Federal Reserve Bank of New York · Nov 19, 2025
Crump, Dogra and Kongoli argue in Liberty Street Economics that excess seasonality faded
Markdown · JSON · Original source
Published November 19, 2025, Richard Crump, Keshav Dogra and Dennis Kongoli revisit whether U.S. monetary policy changes follow a seasonal pattern. They report that rate decreases were more common, and increases less common, at Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings in the first month of a quarter. Their imagines each year’s total rate change distributed evenly across that year’s meetings. For the period since 2012, the authors say this meeting-schedule comparison almost exactly accounts for the observed pattern, so the “excess seasonality” identified in the earlier post does not appear to have persisted beyond 2012. Across the full period they study, meeting timing accounts for a significant fraction of the pattern, but almost 200 remain unexplained by timing. The authors do not identify what accounts for that remaining difference.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
Federal Reserve Bank of New York · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 19, 2025 (2025-11-19T12:00:00.000Z).
Date basis: Date supplied by the publisher’s feed.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-09T23:43:23.664Z. First observed: 2026-10-30T17:21:57.721Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-30T17:23:46.324Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The analysis covers January 2000 to July 2025; its conclusions are limited to the period and comparisons described in the post. The comparison attributes part of the observed pattern to meeting timing but does not identify what accounts for the remaining difference in the full period. Text as retrieved on October 30, 2026; originally published November 19, 2025.
Open question
What accounts for the seasonal difference that the authors find is not explained by meeting timing over the full period they study?
Source-stated
Crump, Dogra and Kongoli report that rate cuts were over-represented and rate increases under-represented at meetings in the first month of a quarter.
meetings held in the first month of a quarter (blue dots) are over-represented when there are decreases in the target rate
Source-stated
The authors say that since 2012, the meeting schedule alone almost exactly accounts for the observed seasonal pattern.
the seasonal pattern we have observed since 2012 is essentially explained in full by the timing of FOMC meetings alone.
Source-stated
For the full period they analyze, the authors find that meeting timing explains a significant fraction of the seasonal pattern, but almost 200 basis points remain unexplained by timing.
while the timing of FOMC meetings can account for a significant fraction of the seasonality observed over this whole period, there is still almost 200 basis points that is not explained by timing.
Source-stated
The authors conclude that the excess seasonality identified in the earlier post does not appear to have persisted beyond 2012.
we can conclude that the “excess seasonality” noted in the original post does not appear to have persisted beyond 2012.
Source and contributor context
Federal Reserve Bank of New York · Publisher
The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred.
Source media
Media retrieval status: unchecked.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Counterfactual
An argument or scenario that considers what would have resulted if events had gone differently from how they actually did, such as if a policy had never been adopted; as an adjective, relating to this kind of thinking about what did not happen but could have.
Basis point
One hundredth of one per cent (0.01 per cent), so 100 basis points equal one percentage point; used in money and securities markets for differences in interest rates or yields.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 4f127748-049e-b361-dec6-9350f003c41a.
Prepared by openai/gpt-6-luna; grounding review by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5.
Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-09T23:39:07.217Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: bridge_admitted_by_model.
Observation: 224c5d397cae5615c8425141820173fccd9f227e6ee0d9a0a8e70bc22f4ae222. Source text hash: cbbc801577283fe855e514db52fe198dbe95152ba3bbd9c4feff3fd593cb19c6.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-09T23:43:23.664Z
Crump, Dogra and Kongoli argue in Liberty Street Economics that excess seasonality faded
Published November 19, 2025, Richard Crump, Keshav Dogra and Dennis Kongoli revisit whether U.S. monetary policy changes follow a seasonal pattern. They report that rate decreases were more common, and increases less common, at Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings in the first month of a quarter. Their imagines each year’s total rate change distributed evenly across that year’s meetings. For the period since 2012, the authors say this meeting-schedule comparison almost exactly accounts for the observed pattern, so the “excess seasonality” identified in the earlier post does not appear to have persisted beyond 2012. Across the full period they study, meeting timing accounts for a significant fraction of the pattern, but almost 200 remain unexplained by timing. The authors do not identify what accounts for that remaining difference.
Original source
Federal Reserve Bank of New York · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 19, 2025 (2025-11-19T12:00:00.000Z).
Date basis: Date supplied by the publisher’s feed.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-09T23:43:23.664Z. First observed: 2026-10-30T17:21:57.721Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-30T17:23:46.324Z.
Limits
The analysis covers January 2000 to July 2025; its conclusions are limited to the period and comparisons described in the post. The comparison attributes part of the observed pattern to meeting timing but does not identify what accounts for the remaining difference in the full period. Text as retrieved on October 30, 2026; originally published November 19, 2025.
Open question
What accounts for the seasonal difference that the authors find is not explained by meeting timing over the full period they study?
Source-stated
Crump, Dogra and Kongoli report that rate cuts were over-represented and rate increases under-represented at meetings in the first month of a quarter.
meetings held in the first month of a quarter (blue dots) are over-represented when there are decreases in the target rate
Source-stated
The authors say that since 2012, the meeting schedule alone almost exactly accounts for the observed seasonal pattern.
the seasonal pattern we have observed since 2012 is essentially explained in full by the timing of FOMC meetings alone.
Source-stated
For the full period they analyze, the authors find that meeting timing explains a significant fraction of the seasonal pattern, but almost 200 basis points remain unexplained by timing.
while the timing of FOMC meetings can account for a significant fraction of the seasonality observed over this whole period, there is still almost 200 basis points that is not explained by timing.
Source-stated
The authors conclude that the excess seasonality identified in the earlier post does not appear to have persisted beyond 2012.
we can conclude that the “excess seasonality” noted in the original post does not appear to have persisted beyond 2012.
Source and contributor context
Federal Reserve Bank of New York · Publisher
The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred.
Source media
Media retrieval status: unchecked.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Counterfactual
An argument or scenario that considers what would have resulted if events had gone differently from how they actually did, such as if a policy had never been adopted; as an adjective, relating to this kind of thinking about what did not happen but could have.
Basis point
One hundredth of one per cent (0.01 per cent), so 100 basis points equal one percentage point; used in money and securities markets for differences in interest rates or yields.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 4f127748-049e-b361-dec6-9350f003c41a.
Prepared by openai/gpt-6-luna; grounding review by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5.
Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-09T23:39:07.217Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: bridge_admitted_by_model.
Observation: 224c5d397cae5615c8425141820173fccd9f227e6ee0d9a0a8e70bc22f4ae222. Source text hash: cbbc801577283fe855e514db52fe198dbe95152ba3bbd9c4feff3fd593cb19c6.
passed · 2026-11-09T23:39:07.217Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 4f127748-049e-b361-dec6-9350f003c41a
attribution — pass: The reading attributes the analysis and conclusions to Richard Crump, Keshav Dogra and Dennis Kongoli in Liberty Street Economics, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This matches the byline and citation. The source is a single analytical post, not a listing.
Richard Crump, Keshav Dogra, and Dennis Kongoli
summary — pass: The summary accurately conveys the post. It covers the observed first-month-of-quarter pattern, the even-distribution counterfactual, the finding that since 2012 timing explains the pattern, and the roughly 200 basis points left unexplained over the full period. FOMC is spelled out, and counterfactual and basis point are defined beside the reading. The reference to the earlier post is not dated as 2012, but context makes it clear enough. The question follows directly from the evidence.
it can be completely explained by the timing of the FOMC calendar
date — pass: The reading gives November 19, 2025, which matches evidence.originalPublished and the source dateline. It presents no later events or hindsight framing. The retrieval date is disclosed separately, and the evidence is a publisher page, not an archive copy.
November 19, 2025
support — pass: Each claim is attributed and backed by a verbatim excerpt. Over-representation of cuts and under-representation of hikes in first months, the post-2012 full explanation by timing, the almost 200 bp residual, and the excess-seasonality conclusion all match the source. The note that the authors do not identify the residual's cause is consistent with the text.
there is still almost 200 basis points that is not explained by timing.
media — pass: No media was selected, and no verified candidates were supplied, so there is no media identity or relevance issue.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
An argument or scenario that considers what would have resulted if events had gone differently from how they actually did, such as if a policy had never been adopted; as an adjective, relating to this kind of thinking about what did not happen but could have.
Definition referenceOne hundredth of one per cent (0.01 per cent), so 100 basis points equal one percentage point; used in money and securities markets for differences in interest rates or yields.
Definition referenceAn argument or scenario that considers what would have resulted if events had gone differently from how they actually did, such as if a policy had never been adopted; as an adjective, relating to this kind of thinking about what did not happen but could have.
Definition referenceAn argument or scenario that considers what would have resulted if events had gone differently from how they actually did, such as if a policy had never been adopted; as an adjective, relating to this kind of thinking about what did not happen but could have.
Definition referenceOne hundredth of one per cent (0.01 per cent), so 100 basis points equal one percentage point; used in money and securities markets for differences in interest rates or yields.
Definition referenceAn argument or scenario that considers what would have resulted if events had gone differently from how they actually did, such as if a policy had never been adopted; as an adjective, relating to this kind of thinking about what did not happen but could have.
Definition reference