Skip to main content

Does money enjoy a home advantage?


Do citizens benefit by owning money that is pegged to the nation's own unit of account rather than a foreign unit of account?

Let's start by imagining a money that is not pegged to the national unit of account. Say that U.S. banking giant Wells Fargo establishes branches all over Canada. Instead of issuing chequing accounts that are pegged to the Canadian dollar, it decides that it will steal business from Canadian banks by issuing U.S. dollar-pegged chequing accounts to Canadians. Wells Fargo execs reason that the U.S. dollar is at least as stable as Canadian dollars, if not more so, and this could give their product an edge.

Further imagine that Wells Fargo is able to ensure that its U.S.-denominated money is just as liquid as that of competing Canadian money. Say that Canada's national ATM network is modified to dispense U.S. dollars to Wells Fargo cardholders. Retailers are convinced to accept U.S. dollar electronic payments, and so is Revenue Canada, the national tax authority. The upshot is that within Canadian borders, a U.S. dollar can do anything that a Canadian dollars can. Any Canadian in need of liquidity will be entirely indifferent between regular C$ deposits and Wells Fargo US$ deposits.

Let's also assume that shifting funds between U.S. and Canadian dollars is free, so Canadians who are paid in one unit have no compunctions about exchanging into the other. Apps and other technologies remove all inconveniences of calculating exchange rates. Finally, Wells Fargo's U.S. dollars are FDIC-insured and its Canadian branches have access to the Fed's discount window, making them just as safe as Canadian dollars.

This leaves just one difference between the two types of money; Canadian dollars are the unit of account. This means that retailers set prices in Canadian dollars, not U.S. dollars. Will this feature have any influence on whether Canadian consumers choose to open an account with Wells Fargo or stay with their existing bank?

Consumer prices are peculiar because, unlike asset prices, they stay constant for long spells of time. When examining the frequency of price changes for 350 categories of goods and services, Bils and Klenow found that prices tend to stay fixed for 4.3 months before they are updated.  Coin-operated laundry prices exhibited price spells of 79.9 months, driver's license fees 56.3 months, and newspapers 29.9 months (see below). On the short end of the spectrum, the price spell for gas is just 0.6 months, eggs 1 month, and women's suits 1.6 months.

Source: Bils & Klenow

One reason for this stickiness is that retailers are said to have made an "invisible handshake" with consumers that requires them to avoid raising prices when demand suddenly increases. Retailers bind themselves to this implicit contract because they do not want their loyal customers to view them as being unfair, spitefully bolting to the competition when prices are adjusted. Customers may prefer stable nominal prices because these allow them to carefully match their daily and weekly spending plans with the money currently available in their accounts. Put differently, if you've got $100 in your account, and the set of retailers at which you shop have promised not to budge on pricing for a few weeks, you can determine ahead of time what bundles of goods you can afford. Without the sticky price "handshake," you're in the dark.

So money that is denominated in the unit of account comes with a major ancillary benefit. In Canada's case, the nation's retailers have agreed to offer Canadian dollar owners a convenient planning mechanism, much like a day planner or personal organizer. This mechanism provides anyone who owns Canadian dollars around 4.3 months of  uncertainty alleviation within national borders.

Whereas Canadian sticker prices are characterized by long price spells, the U.S. dollar prices faced by Wells Fargo's Canadian customers will fluctuate by the second. To see why, consider that when a customer wants to pay in U.S. dollars, they will have to indicate their preference at the checkout counter. The retailer inputs the Canadian dollar sticker price of the good, multiplies it by the USD/CAD exchange rate, and arrives at the U.S. dollar price. The foreign exchange market is a 24 hour "flex-priced" market, so the exchange rate--and thus the U.S. dollar sticker price of goods--will always be fluctuating.

Wells Fargo money will therefore not be able to provide the same set of uncertainty-minimizing features that Canadian money provides. Anyone who holds, say, $100 U.S. dollars in their account cannot know ahead of time how much stuff they'll be able to buy over the ensuing three or four days. An equivalent C$100 provides near certainty. Lacking this nice property, Wells Fargo money faces significant headwinds at the outset.

This explains a point I was trying to make in my previous post on bitcoin. Bitcoin's battle to gain general acceptance will be a harder one to win than Wells Fargo's in Canada because the price of bitcoin is so much more volatile than U.S. dollars. Even if bitcoin's price eventually stabilizes so that it is just about as volatile as the U.S. dollar, it must still overcome the same unit-of-account hurdle as Wells Fargo i.e. neither can mimic the 'day planner' properties of the Canadian dollar. I don't think is an easy problem to overcome.


PS: Another complicating factor is product returns. If someone doesn't like the t-shirt they bought, and they paid in bitcoin, refunds are usually issued in U.S. dollars at the bitcoin-to-dollar conversion rates in play at the time of the transaction. So it's possible to make or lose bitcoin on refunds. For bitcoin owners, this adds an extra degree of uncertainty. Pay in dollars and you can be certain you'll get the exact same nominal amount back if the product is unsatisfactory. Pay in bitcoin and who knows what the amount of bitcoin you'll be refunded.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more