Can the Fed raise rates earlier than expected?

By Felix Salmon
June 30, 2009

Krishna Guha reads the Fed tea-leaves:

The central bank has made it clear it does not expect to raise rates any time soon – saying in its last statement that it sees rates remaining near zero for an “extended period”.

It subsequently extended most of its emergency liquidity facilities to February 2010, a signal that it believes a rate rise by then is highly unlikely.

I’m sure this is true — but at the same time I see no reason why the Fed can’t start raising rates while the emergency liquidity facilities and other artifacts of quantitative easing remain in place.

At the margin, a Fed funds rate at 1% or 1.5% is not going to put much in the way of a visible brake on economic growth — especially not so long as all the Fed’s liquidity facilities are still up and running. But by raising short-term interest rates in the Fed funds market, and by keeping long-term interest rates low through quantitative easing, the Fed would be able to act much more decisively if and when inflation fears really started to appear.

One of Alan Greenspan’s biggest errors was his decision to raise rates only very gradually even as the housing bubble was gaining full force — there are serious practical constraints on the Fed hiking by more than 50bp at a go. So it might make sense to have a bit of a headstart, as it were: by starting to raise rates at the beginning of 2010, the Fed might be able to make them really felt once the tightening cycle started up in earnest. In the meantime, by artificially keeping long-term rates low, the Fed would manage to maintain its accommodative stance.

Guha points out that the Fed funds futures market, until a few weeks ago, was pricing in a Fed rate rise this year; it’s still pricing in some tightening by February. I don’t necessarily think that’s going to happen. But I do think it’s possible.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Just to let you know CNBC created an online special report that highlights key moments of the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression. There is an interesting section on Alan Greenspan where he defends his actions, answers his critics and explains his philosophy.
If you’re interested you can find the link here:

Makes sense. But 1% seems unlikely any time soon. I don’t think they buy their own fluff, and are starting to realize just how bad things are.

I see Quantitative Easing differently than you do. The Fed should keep rates very low as a disincentive to buying US Treasuries. We want investors to buy stocks and corporate bonds. In other words, the Fed is fighting the Flight To Safety. I would also like longer term interest rates to remain in the 3% to 4% range, with a slowly rising arc. In fact, that’s what I think has occurred and worked.

Inflation is a problem going forward, but not a monetary one. Bernanke will do what he has to do. He has a lot of time to decide this issue. He would only do what you’re suggesting if he felt that, politically, we were heading for a fiscal train wreck. The real issue is the commitment of our country to attacking the debt in the future. Just my view.

I think its to early to expect raising Fed Funds Rate. Overnight Repo rates are evolving significantly lower than at the beginning of the year. O/N rate on general collateral as of yesterday: 0,02%, in comparison to the Target Fed Funds : 0,125%.

You can track the near-term Fed Funds futures through your Reuters 3000 Xtra. Type “FEDWATCH” in a quote screen.

Posted by Mitch | Report as abusive