About


The Atlanta Fed's macroblog provides commentary and analysis on economic topics including monetary policy, macroeconomic developments, inflation, labor economics, and financial issues.

Authors for macroblog are Dave Altig, John Robertson, and other Atlanta Fed economists and researchers.


« All Quiet On The Fed Funds Futures Front | Main | The CPI Report By The Numbers »

November 15, 2005


Much Ado About M3

A minor buzz has developed over last week's announcement from the Federal Reserve Board that it will discontinue the publication of the M3 monetary aggregate, effective March 23 2006.  You can find, not exactly positive, commentary from Mark Thoma (here), from Barry Ritholtz, from the Prudent Investor (here and here).

Let me be very clear -- I speak only for myself here.  The data collection function is a role that is delegated to the Board of Governors, and only they are in a position to comment on the whys and hows of the decision to discontinue collecting the data that makes up the M3 aggregate.  But, for my part, I think a good starting point is the opinion expressed at Institutional Economics:

Growth rates in broad money and credit aggregates tend to be dominated by trends in financial intermediation and thus have only a very tenuous relationship with monetary policy and even a somewhat loose relationship with economic activity.

From the point of view of a policy maker, why do we care about monetary measures in the first place? We care for the same reason everyone else does -- because most of us still believe that, ultimately inflation, inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon.  Here is one famous picture of this relationship, from George McCandless and Warren Weber:

Warrens_picture

That picture is based on the monetary aggregate M2.   McCandless and Weber explain this, and the other measures of money, they use in their study:

For each country with 10 or more years of data (110 countries), we calculate the geometric rate of growth for consumer prices... three definitions of money—M0, currency plus bank reserves...; M1, money easily used in transactions...; and M2, money easily used in or converted into use for transactions...

In short, monetary theories tell us that monetary assets are those that are held, at least in large part, for the purpose of supporting transactions.  M0, M1, and M2 arguably fit that definition.  Here is the definition of M3, from the Federal Reserve's education site (hat tip, Mark Thoma):

M3    Measure of the U.S. money stock that consists of M2, time deposits of $100,000 or more at all depository institutions, term repurchase agreements in amounts of $100,000 or more, certain term Eurodollars and balances in money market mutual funds restricted to institutional investors

Some of the items in M3, but not in M2, are more likely than others to fit the definition of transactions balances.  Institutional money market mutual funds, for example.  That series is in fact part of another popular monetary measure, MZM.  But that series is not being discontinued, presumably because it is used in constructing a monetary measure that is useful for thinking about the transactions balances of the public.

And there is this to think about.  The McCandless and Weber study is about the correlation between money growth and inflation, which is the connection that all of monetary theory leads us to.  The Big Picture repeats a picture, originally appearing at Economist's View, that highlights the levels of M1. M2. M3.  Here is my version...


Money_levels

... and sure enough there is an acceleration of M3 relative to both M2 and M1 that starts in the early 1980s (and accelerates with the asset-price booms the begin in the mid-1990s).  These trend differences are, with as close to certainty as we get, a result of financial market innovation and change that have very little to do with monetary policy. And, in this case, a look at the accumulated effects of these trend differentials can be quite deceiving.  Here is a look at the more relevant (for inflation) growth rates of these monetary measures:


Money_growth_2


The growth rate of M3 is indeed generally higher than the growth rate of M2 (as must be the case given the levels picture), but not dramatically so.  And there is absolutely no evidence that the difference between the two has been growing of late -- just the opposite, in fact.

For my money, the much ado about the pending disappearance of M3 is much ado about not much.

November 15, 2005 in Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy , Inflation | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef00d834607e4e53ef

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Much Ado About M3 :

Comments

Over time the usefulness of any one data series waxes and wanes.

A particular series may provide significant data at one point and insignificant data at another time. Right now M 3 appears to be unimportant. But who knows, at some time in the future M3 may prove to be important.

Since the Fed is already collecing all the data within M 3,
the costs of having the computer generate the M 3 data is negligible. So why not continue it?

Posted by: spencer | November 17, 2005 at 10:25 AM

I'm still lost. How are repos not part of Fed policy? I think one can carry out scholarly debate on this topic, but, in the end, I slide my nose up to it and smell something gangrenous.

Posted by: Thomas | November 18, 2005 at 05:51 AM

For me, your money stock graph speaks volumes. I propose the Fed refer to this decision as, "Boskin Redux". I'm still betting that at some point in my lifetime Economics Academics will recognize that with rationalization made for political expediency, a little more of your craft is sacrificed. Shameful.

Posted by: bailey | November 18, 2005 at 06:34 PM

Isn't the purpose of tenure to provide Academics intellectual freedom?
From PrudentBear 11/18/05: "Broad money supply (M3) declined $13.6 billion (week of November 7) to $10.062 Trillion. Over the past 25 weeks, M3 has surged $437 billion, or 9.4% annualized. Year-to-date, M3 has expanded at a 7.1% rate, with M3-less Money Funds expanding at an 8.0% pace."

Posted by: bailey | November 19, 2005 at 08:29 AM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search



Recent Posts


Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad