Talk:Open market operation

message: I don't see what's the point of the narrow banknote focus of this article.  From the figures below it looks like "physical cash" is only about 11% of M2.  When the Fed talks about open market operations they talk about M2 or M1, not about banknotes.
The "monetary targeting" part is confused.  Targeting the money supply was done under Volker.  Now we seem to be targeting interest rates.  The Fed could also target inflation.  These are not the same thing!
What's gold got to do with it?  This is not the 1920's.  Let's please bring this article up to date.
Also "has stated famously" and similar phrasing seems POV.  What's wrong with just having "stated"?
from Money supply
:In the U.S., as of July 28, 2005, M1 was about $1.4 trillion, M2 about $6.5 trillion, and M3 about $9.7 trillion. If you split all of the money equally per person in the United States, each person would end up with roughly $30,000 ($9,700,000M/300M). The amount of actual physical cash M0 was $688 billion in 2004,
:: Gold is relevant to this article for two reasons. Firstly central banks own a lot of gold. Secondly many of the articles that discuss the gold standard reference this article about Open Market Operations. This article needs to be general enough to remain meaningful in the context of all types of monetary policy not just "inflation targeting". Terjepetersen 11:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As to the recent edits. They don't reduce clarity and make the topic less accessible. I am about to roll them back again but I am open to discussion on why the changes are seen as necessary. Terjepetersen 11:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The statistic that banknotes are less than 10% of M2 is true but misleading given the context of the rest of the paragraph. The exchangeability of concern is that between commercial bank deposits at the central bank and banknotes. So the correct statistic would be what proportion of monetary base is banknotes and what proportion is deposits at the central bank. I don't know that statistic, but I do know that the M2 statistic is not strictly speaking the correct one to mention here. I propose to delete the M2 sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.1.66 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between M2 and monetary base 

message: There should be a note in this article explaining why the entry for POMO redirects here. 67.91.71.50 (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on "POMO" redirect 

message: "In addition the open market operation is a means through which the governments of a country demand money from its central bank and then the central bank sells off treasury bills to commercial banks in a long-term basis, after which the C.B (central bank) gives out the money gotten from the selling of the treasury bills to the government for project financing"
Is this true? What's the mechanism by which the funds are transfered? Cite?Afuhz (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fed funds the Federal goverment? 

message: In this item: When the actual Fed funds rate is higher than the target, the New York Reserve Bank will usually increase the money supply via a reverse repo (effectively lending). 
This description is contradict to the definition in Repurchase agreement, where it is said that "Under a repurchase agreement ("RP" or "repo"), the Federal Reserve (Fed) buys U.S. Treasury securities, U.S. agency securities, or mortgage-backed securities from a primary dealer who agrees to buy them back, typically within one to seven days; a reverse repo is the opposite."
In the item, reverse repo is a way to lend money and buy securities. In Repurchase_agreement, reverse repo means sell securities and money in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.177.141 (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repo definition contradiction 

message: It absolutely is not true that there were no open market operations under the gold standard.  This is true in Great Britain, where open market operations consisted of purchasing commercial paper, and also in the United States, where the U.S. Treasury would occasionally intervene in the market before the creation of the Fed in 1913.  
During the period of the Bretton Woods agreements (1950s and 1960s), which was as much of a gold standard as any, there were plenty of open market operations.  The point to retain here is that there is not a fixed amount of liquidity in the system as a ratio to gold.  The ratio of deposits to gold is highly variable.   Conant wrote about the non-correspondence of M1 and m2 to gold supplies way back around 1908.  (He did not use M1 and M2, but that's what he meant).   In any case because the supply of circulating medium has no direct correspondence to the quantity of gold (any more than it does to high powered money) one will occasionally find situations where more or less liquidity is needed and this function is provided either by a central bank (in the case of England in the late 19th c) or by near-substitutes (the U.S. treasury and various groups of private banks, in the case of the late 19th c U.S.).   
I'm not going to fix this however because I'm learning over in the European Central Bank article that the expectation is to put one footnote per sentence which is, quite frankly, enough to deter me from contributing. It's not scholarly practice and it serves no useful encyclopedic function, nor have encyclopedias done that.  Not even the multi-volume Palgrave Diction of Economics.  
GN842  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gn842 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "During the period of the Bretton Woods agreements (1950s and 1960s), which was as much of a gold standard as any..." No, if there are "degrees" of gold standard, Bretton Woods was a gold standard to a low degree. GeneCallahan (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold standard and open market operations 

message: "They are the only point in the whole system with the unlimited ability to produce money. Another organization may be able to influence the open market for a period time, but the central bank will always be able to overpower their influence with an infinite supply of money." <-but they have no ability to regulate the value of that money, unless you believe in the ability to stimulate productivity, hence not true
"Under a gold standard, notes would be convertible to gold, so there would be no open market operations." <-not true either, as a glance at history prior to 1933 would show
Rest of the article is weak as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.244.216 (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  some serious problems 

message: Shouldn't this be vostro accounts? As described, there does not seem to be a third party involved. GeneCallahan (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loro accounts? 

message: Is this statement still accurate? I was under the impression that nowadays interest on excess reserves is the primary mechanism for implementing monetary policy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.211.144.228 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A central bank uses OMO as the primary means of implementing monetary policy"