The Bank of England explains money creation

This is from “Money creation in the modern economy“, an article published in the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2014. The bold text is in the original.

In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial banks making loans.

Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:

  • Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.
  • In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money ‘multiplied up’ into more loans and deposits.

Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system. Prudential regulation also acts as a constraint on banks’ activities in order to maintain the resilience of the financial system. And the households and companies who receive the money created by new lending may take actions that affect the stock of money — they could quickly ‘destroy’ money by using it to repay their existing debt, for instance.

Monetary policy acts as the ultimate limit on money creation.

The Bank of England aims to make sure the amount of money creation in the economy is consistent with low and stable inflation. In normal times, the Bank of England implements monetary policy by setting the interest rate on central bank reserves. This then influences a range of interest rates in the economy, including those on bank loans.

In exceptional circumstances, when interest rates are at their effective lower bound, money creation and spending in the economy may still be too low to be consistent with the central bank’s monetary policy objectives. One possible response is to undertake a series of asset purchases, or ‘quantitative easing’ (QE).

QE is intended to boost the amount of money in the economy directly by purchasing assets, mainly from non-bank financial companies. QE initially increases the amount of bank deposits those companies hold (in place of the assets they sell). Those companies will then wish to rebalance their portfolios of assets by buying higher-yielding assets, raising the price of those assets and stimulating spending in the economy.

This proves that Paul Krugman and the Neo-Keynesians clinging to their textbook Samuelsonian  Econ 101 have it wrong. It also shows very clearly why credit is the vital issue and why the paper-printing of the past is not going to lead to hyperinflation, but the eventual collapse of total credit market debt is going to lead to deflation.

The BoE even spells it out; “money” can be destroyed by using it to repay existing debt… or defaulting on it. By money, of course, they mean “credit money”, which is the only sort of money that matters in terms of the current global financial system.

Concerning which, Zerohedge quotes Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta:

If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.

And, as I have repeatedly stated over the last six years, the Fed cannot print borrowers. There is no “permanent money” in this particular monetary system, which is another way to say that this is a “credit money-substitute” system. This little fact explains why Congress and the Executive Branch agencies inexplicably permit the bankers to openly flout the law; they are collectively deemed too structurally important to fail or even be held legally accountable.


On the knife’s edge

In belatedly going over the Q4 2013 Z1 report, I was a little surprised to see that total credit market debt picked up a bit, increasing $909 billion in the fourth quarter alone. At 1.57 percent, that’s still not enough to keep pace with the historical quarterly advance of 2.36 percent, so it’s still disinflation mode, but it is the third-highest quarterly credit growth seen since credit disinflation began in Q1-2008.

However, the Household sector remains flat and the State and Local Government sector has been deflating the last three quarters in a row and seven of the last eight. This means that the private economy is still contracting because State and Local is restricted by tax revenues. Nearly all the credit growth is taking place in the Corporate and Federal sectors.

In fact, of the $7,718.7 in credit growth since Z1 peaked and began deflating in Q1 2009, $7,078.7 is Federal borrowing. In other words, the private economy is right on the knife edge of debt-deflation and has been so for the last five years despite the vast inflationary efforts by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.

As for the credit demand gap, at $29.4 trillion, it has now reached nearly 50 percent of Z1. That is why money printing to fill the gap is simply not an option and any attempt to do so will necessarily go right to hyperinflation and failure.


War and the Austrian Business Cycle

David Stockman explains the oft-observed connection between economic contraction and military conflict. Astute observers will note that the cycle he describes correlates much better with my “Limits of Demand” modification of the core mechanism of the Austrian Business Cycle:

During World War I the US public debt rose from $1.5 billion to $27 billion—an eruption that would have been virtually impossible without wartime amendments which allowed the Fed to own or finance U.S. Treasury debt.  These “emergency” amendments—it’s always an emergency in wartime—enabled a fiscal scheme that was ingenious, but turned the Fed’s modus operandi upside down and paved the way for today’s monetary central planning.

As is well known, the Wilson war crusaders conducted massive nationwide campaigns to sell Liberty Bonds to the patriotic masses. What is far less understood is that Uncle Sam’s bond drives were the original case of no savings? No credit? No problem!

What happened was that every national bank in America conducted a land office business advancing loans for virtually 100 percent of the war bond purchase price—with such loans collateralized by Uncle Sam’s guarantee. Accordingly, any patriotic American with enough pulse to sign the loan papers could buy some Liberty Bonds.

And where did the commercial banks obtain the billions they loaned out to patriotic citizens to buy Liberty Bonds?  Why the Federal Reserve banks opened their discount loan windows to the now eligible collateral of war bonds.

Additionally, Washington pegged the rates on these loans below the rates on its treasury bonds, thereby providing a no-brainer arbitrage profit to bankers.

Through this backdoor maneuver, the war debt was thus massively monetized.  Washington learned that it could unplug the free market interest rate in favor of state administered prices for money, and that credit could be massively expanded without the inconvenience of higher savings out of deferred consumption.  Effectively, Washington financed Woodrow Wilson’s crusade with its newly discovered printing press—-turning the innocent “banker’s bank” legislated in 1913 into a dangerously potent new arm of the state.

It was this wartime transformation of the Fed into an activist central bank that postponed the normal post-war liquidation—-moving the world’s scheduled depression down the road to the 1930s. The Fed’s role in this startling feat is in plain sight in the history books, but its significance has been obfuscated by Keynesian and monetarist doctrinal blinders—that is, the presumption that the state must continuously manage the business cycle and macro-economy.

Having learned during the war that it could arbitrarily peg the price of money, the Fed next discovered it could manage the growth of bank reserves and thereby the expansion of credit and the activity rate of the wider macro-economy. This was accomplished through the conduct of “open market operations” under its new authority to buy and sell government bonds and bills—something which sounds innocuous by today’s lights but was actually the fatal inflection point. It transferred the process of credit creation from the free market to an agency of the state.

As it happened, the patriotic war bond buyers across the land did steadily pay-down their Liberty loans, and, in turn, the banking system liquidated its discount window borrowings—-with a $2.7 billion balance in 1920 plunging 80 percent by 1927. In classic fashion, this should have caused the banking system to shrink drastically as war debts were liquidated and war-time inflation and malinvestments were wrung out of the economy.

But big-time mission creep had already set in.  The legendary Benjamin Strong had now taken control of the system and on repeated occasions orchestrated giant open market bond buying campaigns to offset the natural liquidation of war time credit.

Accordingly, treasury bonds and bills owned by the Fed approximately doubled during the same 7-year period. Strong justified his Bernanke-like bond buying campaigns of 1924 and 1927 as helpful actions to off-set “deflation” in the domestic economy and to facilitate the return of England and Europe to convertibility under the gold standard.

But in truth the actions of Bubbles Ben 1.0 were every bit as destructive as those of Bubbles Ben 2.0.

In the first place, deflation was a good thing that was supposed to happen after a great war. Invariably, the rampant expansion of war time debt and paper money caused massive speculations and malinvestments that needed to be liquidated.

Likewise, the barrier to normalization globally was that England was unwilling to fully liquidate its vast wartime inflation of wage, prices and debts. Instead,  it had come-up with a painless way to achieve “resumption” at the age-old parity of $4.86 per pound; namely, the so-called gold exchange standard that it peddled assiduously through the League of Nations.

The short of it was that the British convinced France, Holland, Sweden and most of Europe to keep their excess holdings of sterling exchange on deposit in the London money markets, rather than convert it to gold as under the classic, pre-war gold standard.

This amounted to a large-scale loan to the faltering British economy, but when Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill did resume convertibility in April 1925 a huge problem soon emerged.  Churchill’s splendid war had so debilitated the British economy that markets did not believe its government had the resolve and financial discipline to maintain the old $4.86 parity. This, in turn, resulted in a considerable outflow of gold from the London exchange markets, putting powerful contractionary pressures on the British banking system and economy.

Real Cause of the Great Depression: Collapse of the Artificial Boom

In this setting, Bubbles Ben 1.0 stormed in with a rescue plan that will sound familiar to contemporary ears. By means of his bond buying campaigns he sought to drive-down interest rates in New York relative to London, thereby encouraging British creditors to keep their money in higher yielding sterling rather than converting their claims to gold or dollars.

The British economy was thus given an option to keep rolling-over its debts and to continue living beyond its means. For a few years these proto-Keynesian “Lords of Finance” —- principally Ben Strong of the Fed and Montague Norman of the BOE—-managed to kick the can down the road.

But after the Credit Anstalt crisis in spring 1931, when creditors of shaky banks in central Europe demanded gold, England’s precarious mountain of sterling debts came into the cross-hairs.  In short order, the money printing scheme of Bubbles Ben 1.0 designed to keep the Brits in cheap interest rates and big debts came violently unwound.

In late September a weak British government defaulted on its gold exchange standard duty to convert sterling to gold, causing the French, Dutch and other central banks to absorb massive overnight losses. The global depression then to took another lurch downward.

But central bankers tamper with free market interest rates only at their peril—-so the domestic malinvestments and deformations which flowed from the monetary machinations of Bubbles Ben 1.0 were also monumental.

Owing to the splendid tax-cuts and budgetary surpluses of Secretary Andrew Mellon, the American economy was flush with cash, and due to the gold inflows from Europe the US banking system was extraordinarily liquid. The last thing that was needed in Roaring Twenties America was the cheap interest rates—-at 3 percent and under—that resulted from Strong’s meddling in the money markets.

At length, Strong’s ultra-low interest rates did cause credit growth to explode, but it did not end-up funding new steel mills or auto assembly plants.  Instead, the Fed’s cheap debt flooded into the Wall Street call money market where it fueled that greatest margin debt driven stock market bubble the world had ever seen. By 1929, margin debt on Wall Street had soared to 12 percent of GDP or the equivalent of $2 trillion in today’s economy.

As is well known, much economic carnage resulted from the Great Crash of 1929. But what is less well understood is that the great stock market bubble also spawned a parallel boom in foreign bonds—-specie of Wall Street paper that soon proved to be the sub-prime of its day.

Indeed, Bubbles Ben 1.0 triggered a veritable cascade of speculative borrowing that soon spread to the far corners of the globe, including places like municipality of Rio de Janeiro, the Kingdom of Denmark and the free city of Danzig, among countless others.

This is an excellent addition to both military and financial history. Be sure to read the whole thing; it’s close 10k words, but it is definitely worth the time and effort. This, in particular, is a key observation that underlines the falsity of the Keynesian narrative: “The Keynesians have never acknowledged the single most salient statistic about the war debt: namely, that the debt burden actually fell during the war, with the ratio of total credit market debt to GDP declining from 210 percent in 1938 to 190 percent at the 1945 peak!”

I’d noticed this myself in looking at total credit market debt, but never thought through the implications as Stockman has. One can even see it in the relevant chart posted in RGD.


China chooses deflation

This announcement by the Chinese government should indicate a near-term end of the global asset bubble, as it seems unlikely that the deflationary contagion can be restricted to China, particularly given the situation in Ukraine.

China is braced for a wave of industrial bankruptcies as its slowing economy forces companies with sky-high debts to the wall, the country’s premier has said. Premier Li Keqiang told lenders to China’s private sector factories they should expect debt defaults as the world’s second largest economy encounters “serious challenges” in the year ahead.

Speaking after the annual session of the national people’s congress, Li Keqiang said: “We are going to confront serious challenges this year and some challenges may be even more complex.” He told lenders to China’s private sector factories they should expect debt defaults.

Li said China must “ensure steady growth, ensure employment, avert inflation and defuse risks” while also fighting pollution, among other tasks. “So we need to strike a proper balance amidst all these goals and objectives,” he added. “This is not going to be easy,” he said.

Li’s warning followed the failure of Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy to make a payment on a 1bn yuan (£118m) bond last week. The default was the first of its kind for China and widely seen as pointing to the end of 11th-hour government bailouts for troubled enterprises.

I’m not terribly surprised that China has decided to bite the bullet sooner than the USA, Japan, or the EU. Their banks are considerably less politically powerful and they have no need to worry about maintaining their social spending in order to appease the electorate.


The failure of easy debt-money

Remember, the size of the contraction tends to be determined by the size of the expansion:

The amount of debt globally has soared more than 40 percent to $100 trillion since the first signs of the financial crisis as governments borrowed to pull their economies out of recession and companies took advantage of record low interest rates, according to the Bank for International Settlements.

The $30 trillion increase from $70 trillion between mid-2007 and mid-2013 compares with a $3.86 trillion decline in the value of equities to $53.8 trillion in the same period, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The jump in debt as measured by the Basel, Switzerland-based BIS in its quarterly review is almost twice the U.S.’s gross domestic product.

Borrowing has soared as central banks suppress benchmark interest rates to spur growth after the U.S. subprime mortgage market collapsed and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s bankruptcy sent the world into its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Yields on all types of bonds, from governments to corporates and mortgages, average about 2 percent, down from more than 4.8 percent in 2007, according to the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Broad Market Index.

This is really remarkable considering that the USA’s total credit market debt has only increased from $52.9 trillion to $59.0 trillion. The reason that so few people recognize what is happening is that the scale is an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE bigger than the Great Depression.


Irony

Perhaps if he had said something to this effect back in 2008, the problem might have been addressed, if not necessarily averted:

George Soros, the billionaire investor, believes the banking sector is a “parasite” holding back the economic recovery and an “incestuous” relationship with regulators means little has been done to resolve the issues behind the 2008 crisis.

“The banking sector is acting as a parasite on the real economy,” Mr Soros said in his new book “The Tragedy of the European Union”.

“The profitability of the finance industry has been excessive. For a while 35pc of all corporate profits in the United Kingdom and the United States came from the financial sector. That’s absurd.”

Mr Soros outlined how the problems that caused the Eurozone economic crisis remain largely unresolved.

“Very little has been done to correct the excess leverage in the European banking system. The equity in the banks relative to their balance sheets is wafer thin, and that makes them very vulnerable. The issue of “too big to fail” has not been solved at all.”

I don’t recall Mr. Soros opposing the 2008 banking bailout. It’s not as if the intrinsically parasitical nature of the finance industry is news to anyone of Mr. Soros’s stature and occupation. No economy can expect to grow as long as a significant percentage of the profits produced are skimmed by the monetary middlemen, for the obvious reason that the middlemen produce nothing.


China’s export crash

We already know that China is due for a serious debt-crash on the basis of its successful post-2008 bubble inflation. The Zerohedge chart demonstrates the difference between US asset-disinflation and Chinese asset-inflation, all of which is debt-based.  And M2 is up by 1,000 percent since 1999. But that’s the warning; the first sign that the end was in sight was when a small bank threatened to go into default a few months ago. It was promptly bailed out and the entire matter was swept under the rug, ignored by pretty much everyone who doesn’t read Zerohedge.

However, it’s a little hard to ignore a miss of this magnitude:

Plenty of excuses out there for this evening’s colossal miss in Chinese exports (-18.1% YoY vs an expectation of a 7.5% rise) mainly based on timing issues over the Lunar New Year (but didn’t the 45 economists who forecast this data know the dates before they forecast?) This is a 6-sigma miss and plunges China’s trade balance to its biggest miss on record and 2nd largest deficit on record.

Economic statistics are largely fictitious, of course, but the size of this miss is indicative of a problem that is getting too big for even the most outrageous fictions to conceal.


35-year employment low

The average annual labor force participation rate hit a 35-year-low of 63.2 percent in the United States in 2013, according to data from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The last time the average annual labor force participation rate was
that low was in in 1978, when it was also 63.2 percent. Jimmy Carter was
president then.

What is often forgotten in the reporting of the economic statistics is that the statistics are merely an approximation of the economic situation; they are the map and not the territory. GDP doesn’t actually exist, and the “growth” that it represents was designed as a way to provide planners a means of determining how best to intervene in the economy. The decline in the labor force participation rate gives the lie to both the false GDP and false U3 unemployment statistics, both of which are heavily manipulated in a misguided attempt to provide a falsely positive perspective.

The contractionary effect of the increasing lack of participation in the labor force is compounded by the fact that the doubling of the female labor force means that many of the younger women now in it are considerably less productive than the older men they have replaced. Throw in the subsequent consequence of delayed marriage and fewer children, and it is readily apparent that the US economy cannot recover in the next 20 years.


Generation debt-slave

The unprecedented growth in student and federal debt still hasn’t been enough to boost Z1 out of credit disinflation:

Time reports that American students and grads were carrying $1.08 trillion in student loan debt at the end of 2013. This compares to just $253 billion a decade earlier. Aggregate debt grew 10% in the past year alone. By comparison, overall debt grew just 43% in the last decade and 1.6%
over the past year.’ About 70% of students graduate with some amount of
debt, and the average amount owed is $29,400.

This should finish off the housing market once and for all, barring mass Chinese immigration. That $1.08 trillion now represents 1.9 percent of total credit market debt outstanding and a whopping 8.3 percent of total household debt. Most of it is going to be defaulted, or rather, would have been had that not been made illegal by Congress and the Bush administration.


No house until 36

It’s hard to blame the millenials for living in their parents’ basement when they were suckered into taking out student loans on which they cannot, unlike previous generations, default. Karl Denninger spells out the math:

You mean the $500 a month student loan payment is half of a decent first-time homebuyer payment — or more?

Well, yes.  Never mind that $500 a month x 12 months = $6,000 a year saved toward a down payment, and if you put 20% down (which you should) then four years of that savings would make it possible for you to buy a $120,000 house.

Financing $96,000 @ 5% for 30 years gives you a P&I on that $120,000 house of…. $513.21, or awfully close to that student loan payment.

In other words you forego the ability to buy the house by taking the student loan debt.

And for how long do you forego it?

10 years, plus four more to build the down payment, or 14 years post-graduation.

If you graduate in four years (ha!) you’re 22, so this means you’re not buying a house until you’re 36.

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again. The mortgage banks are complaining about the collapse in demand for mortgage debt because indebted graduates and non-graduates can’t afford to take on the debt required to buy a house.

Everything is as my modification of the Austrian Business Cycle predicted. The limits of demand are the limits of CREDIT.