Archive
Bounce in Money Growth is Good News and Bad News
The monthly money supply numbers are out. I have bad news and good news.
The bad news is that the contraction in the money supply appears to be over. That’s not bad news per se (see below), but it’s bad in that the anti-inflationary work that was happening is coming to an end before it’s quite finished. Although I would be reluctant to annualize any one month’s change in M2, the $92bln increase in M2 in March was the largest increase since 2021. It only annualizes to 5.5%, so it isn’t exactly running away from us – but it’s positive. The 3-month and 6-month changes are also positive, and the highest since early 2022 in each case. Again, we’re only 0.72% above the ding-dong lows of last October, but the sign is now positive.
With the money supply figures now in, and with the advance Q1 GDP report due this week, we can revisit our chart of “how much more inflation ‘potential energy’ remains.” (see “Where Inflation Stands in the Cycle,” November 2023). As that article (and this chart) illustrates, if M2 doesn’t go down then this gets more difficult. M2 in Q1 rose at a 1.24% annualized rate over Q4. GDP is expected to rise 2.5% annualized. So M/Q…barely moves, as the chart shows.
We will eventually get back to the line, unless velocity is permanently impaired. Despite all of the crazy people who told you it was, there’s no evidence of that. M2 velocity will rise about 1% (not annualized), if the GDP forecasts are on point. That will be the smallest q/q change in several years, and velocity will be getting very close to the 2020Q1 dropping-off point. But there frankly is no reason for velocity to stop there; higher interest rates imply higher money velocity. However, we are getting close.
(Incidentally, if you’re curious how we can be almost back to the dropping-off point of velocity and yet still be 5% below the line in the first chart above, it’s because I’m using core inflation. With food and energy, we’re a little closer to the line and have used up more of the ‘potential energy.’ But food and energy are of course volatile and so while a good spike in energy prices would look like we’ve used up all of the potential energy, that could just be a one-off effect.)
Either way, we aren’t too far away from getting back to home base and that’s good news. Yes, prices by the time we are done will have risen 25% since the end of 2019, and that can’t really be characterized as a ‘win.’ Let’s go Brandon. But we are getting closer.
The good news about the new rise in M2 is that it’s timely. Markets and the economy were starting to show signs of money getting a little tight; losing a little lubrication in the machinery. An economy does need money to run, and while the only way we can get back to the old price level is to have money supply continue to decrease, that’s also a painful process. In the long run, we would have price stability if the change in M was approximately equal to the change in GDP. If we want 2% inflation, then we need M to grow about 2% faster than GDP. Vacillating velocity means that it isn’t purely mechanical like that – the steady decline in velocity since 1997 is the only reason that inflation stayed tame despite too-fast money growth over that period – but the long downtrend in velocity is likely finished since the long decline in rates is finished. Thus, if we get money supply growth back to the neighborhood of 4%, we can get our 2-2.5% growth with restrained inflation over time.
I am not super optimistic that all of that will work out so nice and cleanly like we draw it up on the chalkboard, but I am more optimistic about it than I was two years ago. We still have some sticky inflation ahead of us, but if the Fed keeps reducing its balance sheet then eventually we will get inflation below the sticky zone and back towards ‘target’ (even though there isn’t a target per se any more).
Three Pertinent Inflation Observations
I have three items to discuss in this week’s post.
The first item is an announcement made by the BLS on Tuesday regarding upcoming changes to how the CPI for Health Insurance will be computed.
The backdrop for this change is that the CPI for Health Insurance is an imputed cost for the CPI. When a consumer buys health insurance, he/she is actually buying medical care, plus a suite of insurance products related to the actuarial benefits of pooling risks (that is, it’s much cheaper for people to buy a share of an option on the tail experience of a group of people, than it is for each person to buy a tail on their own experience – which is the main benefit/function of insurance). If all of the cost of health insurance was actually for health insurance, the weight of medical care itself (doctors’ services, e.g.) would be quite low because most of us pay for that care through the insurance company.
So the BLS needs to disentangle the cost of the medical care that we are buying indirectly from the cost of the embedded insurance products. The link above goes into more detail on all of this, but the bottom line is that once per year the BLS figures out what consumers paid for health insurance, how much of that was actually used by the insurance company to purchase health care, and therefore how much is attributable to the cost of the insurance product. Because they do this only once per year, and smear the answer over 12 months, you get step-wise discontinuities in the monthly figures. For many years this was not a big problem, but since 2018 there have been several fairly significant swings. The chart below shows the m/m percent change in health insurance CPI. You can see it went from stable, to +1.5% per month or so in 2018-2020, to -1% for 2020-2021, to +2% for 2021-2022, to -4% in the most-recent year.
That latest period has been a significant and measurable drag on the overall and core CPIs, and it was due to reverse starting with the October 2023 CPI released in November. Estimates were that it was going to be something like 2% per month, roughly. The change announced above introduces some smoothing so that these swings should be significantly dampened. The basic method doesn’t change, but it should be smoother and more-timely since the corrections will be every 6 months instead of every year. In order to make the new calculation method match endpoints, though, this means that starting in October, the +2%ish impact will bedoubled because the BLS will make the ‘normal’ adjustment but smear it over 6 months instead of 12, then transition to the new method.
The implication is that Health Insurance, which will have decreased y/y core CPI by about 0.5% once we get to October, will add 0.25% back over the 6 months ending April. So, we already know about a significant swing higher in core inflation that is coming soon. Take note.
The second item I want to note is M2. It’s a minor thing at this point, but after three months it is worth noticing that M2 is no longer declining. It isn’t a lot, as the chart below shows, but the three months ended April showed a contraction at a 9.6% annualized pace and the most-recent three months saw an increase at a 3.7% pace.
In the long run, 3.7% would certainly be acceptable but remember we still have some M2 velocity rebound to complete. What is interesting is that this is happening despite the fact that the Fed is continuing to reduce its balance sheet and loan officers are saying that lending standards are tightening. It may simply be a return to normal lending behaviors, with a gradual increase in loans that naturally accompany the rising working capital needs of a growing economy. Remember, banks are not reserve-constrained at this point, so they’ll keep lending. Anyway, I don’t want to make too much of 3-month change in the M2 trend, just as I was reluctant to make too much of those early M2 contractions…but this is what I expected to happen. I just expected it earlier. We will see if it continues. If it does, then that in concert with the natural rebound in M2 velocity means that further declines in inflation are going to be difficult, and we might even see some reacceleration.
Finally, the third item for today. In my podcast on Tuesday, I asked the question whether China’s recent sluggish growth, caused partly by its property bubble and overextended banks, meant that we should be looking at recession and disinflation in the US – which is the current meme being promulgated by many economists. I discussed the 1997-1998 “Asian Contagion” episode, and explained that a recession in a “producer” (net exporting) country hits the rest of the world very differently from a recession in a “consumer” (net importing) country like the US. A recession in consumer countries causes recession in producer economies, because the consumer economies are ‘downstream.’ On the other hand, a recession in producer countries can have the opposite effect on its customers – because, when an economy like China is in recession, that means it is providing less competition in the commodity markets that we also use. In turn, that means we can actually grow faster, all else equal.
This is what happened in the Asian Contagion episode, and I wanted to put some charts around that. The Thai baht was the first domino, and it collapsed in August 1997. It wasn’t until fears that the Hong Kong Dollar would de-peg from the USD, in October of that year – precipitating a 7% one-day drop in the Dow – that people in the West started getting very concerned and the Fed started citing troubles in the former Asian Tigers as a downside risk. Here are charts of the period. The first one shows quarterly GDP, which never increased less than 3.5% annualized; the second is median CPI, which was continuing a long period of deceleration from the 1980s prior to the crisis…but which began to accelerate in mid-1998.
The bottom line is that as long as our export sector is relatively small and as long we remain a developed consumer economy, weakness in producing economies is not a dampening effect for us but rather, if anything, a stimulating effect.
Grab the Reins on the Dollar, Part 2
I hadn’t meant to do a ‘part 2’ on the dollar, but I wanted to clear something up.
Some comments on yesterday’s article have suggested that a strong dollar is a global deflationary event, and vice-versa. But this is incorrect.
The global level of prices is determined by the amount of money, globally, compared to global GDP. But the movements of currencies will determine how that inflation or deflation is divvied up. Let us look at a simplified (economist-style) example; I apologize in advance to those who get college flashbacks when reading this.
Consider a world in which there are two countries of interest: country “Responsible” (R), and country “Irresponsible” (I). They have different currencies, r in country R and i in country I (the currencies will be boldface, lowercase).
Country R and I both produce widgets, which retail in country R for 10 r and in country I for 10 i. Suppose that R and I both produce 10 widgets per year, and that represents the total global supply of widgets. In this first year, the money supply is 1000r, and 1000i. The exchange rate is 1:1 of r for i.
In year two, country I decides to address its serious debt issues by printing lots of i. That country triples its money supply. FX traders respond by weakening the i currency so that the exchange rate is now 1:2 of r to i.
What happens to the price of widgets? Well, consumers in country R are still willing to pay 10 r. But consumers in country I find they have (on average) three times as much money in their wallets, so they would be willing to pay 30 i for a widget (or, equivalently, 15 r). Widget manufacturers in country R find they can raise their prices from 10 r, while widget manufacturers in country I find they need to lower their price from 30 i in order to be competitive with widget manufacturers in R. Perhaps the price in R ends up at 26r, and 13i in I (and notice that at this price, it doesn’t matter if you buy a widget in country R, or exchange your currency at 1:2 and buy the widget in country I).
Now, what has happened to prices? The increase in global money supply – in this case, caused exclusively by country I – has caused the price of widgets everywhere to rise. Prices are up 30% in country R, and by 160% in country I. But this division is entirely due to the fact that the currency exchange rate did not fully reflect the increased money supply in country I. If it had, then the exchange rate would have gone to 1:3, and prices would have gone up 0% in country R and 200% in country I. If the exchange rate had overreacted, and gone to 1:4, then the price of a widget in country R would have likely fallen while it would have risen even further in country I.
No matter how you slice it, though – no matter how extreme or how placid the currency movements are, the total amount of currency exchanged for widgets went up (that is, there was inflation in the price of widgets in terms of the average global price paid – or if you like, the average price in some third, independent currency). Depending on the exchange rate fluctuations, country R might see deflation, stable prices, or inflation; technically, that is also true of country I although it is far more likely that, since there is a lot more i in circulation, country I saw inflation. But overall, the “global” price of a widget has risen. More money means higher prices. Period.
In short, currency movements don’t determine the size of the cake. They merely cut the cake.
In a fully efficient market, the currency movement would fully offset the relative scarcity or plenty of a currency, so that only domestic monetary policy would matter to domestic prices. In practice, currency markets do a pretty decent job but they don’t exactly discount the relative changes in currency supplies. But as a first approximation, MV≡PQ in one’s own home currency is not a bad way to understand the movements in prices.
