environment. Some hedging or ambiguity in the committees official statements may therefore be difficult to avoid. In practice, however, the FOMC s guidance after the crisis-as mediated by the public comments of policymakers-did seem to have Odyssean effects. Notably, the Feds introduction of forward guidance was typically followed by changes in longer-term interest rates, exchange rates, and equity prices consistent with substantial increases in monetary accommodation(Femia et al., 2013; Swanson, 2017) and by reduced sensitivity of near-term rate expectations to economic news(williams, 2014). The increases in equity prices in particular suggested that markets were focused on the FOMC's signal of greater policy patience(the Odyssean aspect)rather than on an indication of greater pessimism delphic). moreover professional forecasters reacted to FOMC guidance by repeatedly marking down the unemployment rate they expected to prevail at the time that the Committee began to lift the funds rate away from zero, implying a perceived shift in the Fed's expected reaction function (Bernanke, 2012; Femia et al., 2013). The apparent success of the FOMC's guidance, developee on the fly, is promising for the future use of verbal interventions. As both central bankers and market participants gain experience with forward guidance, the tool should become increasingly effective Another important distinction is between qualitative guidance("considerable period) and quantitative guidance, for example, describing specific economic conditions that would lead to a change in policy. Over the years, Fed guidance has evolved from qualitative towards quantitative, reflecting the desire to enhance transparency as well as the imperative of adding substantial accommodation during the ZlB period. Economic logic suggests that quantitative guidance will be more effective, because it is both more precise and more verifiable ex post(and thus easier to support by reputational concerns). However, again, a policy committee may not al ways be able to agree on quantitative guidance. It may also be the case that uncertainty about the economic situation favors the relative ambiguity of a qualitative formulation, at least initially Experience suggest though that qualitative guidance, if maintained for a while, often morphs into quantitative guidance, as market participants, legislative committees, and other stakeholders press policymakers to clarify the meaning of key phrases Yet another dimension of forward guidance is time-dependency versus state-dependency The FOMC used both types after the crisis, indicating first that it expected to hold rates low through a certain date, then tying rate increases to thresholds based on the prevailing7 environment. Some hedging or ambiguity in the committee’s official statements may therefore be difficult to avoid. In practice, however, the FOMC’s guidance after the crisis—as mediated by the public comments of policymakers—did seem to have Odyssean effects. Notably, the Fed’s introduction of forward guidance was typically followed by changes in longer-term interest rates, exchange rates, and equity prices consistent with substantial increases in monetary accommodation (Femia et al., 2013; Swanson, 2017) and by reduced sensitivity of near-term rate expectations to economic news (Williams, 2014). The increases in equity prices in particular suggested that markets were focused on the FOMC’s signal of greater policy patience (the Odyssean aspect) rather than on an indication of greater pessimism (Delphic). Moreover, professional forecasters reacted to FOMC guidance by repeatedly marking down the unemployment rate they expected to prevail at the time that the Committee began to lift the funds rate away from zero, implying a perceived shift in the Fed’s expected reaction function (Bernanke, 2012; Femia et al., 2013). The apparent success of the FOMC’s guidance, developed on the fly, is promising for the future use of verbal interventions. As both central bankers and market participants gain experience with forward guidance, the tool should become increasingly effective. Another important distinction is between qualitative guidance (“considerable period”) and quantitative guidance, for example, describing specific economic conditions that would lead to a change in policy. Over the years, Fed guidance has evolved from qualitative towards quantitative, reflecting the desire to enhance transparency as well as the imperative of adding substantial accommodation during the ZLB period. Economic logic suggests that quantitative guidance will be more effective, because it is both more precise and more verifiable ex post (and thus easier to support by reputational concerns). However, again, a policy committee may not always be able to agree on quantitative guidance. It may also be the case that uncertainty about the economic situation favors the relative ambiguity of a qualitative formulation, at least initially. Experience suggest though that qualitative guidance, if maintained for a while, often morphs into quantitative guidance, as market participants, legislative committees, and other stakeholders press policymakers to clarify the meaning of key phrases. Yet another dimension of forward guidance is time-dependency versus state-dependency. The FOMC used both types after the crisis, indicating first that it expected to hold rates low through a certain date, then tying rate increases to thresholds based on the prevailing