kakeith406/op-fed huggingface dataset:
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. YELLEN.
text: Also, I would just say on the question of options 2 and 5 versus options 3 and 4, an advantage that the paper attaches to having voluntary targets is the ability to moderate the volatility in the federal funds rate. So it does seem to me that--I understand it may be difficult--the possibility of intervening multiple times during the day as an alternative, if it were possible to change the procedures so that there could be multiple interventions to reduce volatility, would mean that 3 and 4 could be on the table, and there might be less burden associated with those. So I think that possibility deserves at least careful consideration. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Thank you. President Bullard. 

MR. BULLARD. "The corridor would be narrow."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a proposal for study. The timeline seems fine to me. The study period is pretty important in this case because it is not clear to me which option is best, and so I think maybe we should keep more of the options on the table. One question that I have is, To what extent are current reserve requirements actually binding for depository institutions? There is a past study by the St. Louis staff--Dick Anderson and Bob Rasche--suggesting that, by and large, existing reserve requirements are not binding. To me that calls into question whether objective 1 for this study group is really appropriate. Dead weight losses make sense to me only if there is a binding reserve requirement. In that regard, I'd like to endorse President Yellen's comment, which I thought was right on target, about whether you are going to make up for lost revenue from somewhere else and how distortionary that would be. There is a bit of political risk here that, if this starts to get painted as a handout to banks, maybe it wouldn't serve us well. I would like to see more emphasis on option 3, which based on the discussion seems to be not too bad a system. That is the Canadian system. That is a tested system in an economy that is not too different from our own--certainly, an economy that is closely integrated with this one. The corridor would be narrow. There might be more volatility within that corridor, but you still seem to get pretty good results. I know they have a small number of banks, but it seems to me with today's technology you might be able to get a good read even for a large economy. I would like to see it kept in the mix here. They have had lots of success and very low administrative burden, if that is what you are worried about. I am perhaps not so familiar with options 2 and 5, which are the favored options in this discussion. But I am concerned about the language of voluntary balance targets, which seem to be maybe not that voluntary. It seems to me to create a risk that the systems are really not as market-oriented as I would like to see or that they could be manipulated by market participants, particularly in a time of stress. Those are some of the concerns I had about this.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MS. PIANALTO.
text: But while I do believe that the next policy action will be a rate hike, the potential for the recovery to sputter makes me cautious about embarking on an upward trajectory for the fed funds rate just yet. I believe that the language in alternative B conveys the right sense of direction for the fed funds rate path, with the right amount of caution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
speaker: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
text: Thank you. President Bullard. 

MR. BULLARD. "Surely by now few market participants would be surprised to encounter the failure of certain institutions."

Full utterance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. U.S. economic data have been stronger than expected during the intermeeting period. The earlier, very aggressive moves in January and March taken by the FOMC were viewed in part as insurance against the possibility of a very serious downturn brought on by financial market turmoil. That very serious downturn has not materialized. Tail risk has diminished significantly. This means that this Committee has put too much economic stimulus on the table and must think about ways to remove it going forward. Failure to do so will create a significant inflation problem on top of problems in housing and financial markets. Slack might be helpful, as mentioned by Governor Kohn, but those effects are small compared with expectations effects. I think it is too early to tighten at this meeting. Therefore, I am supporting alternative B with the language proposed by President Plosser. But the Committee has to think carefully about how and when to embark on a path for interest rates that will set us up to achieve price stability in a reasonable time frame. My sense is that this will require more-aggressive tightening of policy than currently envisioned in staff simulations. Financial market problems have been described here as a slow burn, and I think that may well be an apt description. Many firms in this sector took on too much risk and, in retrospect, had poor business models. I expect that this will take a long time to unwind. Despite this, the systemic risk component of the situation has diminished considerably. Systemic risk is in part a function of the degree of surprise in the failure of a financial institution that was perceived to be in good health. Surely by now few market participants would be surprised to encounter the failure of certain institutions. Failures, should they occur, can be handled in an orderly way. Certain investors would lose out in such an event, to be sure, but my sense is that the panic element that would be associated with systemic risk would not be present. I believe that we should start to downweight systemic risk concerns substantially going forward because it is no longer credible to say that market participants are surprised to learn of problems at certain financial institutions. Thank you.

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no
Prior discussion:
speaker: MR. EVANS.
text: We are 12 months in. Isn't this likely to take 12 more months or longer? Financial institutions have a lot to digest. What do you think financial institutions and markets have to do to signal a return to acceptable functionality? What are we looking for, and what changes in fundamentals are likely to occur that would deliver sustainable liquidity improvements? 

MR. DUDLEY. "That is a big question."

Full utterance: Okay. That is a big question. [Laughter]

Opinion: yes
About monetary policy: no