Explaining Stephen Williamson to the world (and himself)

Stephen Williamson catches a lot of flack on the net. Some is undeserved, some is deserved, but a big chunk is probably due to the fact that he and his fellow New Monetarists have a communications problem. People don't understand what they're up to. So here's my attempt to bring Steve down to earth and explain to the world the importance of the research being done by him and his colleagues. I'll go about this by adding a bit of historical context. After a quick tour of the history of monetary thought, readers will be able to see where in the greater scheme of things the New Monetarists fit. Now Steve doesn't know much about the history of economic thought - he thinks it's unimportant. So in a way, I'm explaining not just Steve to the world, but Steve to Steve.

What would destroying a central bank's assets do?

Gavyn Davies's post Will central banks cancel government debt? dovetails nicely with the recent fundamental value of fiat money debate. [For commentary on this debate, see Nick Rowe, Paul Krugman, David Glasner, Stephen Williamson here, here, and here, David Andolfatto, Brad DeLong, and Noah Smith]

Let recap the debate first before turning to Gavyn's post. Noah Smith pointed out that since fiat money is fundamentally worth nothing (its future value = 0), then all financial assets are worth zero. Financial assets, after all, are mere promises to receive fiat money. Now back up a second. As I pointed out here, modern central bank money is not fundamentally worthless. Were it to fall to a small discount to its fundamental value, Warren Buffet would buy every bit of money up. Central bank money has a fundamental value because even if it can no longer be passed off to shopkeepers, there are assets in the central bank's kitty. Modern central bank money provides a conditional claim on those assets. David Andolfatto and Stephen Williamson also note the importance of central bank assets.

I got this idea from Mike Sproul. Back in the day, Mike used to start huge comment wars on the Mises blog when he brought up the topic of central bank assets "backing" its liabilities. In fact, here's the post where I first ran into Mike talking about this interesting feature of central bank money. Geez, I sound pretty ornery.

Nick Rowe also brings up central bank assets in his contribution. It's a rendition of his old classic, From gold standard to CPI standard (which I commented on here). In his new post, Nick explains how a modern central bank holds hypothetical CPI baskets in its basement, promising to redeem the liabilities it issues with those CPI baskets at a declining rate 2% every year.

Bill Woolsey gives a similiar story to Nick's in this comment on David Glasner's blog. Bill's point is that if a central bank provides a credible commitment to repurchase and cancel its liabilities should the demand for them evaporate, then central bank money will have value. As he points out, this commitment is only credible as long as the central bank holds (or can get a hold of) the necessary assets to commit to those buy backs.

The point of all this is that central bank assets are important. They are the key for understanding why modern central bank money is different from pure fiat money, why central bank money's future value > 0, and why financial assets (like corporate bonds) that pay out central bank money are not fundamentally worthless. Which brings us back to Gavyn's post.

Gavyn describes a radical idea to reduce UK sovereign debt whereby the Bank of England, the nation's central bank, would cancel part of the government bonds that they've acquired via quantitative easing. By canceling debt held at the BoE, the government's debt-to-GDP ratio comes down. No one in the private sector loses out, since they don't hold any of the canceled debt. The central bank loses out but its loss is counterbalanced by the government's gain such that if you aggregate both under the title "public sector", nothing has happened.

Let's look at this with our previous discussion in mind. With less assets on the BoE's balance sheet, the fundamental value of BoE money would have deteriorated. Why? Should the monetary demand for pounds disappear so that all that remains is fundamental value, the BoE will have fewer assets remaining to commit to repurchases so as to prop up the value of the pound.

Now, it could be that the debt cancellation really means that a formal debt on the asset side of the central bank's books has been replaced by an implicit promise that the government will come to the aid of the central bank during a run on a central bank's liabilities. In that case, holders of BoE money will quickly realize that there is an unwritten and unrecognized asset on the central bank's balance sheet. As a result, the fundamental value ascribed to the central bank liabilities would be damaged somewhat less than a scenario in which the debt was canceled outright. But damaged they would be since implicit guarantees are not as good as real assets.

One reason to make a central bank independent is to cordon off a fixed set of assets that can be used to provide a permanent basis for the fundamental value of central bank money. In this respect, a central bank is like a special purpose vehicle. SPVs are subsidiaries to which a parent company has transferred specific assets. The vehicle has been structured to prevent the parent from tampering with the assets after the fact. The SPV issues its own liabilities to other investors using these ring-fenced assets as backing. A central bank, much like an SPV, has been hived off from its parent, the government, and as a result the holders of its liabilities, the public, can be sure that they have claim to a secure set of assets. If an SPV suddenly had its assets removed by its parent with no guarantee of replacement, the liabilities issued by that SPV would suffer. Same with the liabilities of a central bank.

Gavyn worries that the destruction of central bank assets would unleash inflation. He also points out that there are people who are worried about deflation, and they would welcome a destruction of central bank assets. Whichever way you stand, the point here is that central bank money has a fundamental value. The proof of this would be what Gavyn describes: a scenario in which the value of central bank money declines as central bank assets are destroyed.

Update: Britmouse and Nick Rowe have blog posts on these issues too.

Gold conspiracies

James Hamilton and Stephen Williamson recently commented on the Republican Party platform (pdf) which calls for a commission to investigate possible ways to set a fixed value for the dollar. Here is a fragment from the platform:

Determined to crush the double-digit inflation that was part of the Carter Administration’s economic legacy, President Reagan, shortly after his inauguration, established a commission to consider the feasibility of a metallic basis for U.S. currency. The commission advised against such a move. Now, three decades later, as we face the task of cleaning up the wreckage of the current Administration’s policies, we propose a similar commission to investigate possible ways to set a fixed value for the dollar.

JDH was puzzled about the odd timing of an appeal to the gold standard, given a decade of low (sometimes negative) inflation. I left my thoughts on JDH's blog. Gold bugs tend to be conspiracy theorists... but here I think I've one-upped them by placing them within their own conspiracy theory box:

One theory here is that politics are driven by that class that has enjoyed the most recent financial success. Hard core gold bugs have surely enjoyed plenty of success over the last ten years, and are therefore capable of using their financial clout to get their favored policies onto the radar screen.

Note that the last Gold Commission was brought into law by Jessie Helms in October 1980. Gold had run up from $35 to $850. According to Anna Schwartz, that was the third bit of pro-gold legislation enacted by Helms:

"On his initiative, the right to include gold clauses in private contracts entered into on or after October 28, 1977, was enacted (P.L. 95-147). The program of Treasury medallion sales, in accordance with the American Arts Gold Medallion Act of November 10, 1978, was a second legislative initiative of the senator (P.L. 95-630). He was unsuccessful in subsequent efforts in 1980 to suspend Treasury gold sales and to provide for restitution of IMF gold."

Rumour has it that that Helms was friendly with the gold lobby.

So like the late 70s, the gold lobby's commodity of choice has risen in value, therefore their political agenda benefits from a large financial tailwind.

Just a theory, of course.

On a side note, Hamilton linked to an old paper he wrote called The Role of the International Gold Standard in Propagating the Great Depression (or here). The thrust of his paper is that in a gold standard, speculators are continuously evaluating the probability of changes in a currency's peg to gold. New conditions might cause a speculative run, with both that run and the government's response being potentially destabilizing. Hamilton points out that the run on the dollar in fall of 1931, and the Fed's response to this run - a dramatic increase in discount rates - helped propagate the Great Depression. Here is a paragraph, my emphasis in bold:

It sometimes is asserted that a gold standard introduces “discipline” into the conduct of monetary and fiscal policy where none existed before. Indeed, this was the primary reason that the world returned to an international gold standard during the 1920s. I cannot think of a more naive and more dangerous notion. A government lacking discipline in monetary and fiscal policy in the absence of a gold standard likely also lacks the discipline and credibility necessary for successfully adhering to a gold standard. Substantial uncertainty about the future inevitably will result as speculators anticipate changes in the terms of gold convertibility. This institutionalizes a system susceptible to large and sudden inflows or outflows of capital and to destabilizing monetary policy if authorities must resort to great extremes to reestablish credibility.

To bring Hamilton's point into its modern context, just substitute the word "gold" with the ECB's Target2 settlement system. If gold convertibility can be doubted, so can Greek Euro convertibility into German Euro and vice versa, the parities of which are enforced by Target2. The uncertainty about the alleged fixity of rates has spawned a 1931-type panic out of those euro-currencies most likely to suffer from an adjustment in their conversion ratio. That's why the huge Target2 imbalances are there... more or less for the same reasons the US experienced huge gold outflows in 1931.

Wallace Neutrality... don't fight the Fed

Miles Kimball gave me some help on understanding Wallace Neutrality, which in turn might help me understand more where Stephen Williamson is coming from when he says QE is irrelevant. I asked Miles:

I'm not sure if I entirely understand the Wallace neutrality argument.

If I may paraphrase, does it mean something like... the Fed could buy a bunch of stocks on the NYSE, and they might be able to push their prices up (their dividend rates down). But if they did so, the price of these stocks would rise above their intrinsic value and profit-seeking agents would immediately take the opposite side of the trade, thereby pushing the purchased stocks' value back to their intrinsic value. So in order for the Fed to permanently increase stock prices above their intrinsic value, there must be some sort of "friction" that prevents profit-seeking agents from taking the other side of the trade. Is that what it means?

Miles:

Yes... You said it very well.

That's a relief. Sometimes I have troubles translating the somewhat Spockian language of formal economics into words that are more comfortable to me, that being the daily lingua of the marketplace, trading, and investing.

To further re-translate, I'd say the idea of Wallace Neutrality falls in the same boat as the old trader's adage... don't fight the Fed. If traders believe the Fed is all-powerful and too strong to trade against, then the Fed can effectively change assets prices above or below what they should otherwise be. If traders think they can fight the Fed, then the Fed can't change asset prices - traders will collectively take the other side of any Fed action, canceling out any Fed-induced price changes. What "friction" motivates traders to believe they can or can't fight the Fed?

Here is my older post on Stephen Williamson's QE irrelevance. The frictions I point to in that post are the Fed's size relative to other actors in asset markets and the Fed's ambivalence to profits/losses in a environment in which all other actors are hypersensitive to profits/losses. In other words... don't fight the Fed. It's massively big and doesn't care if it loses on the trade.

Brad DeLong had a comment on the idea of Wallace Neutrality here. Miles goes into the idea of Wallace Neutrality again here.

QE, irrelevant or not?

Stephen Williamson has been thumping the drum on the irrelevance of quantitative easing for some time now. See here, here, here, here, here, here. I jumped into the comments of his most recent on this issue, and have done so here and here as well in the past.

I've had problems squaring Steve's irrelevance theory with the very real fact that in the day-to-day drama of financial markets, traders with large portfolios think QE is very relevant. Because they are large traders, and because they think it is relevant, quantitative easing IS relevant. One way to square this is to conclude that both Steve and the markets are right, but it depends on how you approach the problem.

Odd banks in Williamson's liquidity paper

Stephen Williamson suggests here, here, and here that blog readers browse his recent paper, Liquidity, Monetary Policy, and the Financial Crisis: A New Monetarist Approach.

Here are some thoughts I had upon reading it.

Old monetarism, new monetarism, and moneyness

Stephen Williamson had a good post recently in which he noted:

Central to Old Monetarism - the Quantity Theory of Money - is the idea that we can define some subset of assets to be "money". Money, according to an Old Monetarist, is the stuff that is used as a medium of exchange, and could include public liabilities (currency and bank reserves) as well as private ones (transactions deposits at financial institutions). Further, Friedman in particular argued that one could find a stable, and simple, demand function for this "money," and estimate its parameters. Lucas does that exercise here, and then uses the estimated money demand function parameters to measure the costs of inflation.

What's wrong with that? The key problem, of course, is that the money demand function is not a structural object. Some central bankers, including Charles Goodhart, figured that out. Goodhart's idea is a bit subtle, but there are more straighforward reasons to think that the parameters we estimate as "money demand" parameters are not structural. First, all assets are to some extent useful in exchange, or as collateral. "Moneyness" is a matter of degree, and it is silly to draw a line between some assets that we call money and others which are not-money.

I challenged him on how important moneyness actually is in new monetarist literature. Why, for instance, do so many new monetarist papers include some variable M if money is a matter of degree? You can't represent the idea "as a matter of degree" with a variable called M which by definition excludes all non-M assets. If you do so, you're already drawing lines between assets.

He never really responded to me. Steve, any thoughts? You've got the floor.

Intraday overdrafts, clearing and settlement systems, and Fedwire

Stephen Williamson talks about clearing and settlement systems, in particular Fedwire. I learn that the Fed offers daylight overdrafts on an uncollateralized basis, but believes itself to be covered by charging a fee and by putting caps on the the amount of credit they are willing to extend.

George Selgin pops up again, because he wrote an excellent article called Wholesale payments: questioning the market-failure hypothesis. Available on demand if you email me.