ABA Banking Journal
No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
SUBSCRIBE
ABA Banking Journal
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
Home Economy

A monetary policy matrix

A visualization of the Federal Open Market Committee’s choices.

May 17, 2024
Reading Time: 4 mins read
The Federal Reserve Board headquarters in Washington, D.C.

By Warren B. Hrung

This post presents a simple schematic (no equations!) to help understand how the Federal Reserve may approach its interest rate policy decisions for the remainder of 2024. The Fed is typically characterized as having a dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices. The conduct of monetary policy is geared towards these goals and various frameworks have been developed to understand how the Fed sets monetary policy via interest rates. For example, one of the frameworks, the famous Taylor Rule, links the policy rate to deviations of inflation from its target and the difference between real GDP and potential GDP. Some other frameworks are covered here.

In January 2012, Federal Reserve policymakers set 2 percent as the long-run target for inflation. There is no current numerical target for employment or the unemployment rate. In a recent speech, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook described the Fed’s approach and referenced its Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy. This statement notes the “potentially different time horizons” that are expected to be needed for “employment shortfalls and inflation deviations” to close as important considerations when the employment and inflation objectives are deemed to not be complementary (for example, due to an adverse supply shock that initially raises both inflation and unemployment).

A possible target for the maximum employment goal would be the natural rate of unemployment, typically denoted as u*. This is the rate of unemployment that is consistent with a steady inflation rate. Unfortunately, this rate is unobserved and can only be estimated. Furthermore, it can change over time. In the framework below, we will use u*, as estimated by the Fed, as the target for the labor market, all the while acknowledging that other aspects (such as labor force participation) are considered in determining when the maximum employment goal is being met.

Another aspect of monetary policy relates to decisions regarding the size and composition of the Fed’s balance sheet. The Fed’s asset purchase programs have mostly been intended to lower longer-term interest rates by reducing the supply of longer-term assets held by the public and have been employed when the federal funds rate is near zero. As such, the asset purchase programs can be thought of as another way to lower interest rates and therefore can be subsumed in the framework below. The Annual Reports on Open Market Operations provide more details on Fed balance sheet growth and reduction programs.

Figure 1

Cook notes that the situation in 2022 and going into 2023, where unemployment was at historic lows and inflation running at multi-decade highs, implied a “forceful tightening of monetary policy.” This suggests a framework that can be distilled into the following two-by-two matrix (Figure 1) in which the rows denote cases where the unemployment rate is below or above u* (with a dashed line to denote the uncertainty of the true value of u*) and the columns represent cases where inflation is below or above the 2 percent target.

The innovation here is not in the direction of monetary policy, but in its degrees of aggressiveness. This simplification obviously won’t capture all the nuances in the Fed’s decision-making process, but hopefully it will help observers better understand the Fed’s approach. And note that the designation of “good” and “bad” categories for u* and inflation are only suggestive of how to consider the current situation and may not necessarily hold for every case. For example, if inflation were to fall close to zero, there could be concerns about deflation, so inflation below target in this case would not be considered “good.”

In the first quadrant, where the unemployment rate is below u* and inflation is below target but trending higher, the Fed would be cautious in lowering rates to bring inflation back to target. This is because looser monetary policy would also risk running the economy too hot, driving the unemployment rate even further below u* and risking an eventual burst of inflation above target.

In the second quadrant, where unemployed is below u* and inflation persistently above target, the Fed has more room to aggressively tighten policy to reduce aggregate demand and bring inflation back to target without triggering a recession and a sharp weakening of the labor market. And if interest rates have already risen substantially and the long and variable lags associated with changes in interest rates have not yet fully been realized in terms of inflation reaching its target, reflective of the current situation, a strong labor market means that the Fed can afford to wait and hold rates higher for longer than otherwise.

In the third quadrant, where both the unemployment rate and inflation are above their respective targets, the Fed will be more cautious in its efforts to increase rates to bring inflation to target. Higher rates risk further exacerbating a difficult labor market situation and increasing unemployment.

And finally, in the fourth quadrant, with a situation where the unemployment rate is above u* but inflation is below target, the Fed can be more aggressive in lowering rates to stimulate aggregate demand with less concern about an increase in inflation. And if the full effect of any interest rate decreases has yet to be fully realized, the Fed may hold rates lower for longer to get inflation back to target.

This two-dimensional representation could be expanded to take into account inflation expectations, which is another key consideration for the Fed. If inflation expectations become unmoored to the upside, the Fed would have to be more aggressive in combatting inflation in all four cases above. As a result, a three-dimensional representation adding inflation expectations (anchored versus unanchored) would complicate the framework without providing much additional insight into the Fed’s decision-making process. Forward guidance can be utilized by the Fed to anchor inflation expectations and this tool is not explicitly considered in the matrix above.

Looking ahead, even though the Fed has already sharply raised interest rates since early 2022, inflation is currently still above target and the risk that inflation expectations become unmoored to the upside also remains. Plus, the unemployment rate is still low at around 4 percent and presumably below u*. Therefore, the paradigm above (second quadrant) suggests the very real possibility of the Fed holding rates at current levels well into 2024 even without presidential politics being taken into account.

Tags: ABA DataBankFOMC
ShareTweetPin

Author

Warren Hrung

Warren Hrung

Warren Hrung, Ph.D., is SVP and head of banking and financial services research at ABA. Before joining ABA in 2022, Hrung was head of data science and infrastructure for the Supervision Group at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Related Posts

ABA DataBank: Home purchase cancellations near record highs

ABA DataBank: Home purchase cancellations near record highs

Economy
October 23, 2026

Home purchase cancellations rose to 14.5% of pending sales in September, the highest rate on record outside the early months of the pandemic.

Consumer Sentiment declined in April

Final: Consumer sentiment decreased slightly in October

Economy
October 23, 2026

Consumer sentiment decreased 0.2% month over month in October to 48, and was down 10.4% from one year ago, according to final results of the University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers.

Poll: Growing deposits top priority for midsize banks in 2023

The real value of bank deposits goes beyond yield

Economy
October 22, 2026

Bank deposits deliver different — and more — value than stablecoins do. Comparing them on only one dimension obscures the picture.

Mortgage rates continue drop 

Mortgage rates dip after seven weeks of gains

Economy
October 22, 2026

The 15-year fixed-rate mortgage also declined, to 6.68% from 6.71% last week, compared with 5.44% one year ago.

NAR: Pending home sales slipped in May

NAR: Pending home sales fell in September

Economy
October 20, 2026

Pending home sales in September decreased by 7.3% month-over-month and 11.3% year-over-year, according to the National Association of Realtors.

Construction spending decreased 0.3% in May

ABA DataBank: Housing starts continue to fall in September

Economy
October 20, 2026

ABA economists believe results are consistent with a sluggish housing market challenged by affordability concerns, labor shortages, and increasing input costs and suggests residential building activity could remain subdued in the face of elevated mortgage rates.

NEWSBYTES

Federal appeals court strikes down the Fed’s debit card fee cap

October 26, 2026

Kelly calls on bankers to ‘advocate, innovate and partner’

October 26, 2026

ABA supports Nacha defining ‘banking day’

October 26, 2026

SPONSORED CONTENT

The Shift from Demographic Marketing

The Shift from Demographic Marketing

October 1, 2026
Meeting Ag Lending Goals Without Going It Alone

Meeting Ag Lending Goals Without Going It Alone

October 1, 2026
Beyond the Portfolio: The Wealth Manager’s New Role in a Multigenerational World

Beyond the Portfolio: The Wealth Manager’s New Role in a Multigenerational World

September 17, 2026
Banking Technology at a Strategic Crossroads

Banking Technology at a Strategic Crossroads

September 8, 2026

PODCASTS

Podcast: Proactively managing the core provider relationship

October 22, 2026

Podcast: How community banks can keep farmers farming in turbulent times

October 14, 2026

Podcast: The birth of American money and how it triggered a revolution

October 8, 2026

American Bankers Association
1333 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
1-800-BANKERS (800-226-5377)
www.aba.com
About ABA
Privacy Policy
Contact ABA

ABA Banking Journal
About ABA Banking Journal
Media Kit
Advertising
Subscribe

© 2026 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive

© 2026 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.