What is money? What is inflation?

All METARs are both consumers and investors. We are unhappy when consumer prices rise (consumer price inflation) but happy when the value of our investments rise (even if this is due to inflation of the P/E ratio).

It’s pretty clear that consumer price inflation results when the demand for a good or service exceeds the supply. We pay with money.

What is money?
The definition of money is “a medium of exchange.” Historically, most forms of money had clear uses. Cowrie shells could be used for personal decoration. Tobacco could be smoked. Bronze could be turned into weapons. Copper, silver and gold have important commercial uses to this day.

Inflation occurred historically when rulers diluted the valuable metals in their coins with base metals. It said something ominous when the U.S. changed the penny from copper to zinc in 1982 and finally decided to stop minting pennies because the cost of minting was higher than the value of the penny. It says something ominous when nothing – not even “penny candy” – can be bought with a penny anymore. Even an honest copper penny (pre-1982) costs $0.02 based on its copper content.

We are all familiar with the Consumer Price Index.

The M2 money supply consists of money that can easily be spent by consumers – cash, checking accounts, plus (1) small-denomination time deposits (time deposits in amounts of less than $100,000) and (2) balances in retail MMFs not in retirement accounts. Real (inflation-adjusted) M2 grew pretty smoothly between 1995 and 2020.
Click on the “Edit Graph” button in the upper right to see rates of change.

Consumer price inflation was kept under control during those years due to a growing flood of low-cost goods imports. However, inflation of services was much higher
than goods inflation.

The burst of high inflation in 2020 - 2022 was due to a combination of helicopter money sent by Congress directly to consumers (fiscal stimulus) and supply chain problems. It’s clear where consumer price inflation is coming from. Partly monetary stimulus (extremely low interest rates for years) and partly fiscal stimulus.

This series deflates M2 money stock ( M2 (M2SL) | FRED | St. Louis Fed ) with CPI ( Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City Average (CPIAUCSL) | FRED | St. Louis Fed ).

Where is asset price inflation coming from? Why are stock prices continuing to climb when Congress is no longer dropping money onto investors and the Federal Reserve is finally (slowly) shedding its immense book of bonds and the bond market is bringing real interest rates closer to the historic norm?

Where is all the money coming from to inflate the asset markets – stocks and real estate – so much faster than the economy’s growth rate?

Where is the money coming from to inflate the bubble?

Many METARs are heavily invested in stocks and pat themselves on the back for being so smart and so rich. But is this bubble sustainable? Where is the money coming from? It’s not M2 because money that is in bank accounts isn’t in the stock market. It’s not the Federal Reserve which is actually selling its Treasuries and mortgage bonds.

The bubble is being inflated by the truly awesome tsunami of borrowed money created by the Shadow Banking System.
From Google Gemini:

The term “shadow banking system” (SBS)refers to a diverse collection of non-bank financial institutions and activities that provide credit and financial services similar to traditional banks, but with less regulation. These entities include, but are not limited to, investment funds, money market funds, and finance companies…

It is important to note that the term “shadow banking” can be defined in different ways. Some definitions are broader and include entities like insurance companies and pension funds, while narrower definitions focus on financial intermediaries that engage in bank-like activities like maturity and liquidity transformation without regulatory oversight.

According to a 2022 report from the Financial Stability Board, the global shadow banking system, which they refer to as non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI), held over $239 trillion in assets. This represented approximately 49.17% of total global financial sector assets…

The FSB, which uses the term non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI), reported in 2023 that U.S. NBFI assets totaled approximately $20.5 trillion in 2021. This was compared to $23.7 trillion in assets held by U.S. insured depository institutions in the same year. This figure represented about 30% of global non-bank assets…

They do not create traditional “money” (bank deposits), but they create a vast amount of credit, which functions similarly to money in the broader financial system… [end quote]

Whereas the regulated banks create money by fractional reserve lending, the SBS system is unregulated. I could copy a bunch of stuff from Gemini but basically SBS creates money to lend using “The Collateral Multiplier.” When one institution borrows cash using collateral, the lender can then “rehypothecate” that collateral—meaning they can use it as collateral for their own borrowing. This re-use of collateral allows a single security to support multiple layers of borrowing and lending.

This seems risky to me – like mortgaging the same house several times. The money that’s borrowed can then be invested in many ways. Some in the stock market where margin borrowing is at an all-time high.

Some in illiquid investments like real estate which is also at an all-time high driven by investors who are competing with actual home buyers.

But the maturity mismatch and illiquidity which is regulated in the banks is unregulated in the SBS.

I am very uneasy about this whole situation because it’s bigger and badder than 2007.

Would an ordinary, run-of-the-mill recession be enough to turn this into a financial crisis and pop the stock market bubble which is inflated by SBS lending?

Will tariffs be enough to induce a recession?

Wendy

12 Likes

I am almost done moving most of my remaining investments out of the USA, and putting the cash into a strong Mexican Bank. If a smash up happens I expect a lot of expert Mexian laborers to return home, and I will be happy to employ some of them in constructing housing on some of my bare land lots.

Nutso times.

6 Likes

Doesn’t that ‘money reuse’ show up in the velocity of money data? If so, things are relatively sluggish.

DB2

Nope. The fact that the velocity of M2 is sluggish indicates that the money that’s flooding the markets is coming from somewhere else. It’s coming from unregulated, shadowy lenders and unconventional sources. The packaging of “assets” for resale is also unregulated. It’s very difficult to determine how much collateral has been multiplied. Nobody has an accurate measure of risk. This is super scary stuff.

We’re living in crazy times. There’s lots of “creativity” going on. Take DJT for example. They raised $2.5 billion by issuing new shares (diluting existing shareholder value) and then used most of those proceeds to buy Bitcoin.

4 Likes

No. M2 is money circulating in the economy. For example, people go shopping and the store owner buys something from someone else who then buys something. The velocity of the successive purchases would show up as M2V.

According to the Federal Reserve: The velocity of money is the frequency at which one unit of currency is used to purchase domestically- produced goods and services within a given time period. In other words, it is the number of times one dollar is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time. If the velocity of money is increasing, then more transactions are occurring between individuals in an economy.

The transactions I am worried about are completely different. They are financial companies borrowing and lending money to other financial companies or buying assets. Sometimes the borrowed money is short-term (such as from a money market which is supposed to be like cash) and then it is loaned to a long-term obligation (such as a mortgage on an office building which is very illiquid). That is risky because the people who put their money into the money market might get frightened and try to take it out at once (like a run on the bank) but the money wouldn’t be there because it was tied up in a long-term mortgage. (Like the movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life.”)

These are completely different situations.

Wendy

8 Likes

No.

Money is the record of the debt owed to the creator of value.

Cowrie shells and such are currency, the record of money. Currency need not be physical, it can be electrons in a computer.

The Captain

2 Likes

There are other forces that cause consumer price inflation than supply.

Special forces on prices: monopolies, fraud, taxes, government interference, and government regulations.

Our electricity bills are growing because of the special forces.
Our gasoline cost are growing because of the special forces.

Farmers want cheaper electricity with solar but the government fraud will not let them have solar electricity. Thus the electricity cost of farmers goes into making farm product cost to rise.

New England states want cheaper electricity for residential, commercial and industrial use, but the government fraud will not let them have wind energy. The cost of electricity results in commercial and industrial products having to increase the cost of merchandise and manufactured products to rise and residents pay more for their own electricity.

8 Likes

The whole idea of money has always confused me. Currency is easier, cold hard cash, Scrooge McDuck and his piles of coins. Bits seem straightforward too, electrons carving nano-hashmarks on hard drives in the cloud. Currency is the physical record of a number, an amount of money.

Money seems to be the idea of turning a debt into a number. Humans had debt long before they had money. Money quantifies debt and makes it transferable.

Nicholas Mangan created a visually stunning and thought provoking art exhibition about money, Limits To Growth, in 2016. From the webpage:

Photographs of Rai stones

A cryptocurrency mining rig and an underwater video of a Rai stone on the seafloor.

Mangan describes how the sounds in the gallery are part of the story. The scuba breathing of the video photographer, the sound of the bitcoin rig, the noise of the building HVAC helping cool the rig, all
“allude to the presence of closed systems and the notion of the necessity of circulation in any currency.”

More closed systems, “Money mined by the rig has been used to pay for the production of the large-format photographs of Rai stone coins included in the exhibition.”

3 Likes

You are in good company!

Posted to the Gilder forum - September 25, 1999
Money

Despite the fact that I don’t agree with most of his conclusions, John Kenneth Galbraith is one of my favorite economists. His book: “Money, Whence it Came, Where it Went.” is a fun and instructive read. This is an excerpt from chapter one:

The Captain

1 Like

Right, but presumably the people/institutions are doing all that to make a profit. Wouldn’t that show up in the economy as, say, a new house on Nantucket or corporate dividends?

DB2

Suppose I sell a covered call which expires worthless. I made $1,000 but someone lost $1,000 – a wash with no economic consequence. Are “financial companies borrowing and lending money to other financial companies” a wash as well?

A dividend makes the investor richer and the company poorer, a wash as well?

These financial transactions don’t create wealth by themselves, Only the borrower, if he/she/it/fp uses the money to create wealth, creates wealth.

The useful function of money markets is to move money to wealth creators. Money sleeping in McScrooge’s vault creates no wealth. The brilliance of Limited Liability Stock Laws is that they enable idle money to go do productive work.

It tends to be confusing. Say you buy shares in a company at $100. The company does well and it’s capital increases by 50%. Say the market bids $200 for the stock. The book value of the stock increased by maybe 50% by wealth creation. The other 50% is not wealth creation, it’s a transfer of wealth from stock buyer to stock seller. IE, higher PE, higher PS.

The Captain

2 Likes

@DrBob2 if the financial transactions were put to good productive use, such as building a house or new manufacturing equipment (the profits might be distributed as dividends) I would be happy and not worried at all.

The problem is that a HUGE amount of the money is borrowed in order to gamble on non-productive financial instruments like derivatives that do not produce anything useful. Another example is cryptocurrency which sucks up a tremendous amount of energy to “coin” something that can’t be seen or used to buy anything.

That is pure speculation. History shows that bubbles like this eventually burst and can drag the whole economy into crisis. I recommend that you read the interesting books, “Manias, Panics and Crashes” and also “This Time is Different.” You can find them in the library or ask your library to borrow them from another library.

Wwendy

8 Likes

Exactly! This was, if not the cause, the trigger of the 1929 and 2008 financial crashes. Nassim Nicholas Taleb of Black Swan fame talked about how his idol went from millionaire to broke speculating on options. I only found out about it in a New Yorker article by Malcolm Gladwell. They stretched probabilities to absurd limits. A very long list of small losses followed by a giant payout that never arrived.

Gambling pays off nicely when you do it like the Las Vegas casinos do it, the odds, the vigorish is in favor of the house and all games have limits, a very important safeguard. Gamblers and investors should apply the Kelly Criterion not to go broke.

The Captain

Edit:

The Kelly Criterion is the mathematics of…

3 Likes

Did stock buybacks ruin Intel?

The Fall of Intel

Intel once led the world in semiconductor innovation. But decades of stock buybacks and a shift to shareholder value left it vulnerable—missing key opportunities and falling behind rivals like TSMC and Samsung. INET Grantee and ‪@umasslowell‬ Professor Bill Lazonick explains how financialization hollowed out a giant, why U.S. competitiveness depends on reinvestment, and what the Intel story tells us about the future of American industry.

The Captain

4 Likes

Highly unlikely.

It’s not zero sum.

When you sell an option, you are selling volatility.

Volatility has value.

When your counterparty delta hedges (because they have created a portfolio that replicates the economics of the option that does not depend on the directional stock movement), the average effect of delta hedging a long option is to “buy low, sell high,” over and over again, as the stock price fluctuates and the delta hedge is adjusted accordingly.

This, of course, has the effect of generating positive delta hedging p&l, on average.

You and @markr (and everyone else who believes options markets have zero sum economics) can read articles like below to understand this phenomenon.

One of the amazing mathematical properties of the theory of asset pricing.

(Trading Vol · The Hedge Fund Journal)

1 Like

Early in the career of a derivatives trader it becomes very clear that you should get used to explaining what you do for a living, because when asked most people will initially have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Why would they? Derivatives aren’t exactly the most exciting subject for dinner conversations, and option textbooks don’t make for good night-time reading – unless, of course, you’re looking to be put to sleep.

… To our amusement we did not shed light on the subject and modestly accepted his acclaim. Its time to confess – what follows is a brief explanation on how value is extracted when trading volatility positions.

390 words, the author(s) polishing his/her/its/fp/their egos.

Then comes Delta Hedging. In essence our counterparty has to do an additional trade to Delta Hedge the trade he did with us. Down the line all sorts of trades happen, some investors will go broke, some will become MagaRich.

Looked at in isolation our trade is “a wash with no economic consequence.” Being part of a complex system it changes the Universe. Why stop at Delta Hedging?

Volatility does not have inherent value, it creates trading opportunities. Should unrealized trading opportunities be added to current trades? How do we assess the value of the opportunity that might or might not be taken?

The Captain

Do you believe the below statements to be true?

Or no?

Or won’t answer?

example

If Nokia moved suddenly to €13 and the delta of the option changes to 75%, you would sell 25,000 more shares at €13. If the stock then moved back to €12 and the delta is again 50% then you only need to have a short 50,000 share position to be delta hedged in which case you would buy back the 25,000 shares that you had sold at €13. Therefore, as the stock moves down your rebalancing activity has you buying stock, and as the stock moves up you are selling stock – continuously buying low, selling high

@Wendy, glad you asked. I might have an answer. The answer was never expected. USDs abroad are coming back in larger numbers. For instance as the Chinese produce differently and in some ways less and in a climate in China of deflation, the dollars the Chinese consumers hold are being repatriated to the US. In effect raising our M2.

Another way of seeing it fewer of our dollars are chasing foreign goods. Again in effect raising our M2.

Yes, and deflation. It is called incompetence. We risk defaulting on the federal debt as the tax base shrinks. The reasons are probably nefarious.

I’ll answer. I don’t know.

I’ll ask some questions. My post was about option trading being a zero sum game which you deny bringing up volatility and delta hedging.

¿Does whoever buys the call options I sold have to delta hedge?
¿is delta hedge obligatory?
¿Do future actions affect prior actions?
¿Is time reversible?

The Captain

My questions are not about counterparty, they are about the monetary value of equity options.

(although your counterparty in US listed equity options will almost always be a market maker, who will most likely understand and use delta hedging when they post quotes on the exchange).

My questions are about delta hedging, which is a result of how to value (price) an option.

Which is the same as Black-Scholes:

Here’s a statement on counterparty: