|The I Theory of Money||1.31 MB|
A theory of money needs a proper place for financial intermediaries. Intermediaries create money by taking deposits from savers and investing them in productive projects. The money multiplier depends on the size of intermediary balance sheets, and their ability to take risks. In downturns, as lending contracts and the money multiplier shrinks, the value of money rises. This leads to a Fisher deflation that hurts borrowers and amplifies shocks. An accommodative monetary policy in downturns, focused on the assets held by constrained agents, can mitigate these destabilizing adverse feedback effects. We devote particular attention to interest rate cuts, and study the potential for such policies to create moral hazard.
We examine the relation among measures of credit expansion, measures of financial market stress, and standard macroeconomic aggregates. We use a form of structural VAR with monthly data on 10 variables. The model explains observed variation as driven by 10 mutually independent structural disturbances. We identify the shocks from variation across time in their relative variability. One of them emerges as representing monetary policy. We find two distinct financial stress shocks, suggesting that attempts to create a one-dimensional index of financial stress may be misguided. While our results are consistent with the finding by others of a negative reduced form relation between credit expansion and future output growth at certain frequencies, we find the output decline to be explained by the monetary policy response to the inflation that accompanies the credit expansion. In pseudo-out-of-sample forecasting tests, neither bond spreads, interbank spreads, nor credit aggregates had much predictive value far in advance of the 2008-9 downturn, though spreads (but not credit aggregates) were helpful in recognizing the downturn once it had begun.
China's economic model involves active government intervention in financial markets. It relaxes/tightens market regulations and even directs asset trading with the objective to maintain market stability. We develop a theoretical framework that anchors government intervention on a mission to prevent market breakdown and the explosion of volatility caused by the reluctance of short-term investors to trade against noise traders when the risk of trading against them is sufficiently large. In the presence of realistic information frictions about unobservable asset fundamentals, our framework shows that the government can alter market dynamics by making noise in its intervention program an additional factor driving asset prices, and can divert investor attention toward acquiring information about this noise rather than fundamentals. Through this latter channel, the widely-adopted objective of government intervention to reduce asset price volatility may exacerbate, rather than improve, the information efficiency of asset prices.
China’s gradualistic approach allowed the government to learn how the economy reacts to small policy changes, and to adjust its reforms before implementing them in full. With fully developed financial markets, however, private actors’ may front-run future policy changes making it impossible for the implement policies gradually. With financial markets the government faces a time-inconsistency problem. The government would like to commit to a gradualistic approach, but after it observes the economy’s quick reaction, it has no incentive to implement its policies in small steps.
can still be pronounced "eSBBieS"
EU Commission Reflection paper (See page 21 on SBBS)
- for complementary regulatory changes see paper above.
Recent Media Mentions:
English: FT, FT alphaville, Bloomberg, Reuters,
Italian: Il Foglio, Corriere Della Sera, L'Epresso, Il Sole 24Ore
German: PR-Online, FAZit, SZ,
The Economist Books of the Year 2016
Bloomberg Best Books of 2016
Financial Times' Best Books of 2016: Economics List
2017 Axiom Business Book Award (Gold in International/Globalization)
English: Il Sole 24 Ore, Reuters, The Economist, Foreign Policy in Focus, Politico Europe, Australian Financial Review, Pro-Market, The New York Review of Books, EconomicsOne, The New York Times, The Economist, (2), Current History, Financial Times, New Yorker, Harvard Business Review, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance,
French: Liberation, Telos,
Italian: Il Sole 24 Ore, (2), (3), Italiani, Il Foglio, (2),
Portugese: Publico, Dinheiro Vivo, Expresso,
Polish: Forsal, Obserwatorfinansow,
Chinese: Sina.com, WallstreetCN,
Arabic: Elaph, Arab News,
Finnish: Talouselämä, Suomen Kuvalehti, Liikanen Review, Helsingen Sanomat, TV,
German: SZ Pipers Welt, FAS, SZ interview-duel with Joe Stiglitz, NZZ, Berliner Zeitung, Frankfurter Rundschau, FAZ, Badische Zeitung, Wirtschaftswoche, SZ, ...
Boston, Chicago, Amsterdam, Bonn, Geneva, St. Gallen, Zurich, Freiburg, ESM, French Embassy in Berlin with W. Schäuble, LSE, CER London, Science Po, Bruegel, European Parliament (1) (2), Helsinki, Copenhagen, Mannheim, Princeton, Panel with Joe Stiglitz in NYC, France Stratégie, Cambridge, BIS.
The euro crisis was fueled by the diabolic loop between sovereign risk and bank risk, coupled with cross-border flight-to-safety capital flows. European Safe Bonds (ESBies), a union-wide safe asset without joint liability, would help to resolve these problems. We make three contributions. First, numerical simulations show that ESBies would be at least as safe as German bunds and approximately double the supply of euro safe assets when protected by a 30%-thick junior tranche. Second, a model shows how, when and why the two features of ESBies---diversification and seniority---can weaken the diabolic loop and its diffusion across countries. Third, we propose a step-by-step guide on how to create ESBies, starting with limited issuance by public or private-sector entities.