The Federal Reserve System
Central bank of the United States
Markets Intern - Markets Group
Work is fully on-site; summer housing is not provided.
About the job
- Demonstrated interest in financial markets, economics, public policy, or finance, along with a strong academic record.
- Quantitative analysis skills and familiarity with spreadsheets, databases, and analytical tools such as Excel and SQL.
- Academic exposure or experience in international and domestic capital markets and instruments, and United States monetary policy and economics.
- Ability to source, prepare, and visually represent data for written reports using common tools such as Excel and Tableau.
- Ability to perform preliminary research and help prepare data regarding foreign and domestic market issues.
- Prepare charts, tables, graphs, and other supporting documentation for the Markets Group’s research and market analysis.
- Support senior staff with economic and financial data analysis.
- Help execute the Group’s funds, securities, trading, and settlement activities, including preparing and maintaining preliminary internal reports, entering operational results, following up on discrepancies, resolving discrepancies, and testing the implementation of new products.
- Programming experience, such as Python or R.
About the company
The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States that conducts national monetary policy, supervises and regulates banks and bank holding companies, and provides financial services for banks and the U.S. government. It uses tools like setting interest rates, market operations, bank supervision, and payments services to influence credit, prices, and financial stability, operating through 12 regional banks and a Board in Washington. It is different from private banks because it is a public-mission institution with a nationwide mandate and a regional structure that blends national policy with local insight, not focused on profits. Its goal is to promote a strong economy and a stable financial system for the United States.
Company Size
1,001-5,000
Company Stage
N/A
Total Funding
N/A
Headquarters
null
Founded
1913
Get referred to The Federal Reserve System
See people who can refer or advise you
Simplify's Take
What believers are saying
- September 16, 2026 rate hike to 3.75%-4% restores the Fed's policy relevance.
- The 2026 Small Business Credit Survey expands employer influence across lending and policy.
- Tannaz Haddadi's September 2026 Deputy CISO appointment signals continued cybersecurity investment.
What critics are saying
- Better Markets sued on September 10, 2026 over alleged Basel III rulemaking rigging.
- Federal Reserve capital rules face legal delay, risking years of regulatory paralysis.
- A cybersecurity breach at the Board would damage trust and trigger congressional intervention.
What makes The Federal Reserve System unique
- The Fed sets U.S. monetary policy through a 12-0 September 16, 2026 vote.
- Its New York Desk controls open market operations and reserve management nationwide.
- Regional Banks combine local employer scale with Board-level policy, supervision, and payments infrastructure.
Help us improve and share your feedback! Did you find this helpful?
Benefits
Health Insurance
Dental Insurance
Vision Insurance
401(k) Company Match
401(k) Retirement Plan
Paid Vacation
Paid Sick Leave
Paid Holidays
Pet Insurance
Wellness Program
Company News
The Federal Reserve raised interest rates by 25 basis points on 16 September, bringing the target range to 3.75% to 4%. This marks the first increase since July 2023, when rates peaked at 5.25% to 5.5%. The additive manufacturing industry previously suffered during the last tightening cycle. Global industrial 3D printer shipments fell 9% in 2023, according to market intelligence firm CONTEXT. Fourth-quarter shipments dropped 13% year-over-year, with industrial polymer systems declining 25%. Desktop Metal and Stratasys both reported that elevated interest rates contributed to delayed purchasing decisions and longer sales cycles. Stratasys saw revenue decline 3.7% in 2023 as customers deferred system orders. However, interest rates alone did not cause the downturn. The industry also faced post-pandemic normalisation, overcapacity, and disappointing adoption rates.
Revolut and Fed incidents expose new risks inside banking's trust system. Revolut and the Federal Reserve are in the news this week after suffering two banking infrastructure compromises. However, the most interesting thing about the separate incidents isn't what happened; it's what did not. Hackers did not have to break into Revolut to obtain sensitive customer information. And banks did not have to suffer their own technology failures for an outage at the Fed's National Information Center (NIC) to disrupt infrastructure used to monitor the financial system. Instead, the soft spots appeared inside the trusted institutional machinery surrounding financial institutions. Revolut first confirmed Friday (Sept. 11) that it was fooled by a fake emergency data request coming from a real, but compromised, government-agency email from Italy's PEC certified-email system, Reuters reported Saturday (Sept. 12). Attackers exchanged messages with Revolut over several months while impersonating law enforcement, resulting in the FinTech sharing sensitive client information that potentially includes identity documents, verification selfies, addresses, account statements and transaction histories, including cryptocurrency activity. Revolut is now reportedly being extorted by the hackers behind the compromise. Reached by PYMNTS, a Revolut spokesperson said Wednesday (Sept. 16): "Revolut recently identified a sophisticated external impersonation scam where an unauthorized third party utilized a legitimate government agency domain email to submit fraudulent requests for information. Upon detection, we immediately blocked the address and alerted the relevant government agency as well as enforcement agencies, data protection and financial regulators. Revolut systems and customer funds are unaffected. We have contacted the limited number of impacted individuals directly to inform them and provide support." Meanwhile, the Fed's NIC, a repository that regulators use to collect and share information about financial institutions, suffered an August outage that disrupted internal systems and data pipelines across several Fed business areas, including systems serving the discount window, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday (Sept. 15). The incidents are unrelated, and their severity is different. But together they expose an emerging operational problem for financial institutions. Banks have spent years strengthening their own defenses and scrutinizing their vendors. The next risk perimeter may include the institutions banks are required to trust, something harder to control. Banks secured their perimeters, but the risk is moving outside. Financial institutions spent $21 billion in 2025 solving identity problems, according to Juniper Research, which estimated $39 billion would be spent in 2030. Know your customer (KYC) systems ask whether a customer really is who they claim to be. Know your business (KYB) programs attempt to establish the legitimacy and ownership of corporate customers. Authentication technologies continuously determine whether someone accessing an account possesses the appropriate credentials. The PYMNTS Intelligence report "Payment Protection: Why Firms Still Aren't Real-Time Ready" found in August that 65% of firms plan to adopt or expand identity verification and KYC automation within the next 12 months, putting it ahead of secure bank connectivity and artificial intelligence-based fraud detection, both at 59%. Only reconciliation automation, at 70%, drew more near-term interest. Separate data from the PYMNTS Intelligence report "When 'Good Enough' Isn't Enough: Digital Identity Verification in the Age of Bots and Agents" revealed in January that financial services firms lose nearly $34 billion in revenue because of identity verification failures. However, government requests turn the equation around. A bank can establish that a message came through legitimate government infrastructure without necessarily establishing that the individual using it possesses legitimate authority to request a specific customer's data. That problem is particularly consequential for financial institutions because banks possess unusually complete collections of identity information. The very controls designed to prevent financial crime can produce unusually valuable targets for it. KYC and anti-money laundering rules require institutions to know their customers. The consequence is that banks may hold passports, driver's licenses, addresses, verification photographs and detailed financial histories in the same environment. That changes where fake government and emergency data requests belong on a bank's risk map. They are not simply phishing attacks. They exploit institutional trust. "In the life cycle of a fraud or a scam, most of those fraudulent scenarios are happening outside of the banking system," Colin Parsons, head of fraud product strategy at Nasdaq Verafin, told PYMNTS in an interview published Sept. 3. "The challenge really is that it only becomes visible to an institution at the time a transaction's occurring, or money's moving." Operational risk is escaping the bank. The Fed's NIC outage presents almost the opposite scenario. Instead of an attacker abusing trust in government infrastructure, the government infrastructure itself became unavailable. Banks have sophisticated answers for commercial dependencies. They can negotiate service-level agreements. They can demand cybersecurity certifications. They can maintain backup processors, diversify cloud workloads and build contingency plans around core providers. Government infrastructure is different. A financial institution cannot simply switch regulators because one system experiences downtime. Nor can it dictate the technical architecture of a law enforcement communications platform through which it receives lawful information requests. The NIC supports the collection and sharing of public and confidential information about financial institutions among regulators. The August outage affected its public-facing system but also disrupted internal systems and data pipelines. Critical functions remained operational, the Fed said, per The Wall Street Journal report. The cause has not been publicly established. Financial institutions can have functioning servers, functioning security controls and functioning employees and still experience consequences because something outside their perimeter failed or because an outside institution they legitimately trusted was successfully impersonated. The PYMNTS Intelligence report "2025 State of Fraud and Financial Crime in the United States" found in December that 68% of financial institutions increased their fraud detection budgets year over year. That spending came as 46% of institutions reported sophisticated fraud schemes, up from 35% a year earlier. The financial industry's next perimeter may not be a perimeter at all.
Federal Reserve asks Oklahoma City small businesses to weigh in on economic conditions. Published on 12 September 2026 at 2:30 pm - Written by Sarah Collins - Reading duration: 2 minutes Show summary The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber has teamed up with the Federal Reserve to gather local small-business voices for the 2026 Small Business Credit Survey, a nationwide effort that shapes lending decisions and policy. With responses due by Nov. 13, organizers say timely local participation will influence how resources and support reach area companies. Why this matters now. Data from the survey feeds directly into analyses used by banks, policymakers and technical-assistance providers. That means the way owners describe access to capital, staffing plans and profitability expectations can change the conversation about credit, grants and programs aimed at small firms in the months ahead. Who is eligible. The questionnaire is intended for owners and the main financial decision-makers at for-profit enterprises with fewer than 500 employees. Participation is open to businesses that are currently operating, those that have recently closed and entrepreneurs preparing to launch. Respondents do not need to supply personal identifying details; instead, the survey focuses on the company's financial situation and outlook. What the survey asks. It takes roughly a quarter-hour to complete and covers several areas that matter to lenders and local economies: * Business conditions - current revenues, cash flow and immediate pressures * Use of debt - loans, lines of credit and reliance on personal funds * Financing experiences - approval rates, terms offered and barriers encountered * Expectations - plans for hiring, investment and profitability over the coming year All 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks collect responses for this annual snapshot, which makes it one of the most comprehensive datasets on small-business credit trends in the U.S. Local impact, national reach. A stronger response from Oklahoma City can sharpen how national data reflects local realities. For example, if more area firms report challenges securing term loans or persistent cash-flow gaps, that information can prompt lenders and agencies to adjust outreach or product offerings for similar markets. Conversely, if respondents report improving conditions, the findings can validate recovery patterns and influence the timing of technical-assistance programs. Chamber officials encourage owners and finance leads to take part before the deadline to ensure the region's experience is represented in the final report. Participation is voluntary, anonymous and online; the survey will remain open through Nov. 13. Responses help shape the evidence base used by decision-makers who affect credit access, support services and small-business policy. Give your feedback. Sarah Collins writes about lifestyle, health, and well-being in Mustang. She shares practical tips to improve daily life, manage time, and build better habits. Mustang News is an independent media. Support Mustang News by adding Mustang News to your Google News favorites:
Better Markets sues Fed and Bowman over alleged corrupt capital-rules process. Advocacy group Better Markets has sued the Federal Reserve and Governor Michelle Bowman, alleging the Fed's supervision chief coached bank CEOs to skew public comment in favor of capital proposals. A prominent financial advocacy group has taken the extraordinary step of suing the Federal Reserve and one of its sitting governors, alleging that the central bank's process for setting bank capital requirements was corrupted from the inside - not by outside lobbying, but by the Fed's own leadership guiding the industry narrative before public comment periods even closed. Better Markets, the Washington-based nonprofit that has consistently pushed for stricter post-crisis financial regulation, filed the lawsuit naming Federal Reserve Governor Michelle Bowman as a defendant alongside the central bank itself. At the heart of the complaint is an allegation that the Fed's supervision chief held private meetings with bank chief executive officers with the explicit purpose of steering the public comments those institutions would submit - engineering the appearance of broad industry support for the capital proposals rather than allowing an independent and organic rulemaking record to develop. If the allegations are proven, the implications would reach far beyond the specific capital rules at stake. Administrative rulemaking in the United States rests on a foundational premise: that public comment periods are genuine consultations, not orchestrated performance. Federal agencies are required under the Administrative Procedure Act to solicit and meaningfully consider public input before finalizing major rules. When an agency is accused of stage-managing that input - coaching the very parties whose compliance it regulates to submit comments that validate a predetermined outcome - it strikes at the legitimacy of the entire regulatory architecture. Better Markets has characterized the conduct as "corrupt rulemaking," language that is deliberately provocative but legally precise in its framing. The group is not merely alleging procedural irregularities; it is arguing that the integrity of the rulemaking record itself was compromised by coordination between the Fed's supervisory leadership and the senior executives of the institutions subject to that supervision. That allegation, if substantiated through discovery, would represent one of the most serious process failures in modern central banking history in the United States. The timing of the lawsuit adds another layer of significance. Capital requirements for large banks have been among the most fiercely contested regulatory battlegrounds since the collapse of several regional institutions in 2023 reignited debate over whether existing buffers were adequate. Industry groups and individual banks spent years pushing back against proposals that would have substantially increased required capital levels, arguing that tighter buffers would constrain lending and damage economic growth. Regulators, meanwhile, faced sustained political pressure from both directions - from progressive critics demanding stronger protections and from industry allies in Congress urging restraint. Against that backdrop, allegations that a senior Fed official was actively coaching banks on how to frame their public objections or endorsements carries particular weight. Governor Bowman, who was confirmed by the Senate and has been a visible presence in debates over bank supervision, is now personally named in litigation that questions whether her conduct - or the conduct of the supervision division she oversees - crossed from permissible stakeholder engagement into impermissible coordination. The distinction matters enormously under administrative law. Regulators routinely speak with regulated entities during rulemaking; what they cannot do is use those conversations to shape the evidentiary record in ways that distort the agency's own deliberative process. The Federal Reserve has not yet publicly detailed its response to the complaint, and it would be premature to treat the allegations as established facts. Litigation of this nature frequently involves protracted discovery battles, jurisdictional disputes, and the question of whether the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the rulemaking process in federal court. Better Markets has pursued aggressive legal strategies before, and courts have not always agreed with its theories of standing or liability. Nevertheless, the filing itself forces a public reckoning with questions about how financial regulators engage with the industry during sensitive rulemaking cycles - and whether current guardrails are sufficient to prevent even the appearance of coordination. What this means for regulatory credibility. For the broader financial regulatory system, this lawsuit arrives at a moment when public trust in institutional impartiality is already strained. Capital requirements are not abstract accounting exercises; they determine how much risk the banking system can absorb before taxpayers are called upon to backstop losses. Any credible allegation that the rulemaking process governing those buffers was manipulated - whether by external lobbying or, far more troublingly, by internal coordination - demands serious judicial scrutiny. Whatever the ultimate legal outcome, the Fed's leadership will need to demonstrate with specificity that the public comment process in capital rulemaking was conducted at arm's length from the institutions it regulates. The cost of failing to do so is not just a court ruling, but the erosion of the institutional authority on which effective financial supervision depends. Klaus hartmann. Banking infrastructure correspondent. Tracks the Bundesbank, the ECB and German Mittelstand financial systems. § Comments Open discussion no account needed
Lawsuit accuses Bowman, Fed of 'rigging' comment process. Published September 10, 2026, 1:57 p.m. EDT Updated September 10, 2026, 2:27 p.m. EDT * Key insight: The Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman are being sued over the agency's handling of the notice-and-comment rulemaking process for its latest Basel III capital proposal. * Expert quote: "The APA's fundamental purposes, including ensuring that the public has a meaningful opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process and that any resulting rules are based on the public record, public deliberations, and reasoned decision-making, have been subverted." - Better Markets lawsuit against the Fed * Forward look: The suit asks the court to withdraw the proposal and to instruct Bowman to recuse herself from the rulemaking process. The Federal Reserve Board and its chief regulatory officer are being sued over their handling of the notice-and-comment period for their latest push to finalize the Basel III capital standards. Today's mortgage market faces a key challenge: maintaining profitability amid thin margins and rising operational costs. Staff writer Kyle Campbell covers the Federal Reserve and housing policy for American Banker. Previously, he wrote about institutional investment in real estate... Read full bio