The Federal Reserve announced there will be no change to the federal funds rate following the May meeting of the Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC). The committee determined maintaining the target range at 4-1/4 to 4-1/2 percent was the best approach given economic indicators suggesting the risk of higher inflation and unemployment has increased.
The committee acknowledged in a statement following the meeting that “swings in net exports have affected the data” while adding “recent indicators suggest that economic activity has continued to expand at a solid pace.”
While the unemployment rate remains relatively low and labor market conditions remain “solid,” the FOMC suggested inflation remains elevated and is not likely to come down amid ongoing economic concerns.
“Uncertainty about the economic outlook has increased,” according to the FOMC statement. “The committee is attentive to the risks to both sides of its dual mandate and judges that the risks of higher unemployment and higher inflation have risen.”
As the FOMC continues to evaluate evolving risk factors to financial stability, it said it plans to continue reducing the Fed’s Treasury security holdings, agency debt and agency mortgage‑backed securities.
The committee also reiterated its standing commitment to work toward bringing the inflation rate down to 2 percent and to ensure maximum employment.
According to a report published by the Department of Labor on May 13, the 12-month inflation rate is at 2.3 percent – its lowest since February 2021 – following a seasonally-adjusted 0.2 percent uptick in the consumer price index for the month.
Fed Gov. Adriana Kugler reflected on the perceived importance the American public places on the unemployment rate when evaluating the overall health of the labor market and the economy. She noted there are limitations affecting the various models the Fed uses to make such assessments.
“[D]ifferent business cycles are generated by different shocks that affect the economy in different ways, so that useful indicators of slack in past cycles may not be as insightful in the future,” Kugler explained. “For instance, when there is slack in the labor market, measures taking into account unemployment duration can be more informative about the persistence of unemployment and future slack. By contrast, when labor markets are tight, measures of flows into, out of, and across jobs will give a better measure of the job opportunities for workers and potential upward pressures on wages.”
There also are constraints on the number of economic indicators each model can process, implying that some models will be better at capturing certain drivers of maximum employment than others, she added.
“That is why I cannot point to the best statistic or best model of maximum employment. I can only acknowledge that a rich set of models and indicators only benefits the policymaker. Given the uncertainty in estimating maximum employment in real time and the many options available, I consider it undesirable to adopt one particular measure to guide monetary policy.”
Kugler emphasized the importance of keeping these points in mind as the FOMC prepares to release its statement on longer-run goals and monetary policy strategy, which the Fed alternatively refers to as its “framework.”