|
Below is an extract from a commentary originally posted at www.speculative-investor.com on
30th March, 2008.
Several subscribers have asked us to comment on Gary North's article at http://www.garynorth.com/public/3118.cfm.
In this article Mr. North claims that the Fed is deflating (contracting the
money supply), a claim that rests solely on the lack of growth (or outright
decline) in the monetary base.
Considering the extraordinary measures* taken by the Fed over the past four
months in order to inflate (grow the money supply), the idea that the Fed is
purposefully deflating (contracting the money supply) is preposterous. So,
what should we make of the small decline in the monetary base?
Not much, actually, because regulatory changes made during the 1990s made
it possible for banks to substantially reduce the amount of money held in the
form of reserves at the Fed by automatically "sweeping" money from the types
of accounts that have reserve requirements to the types of accounts that do
not have reserve requirements**. These regulatory changes effectively severed
the link between the monetary base and the total supply of money. In other
words, changes in the money supply are no longer governed by changes in the
monetary base.
A related point worth mentioning is that the changes routinely made by the
Fed to the monetary base are constrained by the difference between the effective
Fed Funds rate (FFR) and the target FFR. To be specific, if the Fed wants to
keep the effective FFR near its target then it can only increase the monetary
base when the effective rate is above the target rate. Over the past several
months, however, the actual overnight interest rate (the effective FFR) has
almost always been below the Fed's target. This means that the Fed has been
tagging along behind the market, which is, by the way, invariably the case
around major interest-rate turning points.
To summarise the above, changes in the monetary base usually have very little
to do with changes in the total supply of money (inflation/deflation). Furthermore,
we can observe that the Fed has been taking 'heroic' measures in an effort
to keep the inflation going. Therefore, there is no evidence that the Fed is
TRYING to deflate (quite the opposite, actually); but is it the case that deflation
is occurring DESPITE the Fed's best efforts?
No, that is definitely not the case. As evidenced by the following charts,
M1 -- a very narrow measure of money supply that tends to move in synch with
the monetary base -- has essentially gone nowhere over the past three years,
while MZM,
a more comprehensive measure of liquid money supply within the economy, has
experienced a parabolic increase. For some reason unknown to us, Mr. North
is fixating on ultra-narrow monetary aggregates such as M1 while ignoring the
broader, and more useful, measures of money supply.

There is certainly a chance that the inflation rate (the rate of increase
in the BROAD money supply) will slow over the coming months, but if/when that
happens it will be a market-driven, not a Fed-driven, occurrence. Moreover,
the Fed can be relied upon to fight any substantial slowdown in the inflation
rate and to ultimately win such a fight. There are a lot of things the Fed
cannot do, but the one thing it can always do is increase the supply of money.
*A little over three months ago the Fed introduced the Term Auction Facility
(TAF) to make it easier and less costly for banks to obtain money. When that
proved to be insufficient, the Fed introduced the Term Securities Lending
Facility (TSLF) in an effort to inject more "liquidity" into the banking
system. And when the TAF combined with the TSLF failed to give the desired
inflationary boost, the Fed offered to lend huge amounts of money to non-bank
financial corporations.
**From the 5th March 2007 Weekly Update: "Many pundits still treat M1's
growth rate as an important indicator of monetary conditions on the basis
that the amount of 'narrow money' is supposed to have a substantial influence
on the total supply of money due to the famous "money multiplier" effect.
In fact, some well-respected analysts have expressed concern that the lack
of growth in the narrowest measures of US money supply over the past couple
of years means that Fed policy has been excessively restrictive. But these
analysts are failing to appreciate that regulatory changes made by the Fed
in the early 1990s caused M1 to become a shadow of its former self with respect
to its usefulness as a general monetary indicator.
In rough terms, the rules were changed in the early 1990s to allow banks
to dramatically reduce the amount of money held in the form of reserves at
the Fed by "sweeping" money from checking accounts (components of M1 that
are subject to reserve requirements) into savings accounts (non-M1 components
of M2 for which there are no reserve requirements). For example, you might
think you have a checkable deposit at your local bank, but in the bank's
books you probably have a zero-interest CD (the type of deposit that has
no reserve requirement). Whenever one of your checks is presented the bank's
software "sweeps" the relevant amount of money from the zero-interest CD
you never knew you had into the checking account you thought you had.
These rule changes have made commercial banks more profitable because money
held in reserve at the Fed is money that doesn't generate income for the
banks; and this, of course, is why the changes were made in the first place."
|