speeches · March 16, 2020
Regional President Speech
Loretta J. Mester · President
Statement Regarding My Dissenting Vote at the Meeting of the
Federal Open Market Committee Held on March 15, 2020*
Loretta J. Mester
President and Chief Executive Officer
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
March 17, 2020
* The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve System or the
Federal Open Market Committee.
1
I usually discuss my views on the economy and monetary policy in public speeches. Because of the
coronavirus, my upcoming speeches have been canceled, so I am providing this statement in lieu of a
speech.
On March 15, 2020, I dissented from the action of the majority of the Federal Open Market Committee
(FOMC). As the post-meeting statement issued by the Committee notes, I was fully supportive of all of
the actions taken to promote the smooth functioning of markets and the flow of credit to households and
businesses but preferred to reduce the target range of the federal funds rate to 1/2 to 3/4 percent instead of
to 0 to 1/4 percent as was done.
The coronavirus outbreak is harming communities and disrupting economic activity in the U.S. and other
countries. In the Fourth Federal Reserve District and elsewhere in the country, steps are being taken to
protect people’s health, including practicing social distancing, canceling gatherings, and closing schools.
When they are able to, businesses have invoked work-from-home practices and many have restricted all
nonessential travel. These are necessary steps taken in the interest of public health. There will be a sharp
pullback in economic activity, at least in the near term, as the country focuses on tackling the challenges
posed by the virus. The recent fiscal policy actions to increase access to testing and healthcare for those
who are sick, to support public and private healthcare providers who are dealing with virus containment
and the treatment of ill patients, and to help workers and small businesses that will be most affected by
work stoppages are the types of government policy measures that can be most helpful in defending
against the adverse consequences of the disease for individuals and the economy.
In the wake of the widening spread of the virus and the rising level of uncertainty it brings, global
financial conditions have tightened considerably, as investors, businesses, and financial institutions
reassess their tolerance for risk and their economic outlooks. In the week leading up to our recent FOMC
meeting, increased stress and illiquidity were seen in financial markets, including the U.S. Treasury
2
market, a foundational market for the world’s financial system. In response, the Federal Reserve
expanded its overnight and term repurchase agreement operations to help to improve liquidity, and I fully
supported this action. However, illiquid market conditions continued.
Lack of liquidity in financial markets is a first-order problem that can reverberate through the financial
system and the economy and hinder the transmission of monetary policy throughout the economy. It is
critical that there is sufficient liquidity to allow markets to function in an orderly way so that credit
continues to flow to households and businesses. So I fully supported all of the actions that the Federal
Reserve announced on March 15 to help ensure that there is adequate liquidity in financial markets so that
trades can be made and credit can continue to flow. These measures include increasing our holdings of
U.S. Treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities; lowering the rate on the standing U.S. dollar
liquidity swap arrangements; reducing the spread between the rate at which depository institutions can
borrow at the Federal Reserve’s discount window (the primary credit rate) and the top of the federal funds
rate target range to 0 basis points; instituting term discount window lending; encouraging banks to use the
liquidity and intraday credit available at the Federal Reserve’s discount window and to use their own
capital and liquidity buffers as they lend to households and businesses affected by the coronavirus; and
reducing reserve requirement ratios to zero percent.
If market illiquidity continues, I will support our taking further actions to address funding needs,
including activating facilities like those the Federal Reserve has used in the past, including the
commercial paper funding facility, to help ensure access to credit by small businesses, and the term
auction facility to auction term funds to depository institutions should their use of the discount window
prove insufficient.
When markets are not functioning well, the transmission mechanism of monetary policy to the economy
is disrupted, and any reduction in the target federal funds rate will have less of an impact on the real
3
economy. In current circumstances, with social distancing and the stoppage of spending activity, rate cuts
are also less impactful. I dissented because I viewed a 50 basis point reduction in the federal funds rate as
appropriate, in support of the liquidity actions we were taking and in light of the outlook. I did not favor
returning the funds rate to zero and using up all of our interest-rate policy space at this time when the
transmission mechanism of monetary policy to the economy is impaired. I preferred to stage our policy
actions by first providing liquidity to improve market functioning, supported by a smaller reduction in the
funds rate. This would have preserved the option of a further cut in the funds rate, if needed, for a time
when market functioning had improved and such an action could be expected to be most effective in
supporting the economy as it emerges from the health crisis after the medical response has been put in
place, new cases of the virus have begun to stabilize, social distancing has eased, and life begins to return
to some semblance of normal.
Despite my dissent at our recent meeting, I have the utmost respect for Chair Jay Powell and other
colleagues on the FOMC who reached a different conclusion than I did and for the Federal Reserve’s
policymaking process, which allows for a full discussion of the issues and the opportunity to express
dissenting views, as we all work to set monetary policy to promote our longer-run goals of price stability
and maximum employment on behalf of the American public.
Cite this document
APA
Loretta J. Mester (2020, March 16). Regional President Speech. Speeches, Federal Reserve. https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/regional_speeche_20200317_loretta_j_mester
BibTeX
@misc{wtfs_regional_speeche_20200317_loretta_j_mester,
author = {Loretta J. Mester},
title = {Regional President Speech},
year = {2020},
month = {Mar},
howpublished = {Speeches, Federal Reserve},
url = {https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/regional_speeche_20200317_loretta_j_mester},
note = {Retrieved via When the Fed Speaks corpus}
}