Minutes for the Federal Open Market Committee meeting that was held on November 6-7 stated in part: “In discussing risk-management considerations that could bear on the outlook for monetary policy, almost all participants agreed that risks to achieving the Committee’s employment and inflation goals remained roughly in balance. Some participants judged that downside risks to economic activity or the labor market had diminished. Participants noted that monetary policy would need to balance the risks of easing policy too quickly, thereby possibly hindering further progress on inflation, with the risks of easing policy too slowly, thereby unduly weakening economic activity and employment. In discussing the positioning of monetary policy in response to potential changes in the balance of risks, some participants noted that the Committee could pause its easing of the policy rate and hold it at a restrictive level if inflation remained elevated, and some remarked that policy easing could be accelerated if the labor market turned down or economic activity faltered. Many participants observed that uncertainties concerning the level of the neutral rate of interest complicated the assessment of the degree of restrictiveness of monetary policy and, in their view, made it appropriate to reduce policy restraint gradually.”
Don't Miss our Black Friday Offers:
- Unlock your investing potential with TipRanks Premium - Now At 40% OFF!
- Make smarter investments with weekly expert stock picks from the Smart Investor Newsletter
Published first on TheFly – the ultimate source for real-time, market-moving breaking financial news. Try Now>>
See today’s best-performing stocks on TipRanks >>
Read More on SPY:
- S&P 500 Is Rising Alongside Tech Stocks
- Trump threatens tariffs, Zoom reports Q3 beat: Morning Buzz
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust: Pivot points
- Trump says will impose 25% tariff on all products from Mexico, Canada
- SPY ETF Update, 11/22/2024
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
