Abstract

In this work we deal mostly with the recent (2008-present) Federal Reserve operated monetary policies, which are two unprecedented and distinct monetary policy regimes. The Zero Interest Rate Regime (2008:12-2015:11) and the New Regime (2015:12-2018:12). These different monetary policy regimes provided various outcomes for inflation, interest rates, financial markets, personal consumption, personal savings, real economic growth, and social welfare. Some of the important results are that monetary policy appears to be able to affect long-term real interest rates, risk, the prices of the financial assets, and very little the real personal consumption, personal savings, and the real economic growth during the recent period of extreme monetary policy, in which the Fed held short-term interest rates abnormally low for an extended period (2008-2015) and the present time, which keeps the federal funds rate below the inflation rate. The Fed’s interest rate target was set during those seven years at 0% to 0.25%. On December 16, 2015, the Fed started increasing the target rate by 25 basis points approximately in each FOMC meeting, from 0.25% to 0.50% to 0.75%, and presently to 2.50%. We want to explain the low level of long-term interest rates and the real rate of interest (cost of capital) in the economy. The evidence suggests that it is the Fed the main cause of the low (negative) real interest rate following the 2007-2008 financial crisis. This monetary policy was not very effective (the zero interest rate target of the Fed). It has created a new bubble in the financial market, future inflation, and a redistribution of wealth from risk-averse savers to banks and risk-taker speculators. In addition, it has increased the risk (RP) by making the real risk-free rate of interest negative. The effects on growth, prices, and employment were gradual and very small, due to outsourcing and unfair trade policies, which have affected negatively the social welfare. The dual mandate (price stability and maximum employment) of the Fed is not sufficient to maximize the social welfare of the country.

Highlights

  • Nigeria can be said to be a beneficiary of international management and sustainable profitability since about 1885 when the British Government gave the Royal Niger Company power to administer, make treaties charge customs dues and carry on trade in all territories in the basin of the Niger River and its affluent

  • Jones on July 17, 1895 at the First Annual General Meeting of Bank of British West Africa (BBWA) stated: “There is no doubt that the country which introduces its coinage and its language into a new territory succeeds in a great measure in securing the trade of the place”

  • It is imperative to state that Elder Dempster & Company provided the breeding ground for the fertile idea to establish BBWA in Nigeria by Jones from being an agent of the African Steamship Company in Liverpool to a giant shipping line

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Nigeria can be said to be a beneficiary of international management and sustainable profitability since about 1885 when the British Government gave the Royal Niger Company power to administer, make treaties charge customs dues and carry on trade in all territories in the basin of the Niger River and its affluent. From this arrangement, the objectives of British colonialism can be understood from two perspectives the views of the British colonial government and those of Nigerians. The First Bank of Nigeria perspective is no doubt a revelation that international management characterized by strategic alliances and collaboration holds the key to efficiency and sustainable profitability as it remains the most liquid, the oldest and the biggest among the 24 commercial banks currently operating in Nigeria (Ani-Mumuney, 2018; Ayodele and Oke, 2013; Kolade, 2018)

Methods
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call