Recent Monetary History: A Monetarist Perspective

IF 0.7 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Applied Corporate Finance Pub Date : 2022-06-11 DOI:10.1111/jacf.12508
Brian Kantor
{"title":"Recent Monetary History: A Monetarist Perspective","authors":"Brian Kantor","doi":"10.1111/jacf.12508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The U.S. Federal Reserve System has recently added very large additional supplies of its own money, in the form of deposits (cash reserves) held by member banks with the Fed. The first injection of central bank money offered in exchange for Treasury Bonds and MBS (QE) was intended to overcome the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008-09. The second infusion of extra cash was intended to relieve the impact on the economy of the COVID lockdowns of 2020.</p><p>The increase in the money base—defined as commercial bank deposits with the FED plus currency in issue—after 2008 did not lead to any acceleration in what had become a very low rate of inflation. Nor did it lead to any notable acceleration in the supply of money, broadly defined. But both the money supply and spending reactions to the additional central bank money after 2020 have been very different. And the growth in the money supply accelerated sharply and, along with it, inflation.</p><p>The author explains these different outcomes in terms consistent with the monetarist and quantity theory traditions. A tradition that focuses on the importance of the demand for as well as the supply of money—including central bank money. The article shows that the demand for as well as the supply of cash reserves increased markedly after the GFC, reflecting the worldwide risk aversion and surfeit of capital. The exposed banks were reluctant to lend more and preferred to shore up their leveraged balance sheets holding extra cash which slowed down deposit growth. Banks in the wake of the COVID lockdowns have proved more willing to exchange cash for overdrafts, leading to rapid increases in the supply of deposits and money. Such increases have in turn led predictably to more spending as the extra money was exchanged for goods, services, and assets that caused prices to rise sharply.</p><p>To reverse these inflation trends, the Fed will need to control the supply of money and bank lending. To do so effectively, the Fed should attempt to estimate the demand for large (excess) cash reserves of the banking system and set the interest rate it offers on these cash reserves accordingly. But this Fed is not monetarist; it takes little notice of money or bank credit supplies and will continue to rely on its interest rate tool to limit demand. Nevertheless, monetarists and the market will be watching closely how well the Fed manages a transition not only to higher interest rates, but back to non-inflationary increases in the supply of money.</p>","PeriodicalId":46789,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Corporate Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Corporate Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jacf.12508","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The U.S. Federal Reserve System has recently added very large additional supplies of its own money, in the form of deposits (cash reserves) held by member banks with the Fed. The first injection of central bank money offered in exchange for Treasury Bonds and MBS (QE) was intended to overcome the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008-09. The second infusion of extra cash was intended to relieve the impact on the economy of the COVID lockdowns of 2020.

The increase in the money base—defined as commercial bank deposits with the FED plus currency in issue—after 2008 did not lead to any acceleration in what had become a very low rate of inflation. Nor did it lead to any notable acceleration in the supply of money, broadly defined. But both the money supply and spending reactions to the additional central bank money after 2020 have been very different. And the growth in the money supply accelerated sharply and, along with it, inflation.

The author explains these different outcomes in terms consistent with the monetarist and quantity theory traditions. A tradition that focuses on the importance of the demand for as well as the supply of money—including central bank money. The article shows that the demand for as well as the supply of cash reserves increased markedly after the GFC, reflecting the worldwide risk aversion and surfeit of capital. The exposed banks were reluctant to lend more and preferred to shore up their leveraged balance sheets holding extra cash which slowed down deposit growth. Banks in the wake of the COVID lockdowns have proved more willing to exchange cash for overdrafts, leading to rapid increases in the supply of deposits and money. Such increases have in turn led predictably to more spending as the extra money was exchanged for goods, services, and assets that caused prices to rise sharply.

To reverse these inflation trends, the Fed will need to control the supply of money and bank lending. To do so effectively, the Fed should attempt to estimate the demand for large (excess) cash reserves of the banking system and set the interest rate it offers on these cash reserves accordingly. But this Fed is not monetarist; it takes little notice of money or bank credit supplies and will continue to rely on its interest rate tool to limit demand. Nevertheless, monetarists and the market will be watching closely how well the Fed manages a transition not only to higher interest rates, but back to non-inflationary increases in the supply of money.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
近代货币史:货币主义者的视角
美国联邦储备系统最近以成员银行在美联储持有的存款(现金储备)的形式增加了大量自己的货币供应。首次注入央行资金以换取美国国债和抵押贷款支持证券(QE),旨在克服2008-09年的全球金融危机(GFC)。第二次注入额外现金的目的是缓解2020年新冠肺炎疫情封锁对经济的影响。2008年之后,货币基础(定义为商业银行在美联储的存款加上发行的货币)的增加并没有导致已经非常低的通胀率加速上升。它也没有导致广义货币供应的显著加速。但货币供应和支出对2020年后央行额外货币的反应都非常不同。货币供应的增长急剧加速,随之而来的是通货膨胀。作者用符合货币主义和数量理论传统的术语来解释这些不同的结果。强调货币需求和货币供给的重要性的传统,包括中央银行的货币。本文表明,全球金融危机后,现金储备的需求和供给都显著增加,反映了全球范围内的风险规避和资本过剩。受影响的银行不愿发放更多贷款,而是倾向于通过持有额外现金来支撑杠杆资产负债表,这减缓了存款增长。事实证明,在新冠肺炎疫情封锁之后,银行更愿意用现金兑换透支,导致存款和货币供应迅速增加。这种增长反过来又可以预见地导致更多的支出,因为额外的钱被用来交换商品、服务和资产,从而导致价格大幅上涨。为了扭转这些通胀趋势,美联储需要控制货币供应和银行贷款。为了有效地做到这一点,美联储应该尝试估计银行系统对大量(超额)现金储备的需求,并据此设定对这些现金储备的利率。但这个美联储不是货币主义者;它很少关注货币或银行信贷供应,并将继续依靠其利率工具来限制需求。尽管如此,货币主义者和市场将密切关注美联储在向高利率、以及向非通胀性货币供应增长过渡方面的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
11.10%
发文量
44
期刊最新文献
Michael C. Jensen: Scholar, mentor, colleague Michael Jensen's contributions to the theory of the firm: A tribute in three acts A message from the editor Issue Information - TOC A message from the Editors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1