meet more resistance to attempts to pass through cost increases in the less robust economic circumstances that were likely to prevail at least for a time. However, energy prices remained quite sensitive to a wide range of forces, including geopolitical developments, and might well rebound. To date, the available evidence indicated that inflation expectations remained contained--indeed, expectations of price increases for the next few years had fallen some as energy prices declined. Nonetheless, several participants worried that inflation expectations could rise and the Federal Reserve's willingness to carry through on its intention to seek price stability could be called into question if cost and price pressures mounted or even if there was no moderation in core inflation. Looking forward, most participants thought that the most likely outcome was a reduction in inflation pressures, but the anticipated decline was only gradual and the uncertainties around that forecast were skewed toward higher rather than lower inflation rates.

Their decision in September was not as difficult as it was in August.

In the Committee's discussion of monetary policy for the intermeeting period, nearly all members favored keeping the target federal funds rate at 5-1/4 percent at this meeting. Members generally expected economic activity to expand at a pace below the rate of growth of potential output in the near term before strengthening some over time. Moreover, given the uncertainties in forecasting, significantly more sluggish performance than anticipated could not be entirely ruled out. Although the uncertainties were substantial, core inflation seemed most likely to ebb gradually from its elevated level, in part owing to the waning effects of past increases in energy prices. The anticipated expansion of economic activity at a pace slightly below the rate of growth of the economy's potential would likely also play a role by easing pressures on resources. Members noted that certain developments of late--appreciable declines in energy prices, some softer indicators of economic activity, and slightly lower readings on core inflation--pointed to a modestly better inflation outlook and hence made the policy decision today somewhat less difficult than it was in August, when it was seen as a particularly close call.

And yet they make it clear that inflation surprises will be dealt with.

In view of the most recent information on the economy, members agreed that it was appropriate for the post-meeting statement to characterize economic growth as apparently continuing to moderate. However, in view of still-high energy and other commodity prices and elevated rates of resource utilization as well as recent indications of a possible acceleration in labor costs, members continued to see a substantial risk that inflation would not decline as anticipated by the Committee. Consequently, the Committee agreed that the statement should again cite such risks to inflation and explicitly reference the possibility of additional policy firming.

Contrast this with the corresponding paragraph from the August minutes:

All members agreed that the statement to be released after the meeting should convey that inflation risks remained dominant and that consequently keeping policy unchanged at this meeting did not necessarily mark the end of the tightening cycle. They concurred that an indication that economic growth had moderated was appropriate, and a consensus favored citing the same reasons for that moderation as in the June statement. Members also agreed that the statement should both mention factors contributing to the likely moderation of inflation pressures over time and reiterate the forces that were seen as having the potential to sustain inflation pressures.

The last couple sentences of the are a little stronger in the current minutes than in the previous.

Mr. Lacker's reason for dissent remained essentially unchanged.

Mr. Lacker dissented because he believed that further tightening was needed to bring inflation down more rapidly than would be the case if the policy rate were kept unchanged. Recent data indicated that inflation remained above levels consistent with price stability. Moreover, the upswing in compensation and unit labor costs in the first half of the year indicated that inflation risks were tilted to the upside. Although real growth was likely to be moderate in coming quarters, in his view it was unlikely to be slow enough to bring core inflation down.

While it is somewhat ironic that some of the statements about inflation are stronger this time than six weeks ago, we must remember that the last minutes needed to make the case for changing the policy stance from tightening to neutral. Now that the Fed is in a more neutral stance, the communications groundwork needs to be laid for the more likely change in the policy stance. As such it would appear that the next meeting will likely yield no change, but if you were expecting a decrease in rates in the next few months you may be disappointed.

UPDATE: Wall Street Journal and Reuters have articles on the minutes. Reuters characterizes the minutes as hawkish.

UPDATE 2: The NY Times has a quote from Mr. Lacker:

In Washington today, Mr. Lacker expanded on the reasons for his dissent, saying in a speech to the District of Columbia Chamber of Commerce that he is worried that Americans will come to accept higher inflation as the rule rather than an exception, and would act accordingly, to ill effect on the economy.

“If the Fed were to allow inflation to remain above target for too long, inflation expectations could become centered around the higher rate,” he said. “We don’t have any perfect measures of inflation expectations, but what we do have suggests that market participants do not foresee a rapid fall in core inflation. That is why I have argued for further policy actions to convincingly restore price stability.”

His entire speech can be found here, and this is the whole paragraph from which the Times quotes:

Moreover, the longer inflation remains elevated, the more difficult it will be to bring it back down. As people observe actual core inflation of 2.5 percent, along with the FOMC’s reactions, they adjust expectations regarding future inflation, and those expectations become the basis for price setting in product and labor markets. (By the way, it was for his contributions to economic research on exactly this phenomenon that Professor Edmund Phelps was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics a few days ago.) If the Fed were to allow inflation to remain above target for too long, inflation expectations could become centered around the higher rate. Once that occurs, history tells us that strong and more costly policy actions would be needed to bring inflation and inflation expectations back down. We don’t have any perfect measures of inflation expectations, but what we do have suggests that market participants do not foresee a rapid fall in core inflation. This is why I have argued for further policy actions to convincingly restore price stability.