In 1999, the Fed adapted its post-meeting statement to communicate more information about the outlook for the economy and the implications for monetary policy by disclosing a so-called bias. In December 2004, the FOMC decided to advance the release of the minutes to a date three weeks after the meeting, and in doing so provided a more timely picture of the FOMC’s rationale for its decision, its view of the economic outlook and the implications for monetary policy going forward. In January 2005, the FOMC added a year to its semiannual public forecast of the outlook for growth and inflation, and by extending the horizon the forecast, provided greater insight into the inflation preferences of members of the committee. These changes in the transparency of the conduct of U.S. monetary policy have been motivated by a judgment that monetary policy works more effectively if the central bank is more explicit about its objectives, about its view of the outlook for growth and inflation, and about the framework it uses to make policy choices. Since monetary policy operates through its effects not just on the overnight inter-bank rate but on expectation about the future path of that rate and other asset prices, greater disclosure about the Fed’s forecast and the rationale for its decisions should help financial market prices reflect more accurately the future stance of monetary policy and make monetary policy more effective.
.” and affording “the means of discounting commercial paper.” Decision-making authority was vested in an institution structured to bring a diversity of largely independent perspectives to the table, for many of the same reasons that most governments vest monetary policy authority today with committees rather than individuals. The Federal Reserve was set up with a balance of public and private perspectives, drawn from across the country – a structure designed to avoid concentrating too much power in Washington, and also to provide a counterweight to New York. This body was comprised of a group of seven governors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate – five governors and the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller of the Currency – and the heads (then called Governors) of 12 reserve banks. The terms of the Washington-based “Board of Governors” were long and staggered, giving them an extended horizon for policy making more  consistent with the time frame in which monetary policy works and with the long-term interests of the nation than might be shaped by the electoral calendar. Reserve Bank presidents were appointed by their boards of directors. The Reserve Banks, spread across the country, were established as individual corporate entities, owned by banks, with individual boards of directors, a majority of which were elected by the bank shareholders.