The growing demand for larger and smaller monetary units

A thousand years ago we never needed to measure lengths of more than a few hundred leagues nor less than a few hairs. Now we measure the diameter of our local galactic supercluster in yotameters and the length of neutrinos in yoctometers.

A similar dynamic exists in the measurement of prices. When I was doing research last week for this post, I ran into my first instance of something measuring in the quadrillion dollar range. Apparently the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) settled some $1.669 quadrillion in securities transactions in 2011. I'm still having problems getting a grasp on the size of that number. I doubt a banker in 1500s London would have ever had to conceive of anything more than a few hundred thousand shillings.

When the Fed's balance sheet exploded in 2009, we all had to get used to thinking in terms of trillions of dollars. But anyone analyzing the Fed in, say, the 1960s never had to worry about a balance sheet worth more than a mere $80 billion. I suppose that we all need to start getting used to quadrillions now, and whatever unit comes after that.

This goes the other direction, too. In financial markets, we're starting to see stock quotes in sub-penny amounts. This is a massive change from a few decades ago when stock was typically quoted in eighths of a dollar.

Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are particularly interesting in this respect because they are divisible to 8 decimal places. I found myself in a novel place last week when I was offering to sell a bitcoin-denominated stock for 2.99999, and someone undercut me by offering 2.99998. Consider the cryptocurrency used by the Ripple system, the XRP. One millionth of an XRP is called a "drop". The default transaction fee on a Ripple trade is 10 drops. Given that an XRP is worth around 1/50,000th of one US dollar, it becomes very difficult to comprehend the tiny value of the 10 drop transaction fee.

One wonders how much larger and smaller our monetary units will be a thousand years from now.

Comments

Shadow banks want in from the cold

Remember when shadow banks regularly outcompeted stodgy banks because they could evade onerous regulatory requirements? Not any more. In negative rate land, regulatory requirements are a blessing for banks. Shadow banks want in, not out. In the old days, central banks imposed a tax on banks by requiring them to maintain reserves that paid zero percent interest. This tax was particularly burdensome during the inflationary 1970s when short term rates rose into the teens. The result was that banks had troubles passing on higher rates to savers, helping to drive the growth of the nascent U.S. money market mutual fund industry. Unlike banks, MMMFs didn't face reserve requirements and could therefore offer higher deposit rates to their customers. To help level the playing field between regulated banks and so-called shadow banks, a number of central banks (including the Bank of Canada) removed the tax by no longer setting a reserve requirement. While the Federal Reserve didn't go as f...

The bond-stock conundrum

Here's a conundrum. Many commentators have been trying to puzzle out why stocks have been continually hitting new highs at the same time that bond yields have been hitting new lows. See here , here , here , and here . On the surface, equity markets and bond markets seem to be saying two different things about the future. Stronger equities indicate a bright future while rising bond prices (and falling yields) portend a bleak one. Since these two predictions can't both be right, either the bond market or the stock market is terribly wrong. It's the I'm with stupid theory of the bond and equity bull markets. I hope to show in this post that investor stupidity isn't the only way to explain today's concurrent bull market pattern. Improvements in financial market liquidity and declining expectations surrounding the pace of consumer price inflation can both account for why stocks and equities are moving higher together. More on these two factors later. 1. I'm with...

Does QE actually reduce inflation?

There's a counterintuitive meme floating around in the blogosphere that quantitative easing doesn't do what we commonly suppose. Somehow QE reduces inflation or causes deflation, rather than increasing inflation. Among others, here are Nick Rowe , Bob Murphy , David Glasner , Stephen Williamson , David Andolfatto , Frances Coppola , and Bill Woolsey discussing the subject. Over the holidays I've been trying to wrap my head around this idea. Here are my rough thoughts, many of which may have been cribbed from the above sources, though I've lost track from which ones. Let's be clear at the outset. Inflation is a rise in the general price level, deflation is a fall in prices. QE is when a central bank purchases assets at market prices with newly issued reserves. In equilibrium, the expected returns on all goods and assets must be equal. If they aren't equal then people will rebalance towards superior yielding assets until the prices of these assets have risen high...

Typography

Search This Blog