On December 16, 2008, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) did something it had never done before. It cut the federal funds rate—the benchmark interest rate that influences all other borrowing costs in the American economy—to a range of 0 to 0.25% . For all practical purposes, the Fed had pushed rates to zero. The central bank had reached the “zero lower bound,” the point at which conventional monetary policy could not push rates any lower. But the economy was still in free fall. Unemployment was rising. Banks were not lending. The housing market was collapsing. The Fed had used its traditional tool—adjusting the federal funds rate—and it had run out of ammunition.
What followed was the most aggressive and unconventional monetary policy experiment in American history. Over the next six years, the Federal Reserve, under Chairman Ben Bernanke, launched three rounds of quantitative easing (QE) , purchasing trillions of dollars in government bonds and mortgage-backed securities. It opened a series of emergency lending facilities to provide liquidity to non-bank financial institutions, money market funds, and foreign central banks. It provided forward guidance—explicit statements about the future path of interest rates—to reassure markets that rates would stay low for an extended period. The Fed’s balance sheet, which had stood at about $900 billion before the crisis, ballooned to over $4.5 trillion by 2015.
The policy was controversial. Critics warned that quantitative easing would cause runaway inflation, debase the dollar, and finance profligate government spending. None of those fears materialized. Inflation remained below the Fed’s 2% target for most of the post-crisis decade. The dollar, rather than collapsing, strengthened as investors sought safe haven. But the critics had a different point: quantitative easing primarily benefited the wealthy, who owned stocks and bonds, while doing little for ordinary workers. It widened wealth inequality, even as it prevented a second Great Depression.
This article examines the Federal Reserve’s response to the Great Recession and its aftermath. It explains why the Fed resorted to unconventional policies, how quantitative easing worked (or did not work), and what the long-term consequences have been. It argues that the Fed’s actions were necessary to prevent a complete financial collapse, but that they also exposed the limitations of central banking as a tool for managing deep economic crises.
The Conventional Toolbox: Interest Rate Cuts
Before the crisis, the Federal Reserve managed the economy primarily through the federal funds rate—the interest rate that banks charge each other for overnight loans. When the Fed wanted to stimulate the economy, it cut the funds rate, making borrowing cheaper for banks, businesses, and households. When it wanted to cool an overheating economy, it raised the rate. The funds rate was a blunt but effective tool, and the Fed had used it successfully for decades.
The Descent to Zero
The Fed began cutting rates in September 2007, as the subprime crisis first emerged. The funds rate, which had stood at 5.25% since mid-2006, was reduced to 4.75% on September 18, 2007. The cuts accelerated as the crisis deepened. By the end of 2007, the rate was 4.25%. By March 2008, after the Bear Stearns rescue, it was 2.25%. By October 2008, after Lehman collapsed, it was 1.00%. And on December 16, 2008, the FOMC cut the rate to essentially zero.
The decision was unanimous. The FOMC statement read: “The Committee anticipates that weak economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for some time.” That “for some time” would prove to be seven years. The Fed did not raise rates again until December 2015.
Why did the Fed cut rates so aggressively? Because the economy was collapsing. Real GDP fell at an annual rate of 8.9% in the fourth quarter of 2008 and 6.7% in the first quarter of 2009. Industrial production fell by 15% from peak to trough. Housing starts fell by 80%. The labor market was losing 700,000 jobs per month. In the face of such a collapse, the Fed’s mandate to promote maximum employment required aggressive action. But with rates at zero, the Fed could not cut further. It had to find new tools.
The Unconventional Toolbox: Quantitative Easing
With the federal funds rate at zero, the Fed turned to quantitative easing (QE) —the purchase of long-term securities to lower long-term interest rates and stimulate the economy. The logic was straightforward: When the Fed buys bonds, it drives up their prices and drives down their yields (interest rates). Lower long-term interest rates reduce borrowing costs for mortgages, corporate bonds, and other loans, encouraging spending and investment. The Fed also injects liquidity into the financial system, increasing the money supply and encouraging lending.
QE1: The First Round (November 2008 – March 2010)
The Fed announced the first round of quantitative easing on November 25, 2008. Initially, the Fed committed to purchasing $600 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and $100 billion in agency debt (debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The goal was to lower mortgage rates, support the housing market, and provide liquidity to the securitization market, which had frozen after Lehman collapsed. The program was expanded in March 2009 to include an additional $750 billion in MBS purchases, $100 billion in agency debt, and $300 billion in Treasury bonds. By the time QE1 ended in March 2010, the Fed had purchased approximately $1.75 trillion in securities, including $1.25 trillion in MBS.
The impact on mortgage rates was immediate and significant. The 30-year fixed mortgage rate, which had been above 6.5% in mid-2008, fell to 4.8% by early 2009 and to 4.2% by the end of the program. This helped stabilize the housing market by making homes more affordable and enabling refinancing for millions of homeowners. The stock market also rallied, as lower interest rates made equities more attractive relative to bonds. The S&P 500, which had bottomed at 666 in March 2009, rose to 1,100 by the end of 2009—a 65% increase.
QE2: The Second Round (November 2010 – June 2011)
By the summer of 2010, the recovery was losing momentum. Unemployment remained stubbornly high at 9.5%, and there were fears of a double-dip recession. Inflation was running below the Fed’s 2% target, and some measures of inflation expectations were falling, raising the specter of deflationDeflation Full Description:Deflation is the opposite of inflation and is often far more destructive in a depression. As demand collapses, prices fall. To maintain profit margins, businesses cut wages or fire workers, which further reduces demand, causing prices to fall even further. Critical Perspective:Deflation redistributes wealth from debtors (the working class, farmers, and small businesses) to creditors (banks and bondholders). Because the amount of money owed remains fixed while wages and prices drop, the “real” burden of debt becomes insurmountable. This dynamic trapped millions in poverty and led to the mass foreclosure of homes and farms.—a sustained decline in prices that can lead to a depression. Bernanke warned that the economy was “not out of the woods.”
In a speech at the Jackson Hole economic symposium in August 2010, Bernanke signaled that the Fed was prepared to launch another round of quantitative easing. The speech was controversial; some critics accused the Fed of manipulating the election (the midterms were in November). In November 2010, the Fed announced QE2: a commitment to purchase $600 billion in longer-term Treasury bonds at a rate of $75 billion per month. The program was scheduled to run through June 2011.
QE2 was less effective than QE1. The economy was no longer in free fall, but it was also not growing fast enough to reduce unemployment. The stock market rose, and long-term interest rates fell modestly. But mortgage rates did not decline much further; they were already near historic lows. By June 2011, the Fed had completed the purchases, and the economy continued its slow, grinding recovery.
Operation Twist (September 2011 – December 2012)
In September 2011, the Fed launched Operation Twist—named after a similar program in the 1960s. The Fed would sell short-term Treasury securities (with maturities of three years or less) and use the proceeds to purchase longer-term Treasuries (with maturities of six to thirty years). The goal was to “twist” the yield curve, flattening it by lowering long-term rates while raising short-term rates (though short rates were already near zero, so the impact was limited). The program’s total size was $400 billion. Operation Twist was intended to further lower borrowing costs for households and businesses without expanding the Fed’s balance sheet. The Fed completed the program in December 2012, having extended the average maturity of its Treasury holdings from six years to eight years.
QE3: Open-Ended Purchases (September 2012 – October 2014)
On September 13, 2012, the Fed announced a third round of quantitative easing. Unlike QE1 and QE2, which had fixed end dates, QE3 was open-ended. The Fed committed to purchasing $40 billion per month in mortgage-backed securities, with no pre-determined end date. The program would continue until the labor market showed “substantial improvement.” In December 2012, the Fed added $45 billion per month in long-term Treasury purchases, bringing the total monthly purchase to $85 billion.
QE3 marked a shift in the Fed’s approach. By committing to open-ended purchases, the Fed signaled that it would continue to support the economy for as long as necessary. The “taper tantrum” of 2013 occurred when Bernanke hinted in May that the Fed might begin reducing its purchases sooner than expected. Bond yields spiked, mortgage rates rose, and emerging markets experienced capital outflows—a reminder of how sensitive global markets were to Fed communication.
The Fed began “tapering” its purchases in December 2013, reducing them by $10 billion per month. The final purchase occurred in October 2014. By then, the Fed’s balance sheet had reached $4.5 trillion —up from $900 billion before the crisis.
Emergency Lending Facilities: The Fed as Lender of Last Resort
While quantitative easing attracted the most public attention, the Fed’s emergency lending facilities were arguably more important in stopping the immediate panic. Between 2007 and 2010, the Fed created more than a dozen new lending programs, many of them aimed at non-bank financial institutions that had no other access to emergency liquidity.
The Term Auction Facility (TAF): Created in December 2007, the TAF allowed banks to borrow from the Fed at a fixed rate for terms of 28 to 84 days, using a wider range of collateral than was normally accepted. The TAF provided more than $3.8 trillion in loans to banks, with peak borrowing of $480 billion in 2008. The TAF was designed to address the stigma associated with borrowing from the Fed’s discount window; banks were reluctant to use the discount window because it signaled weakness. The TAF’s auctions were anonymous, reducing the stigma.
The Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF): Created in March 2008 after the Bear Stearns rescue, the PDCF allowed investment banks (primary dealers) to borrow directly from the Fed, just as commercial banks could. This was a major expansion of the Fed’s authority; investment banks had not been eligible for Fed lending since the 1930s. The PDCF provided up to $150 billion in loans at its peak.
The Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF): Created in September 2008 after the Reserve Primary Fund “broke the buck,” the AMLF lent to banks to purchase asset-backed commercial paper from money market funds. The goal was to stop runs on money market funds, which held more than $3.5 trillion in assets. The facility provided more than $150 billion in loans.
The Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF): Created in October 2008, the CPFF allowed the Fed to purchase commercial paper directly from issuers. The commercial paper market, which funded corporate payrolls and inventory, had frozen after Lehman failed. The CPFF provided a backstop, restoring confidence and allowing corporations to issue short-term debt again. At its peak, the CPFF held $350 billion in commercial paper.
The Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF): Created in November 2008, the TALF lent to investors to purchase newly issued asset-backed securities (ABS) backed by consumer and business loans (auto loans, student loans, credit card receivables, small business loans). The goal was to restart the securitization market, which had collapsed after Lehman. The TALF provided more than $70 billion in loans.
Currency Swap Lines: The Fed established or expanded swap lines with 14 foreign central banks, including the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Swiss National Bank, and the Bank of Japan. The swap lines provided dollars to foreign banks, which were experiencing a severe shortage of dollar funding because European banks had borrowed short-term dollars from US money market funds. At their peak in December 2008, the swap lines had lent nearly $600 billion. The swap lines were critical in stopping the global contagion.
Forward Guidance: Managing Expectations
In addition to asset purchases and emergency lending, the Fed used forward guidance—explicit statements about the future path of interest rates—to influence expectations. The logic was that if the Fed could convince markets that rates would stay low for a long time, long-term interest rates would fall even without additional bond purchases.
The first explicit forward guidance came in August 2011, when the Fed announced that it expected rates to stay at “exceptionally low levels” at least through mid-2013. In December 2012, the Fed adopted an “economic thresholds” approach: it pledged to keep rates near zero until the unemployment rate fell below 6.5%, provided that inflation did not exceed 2.5% and that inflation expectations remained anchored. The thresholds were novel because they tied policy to specific economic outcomes, rather than calendar dates.
When the unemployment rate fell below 6.5% in March 2014, the Fed revised its guidance to emphasize that it would consider a broader range of labor market conditions, not just the unemployment rate. The Fed did not actually raise rates until December 2015, and the first hike was only 25 basis points. Forward guidance succeeded in convincing markets that rates would stay low for an extended period. Long-term interest rates remained low even after the Fed ended its asset purchases.
Did It Work? The Debate Over QE’s Effectiveness
The effectiveness of quantitative easing remains hotly debated. Supporters argue that QE prevented a depression, lowered borrowing costs, and supported asset prices. Critics argue that QE primarily benefited the wealthy, did little for the real economy, and created the risk of future inflation and financial instability.
The Case for QE
Economists at the Federal Reserve and many academic institutions have estimated that QE lowered long-term interest rates by 50 to 100 basis points (0.5 to 1.0 percentage points). This may not sound like much, but it translates into significant savings for borrowers. A 50-basis-point reduction in mortgage rates on a $200,000 loan saves a homeowner about $60 per month—or $21,600 over the life of the loan. Collectively, QE saved homeowners billions of dollars in interest payments.
The stock market rally that accompanied QE also had real effects. By boosting the value of retirement accounts and other assets, QE increased household wealth and supported consumer spending. Research by the Federal Reserve Board estimated that the wealth effect—the increase in spending resulting from higher asset prices—added about 0.5 to 1.0 percentage points to GDP growth per year during the recovery.
Perhaps most importantly, QE signaled the Fed’s commitment to doing whatever it took to support the economy. This “confidence effect” may have been the most important channel of all. By demonstrating that the Fed would not allow deflation or a depression, QE prevented a self-fulfilling spiral of falling prices and falling demand.
The Case Against QE
Critics, including some prominent economists, argue that QE’s benefits were modest and unevenly distributed. The main beneficiaries were the wealthy, who own most stocks and bonds. The bottom 50% of households own only 0.5% of corporate equities; they benefited little from the stock market rally. The homeownership rate, which had been 69% before the crisis, fell to 64% by 2015. Homeowners who refinanced benefited, but millions of foreclosed homeowners lost everything.
Critics also argue that QE created distortions in financial markets. Low interest rates encouraged excessive risk-taking. Investors, searching for yield, poured money into risky assets, creating bubbles in emerging markets, commodities, and corporate bonds. The 2013 “taper tantrum” showed how dependent emerging markets had become on Fed liquidity. Some economists argue that QE’s easy-money policies contributed to the rise of inequality and the populist backlash of the 2010s.
Perhaps the most common criticism—that QE would cause runaway inflation—proved wrong. Inflation averaged less than 1.5% per year during the recovery, well below the Fed’s 2% target. The money supply (M2) grew rapidly, but the velocity of money—the rate at which money changes hands—collapsed as banks hoarded reserves and households hoarded cash. The Fed had created money, but the money did not circulate. The quantity theory of money, which predicts that increasing the money supply causes inflation, failed to hold because the velocity collapse offset the money supply increase. Economists are still debating why.
The Exit: Raising Rates and Shrinking the Balance Sheet
The Fed began raising interest rates in December 2015, seven years after cutting them to zero. The increase was tiny—just 25 basis points—but it was a milestone. The Fed raised rates gradually over the next three years, reaching 2.5% by the end of 2018. The Fed also began shrinking its balance sheet in October 2017, allowing bonds to mature without reinvesting the proceeds. The balance sheet fell from $4.5 trillion to $3.8 trillion by 2019.
But the normalization process was interrupted. In 2019, the repo market—the short-term funding market for banks and other financial institutions—experienced a sudden spike in interest rates, forcing the Fed to intervene with emergency lending. The episode revealed that the financial system was still dependent on Fed support. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, the Fed immediately slashed rates back to zero and launched another round of quantitative easing, pushing its balance sheet past $7 trillion.
The Fed’s exit from the post-2008 policies was incomplete. The legacy of QE is a balance sheet that is permanently larger, a federal funds rate that never returned to pre-crisis levels (peaking at 2.5% in 2018, far below the 5% levels of the 1990s or the 6% levels of the 2000s), and a toolkit that now includes QE as a permanent fixture.
The Unlearned Lessons
The Fed’s response to the Great Recession was bold, creative, and largely successful. It prevented a second Great Depression. It stabilized the financial system. It supported a slow but steady recovery. But it also revealed the limits of central banking. Monetary policy alone cannot fix a broken banking system, cannot repair a collapsed housing market, and cannot restore jobs lost to structural change. The Fed did its job. The rest of the government—fiscal policy, regulatory policy, housing policy—did not always do its part.
The post-crisis era also raised uncomfortable questions about the Fed’s power and accountability. The Fed lent trillions of dollars to financial institutions, many of which had caused the crisis. It operated with little transparency. Its actions benefited the wealthy far more than the poor. And its independence—once considered sacred—was challenged by politicians who saw the Fed as a tool of Wall Street.
The next crisis will come. The Fed will again cut rates to zero and restart QE. The question is whether the next recession will be as deep as the last, and whether the Fed has any ammunition left. With rates already low before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fed had little room to cut. The unconventional tools—QE, forward guidance, emergency lending—have become conventional. But they are not a cure-all. The lessons of 2008 are that central banking can save the financial system, but it cannot save the economy alone.
Conclusion
The Federal Reserve’s response to the Great Recession was the most aggressive and unconventional monetary policy in American history. It cut interest rates to zero, launched three rounds of quantitative easing, and created a dozen emergency lending facilities. The Fed’s balance sheet ballooned from $900 billion to $4.5 trillion. The central bank became the lender of last resort to the entire financial system, not just to commercial banks.
The policy worked, at least in the narrow sense. The financial system stabilized. The depression was averted. The recovery, though slow, eventually arrived. But the policy also had costs: it widened inequality, distorted financial markets, and created a dependency on easy money that proved difficult to reverse. The Fed learned that it could prevent a depression, but it could not engineer a rapid return to full employment. That required fiscal policy—and fiscal policy was not forthcoming.
The legacy of the Fed’s response is visible today: a permanently larger balance sheet, a toolkit that includes QE, and a generation of economists who have learned that the zero lower bound is not the end of policy. The next crisis will test whether these lessons have been learned—and whether the Fed has the tools and the will to use them.
Further Reading & Sources
· Bernanke, Ben S. The Courage to Act: A Memoir of a Financial Crisis and Its Aftermath. W.W. Norton, 2015.
· Bernanke, Ben S. “The Federal Reserve and the Financial Crisis.” Lectures at George Washington University, 2012.
· Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve SystemFederal Reserve System Full Description:The central banking system of the United States, responsible for managing the money supply and interest rates. Its inaction and adherence to flawed economic theories during the early years of the crisis are often blamed for turning a recession into a depression. The Federal Reserve failed in its primary role as the “lender of last resort.” As banks began to fail, the Fed stood by, believing that weeding out “weak” banks was healthy for the economy. Furthermore, it raised interest rates to protect the gold standard, which further restricted the money supply at the precise moment the economy needed liquidity.
Critical Perspective:The failure of the Fed highlights the dangers of rigid economic orthodoxy. The central bankers prioritized the strength of the currency and the interests of creditors (the value of gold) over the employment and livelihoods of the population. It demonstrates how technical monetary decisions are deeply political, determining who bears the cost of an economic adjustment.
Read more. “Federal Reserve Policy Responses to the Crisis.” Various reports and data releases.
· Gagnon, Joseph, et al. “The Effects of the Federal Reserve’s Large-Scale Asset Purchases.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report, 2010.
· Yellen, Janet L. “The Federal Reserve’s Monetary Policy Toolkit.” Speech to the National Association for Business Economics, 2016.
Leave a Reply