By contrast, in today’s world, most international liquidity is privately provided and represented by claims on private institutions. Interbank markets play a crucial role in this process. The more capital markets become integrated at the short end, the more international liquidity is provided by the private sector. As a consequence, there is a strong continuity and complementarities between domestic and international liquidity. Both depend on the willingness of counterparties to extend credit to each other. Both are subject to aggregate supply and demand shocks with sudden shifts in risk aversion or liquidity preference. Both result from leveraging and deleveraging by private institutions (Adrian and Shin, 2008). When markets seize, counterparty risk is perceived as excessive, uncertainty settles in, financial institutions deleverage their positions towards non residents, and then international liquidity dries up and disappears. The importance of global private liquidity conditions has been apparent during the period which followed Lehman’s failure. Output and trade fell across the world with astonishing simultaneity. It seemed natural to assume, at the time, that “traditional” forms of contagion – through goods or capital markets – were at work. Policy makers were looking to trade finance as a major channel. However, contagion takes time and cannot fully account for the exceptional synchronization in the drop of output. With hindsight, the phenomenon may best be seen as a global liquidity shock. Net supply of liquidity dried up at the same time everywhere in the world. International banks faced a sudden and ample shortage of dollars. Firms started to hoard liquidity.

In particular, it stated that the Committee expects it will be appropriate to maintain the federal funds rate at its current target range until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee’s assessments of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time.9 By linking future policy actions to economic outcomes and ultimately our dual mandate goals, this forward guidance clearly describes the key elements of the FOMC’s reaction function to economic developments and a changing outlook. Ready to Adapt One of the most important, but perhaps overlooked parts of our August announcement is that we will review our longer-run framework roughly every five years. This represents the Fed’s commitment to transparency and our willingness to continue to adapt to changing circumstances. Reviewing our longer-run framework and approach to our goals more frequently will ensure we are well prepared for the future, whatever it may bring. Conclusion I’ll conclude with this: these are extraordinary times. The announcement of changes to our longer-run framework comes during one of the most challenging periods our country and our economy have ever faced. These changes to the framework mean that we are well positioned to deliver on our dual mandate goals and support a strong and sustained economic recovery. 1 See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy  Strategy, as amended effective August 27, 2020.