Some Thoughts on US Economic Growth

Here is an updated chart from a previous post (Real GDP Growth in the US and Japan: A Closer Look at Consumption, Government Spending, Net Exports, Investment, and Inventories).

US: Contributions to Percent Change in Real Growth Domestic Product (2005/Q1 - 2011/Q1)

(click to enlarge)

Note that 2010-2011(Q1) does not look all that different from 2005-2007!

I don't know where to from here. I think a "double dip" is very possible but if I had to guess, I don't think a new recession is the most probable scenario in the near term. But that depends on difficult factors to predict such as whether current US congressional antics really are only short term theater as many allege, and the potential size of negative demand shocks from the rest of the world (China, Europe, other various housing bubble countries like Australia and Canada, etc).

I believe a common mistake is to consider high oil prices to be one of the drags on growth. Rising oil prices are certainly a drag on growth, but stable oil prices (once lagged effects of previous changes have dissipated) are growth neutral, as I understand it. Even the generally excellent Calculated Risk might have gotten this wrong in a recent outlook post where he says "Also the recent decline in oil and gasoline prices will help, although $100 oil is still a drag on the economy." However he could be correct if he considers a drag on the economy to be a separate phenomenon from a drag on economic growth. (If you think I'm the one who's gotten this wrong, please let me know!)

Similarly, deleveraging is not a drag on growth unless the rate of deleveraging increases. Deleveraging is just one determinant of the household savings rate. A stable household savings rate is growth-neutral. However, deleveraging does reduce the likelihood of a falling savings rate and the associated boost to GDP growth that such a shift would provide. So in terms of current economic growth (i.e., ignoring impacts on future growth), steady-state deleveraging is the absence of a positive rather than an actual negative.

Note that this post only focused on GDP growth... clearly we still have crisis levels of unemployment and underemployment that policy makers should be actively working to address!

Further Evidence that the Private Sector Fully Controls the Money Supply and QE Doesn't "Work" as Advertised

In October, I wrote a post titled How the Loan/Bond Choice Helps the Private Sector Self-Determine the Money Supply — AND Yet Another Reason QE is a Non-Event for the Economy. To give a brief summary, it described my thoughts on the inter-relational dynamics between debt, money supply, and Quantitative Easing, as follows:

1. There are two high level ways that borrowing occurs in the private sector — bank loans, and all other forms of borrowing, i.e., bond issuance, securitization, peer to peer lending, etc.
2. When there is an "excess" of short duration assets (primarily money) held by the private sector, the holders of those assets will be eager to lend it out, and thus acquire a higher yielding asset. The money supply remains unchanged.
3. When there is no "excess" of money to lend (i.e., portfolio preferences are satisfied with the current levels), then banks will have a higher propensity than non-bank lenders to fulfill the economy's current borrowing needs, because they can lend an [almost] unlimited amount, independent of their level of money/reserves. (Their only limit on lending to worthy borrowers, and it is temporary, is how much equity capital they can raise). Bank lending increases the money supply, so from a macro perspective, banks could be considered the private sector's lender of last resort.
4. By choosing the relative proportion of the two type of borrowing, the private sector is able to choose its portfolio mix of long duration assets and short duration assets (money), independently of the actions of the federal government, and [mostly] independently from the desired level of private sector borrowing!
5. When the Federal Reserve conducts Quantitative Easing, it buys long duration assets (treasury bonds, etc) out of the private sector, and gives the private sector short duration assets (money balances) instead.
6. If the private sector is not happy with this new portfolio mix resulting from QE, it likely has the power to "undo" the change over time via shifts in the proportion of bank loans versus other types of lending that it uses!

If the balance sheet impacts of bank lending, non-bank lending, and quantitative easing are not familiar to you, please play with the Macroeconomic Balance Sheet Visualizer — it is a graphical web-based tool, now with a step-by-step walk through mode.

Possible Evidence from a Post-Keynesian Expert that this Theory may be Correct

In the comments of my previous post, commenter Ramanan helpfully linked to a PDF from Marc Lavoie, one of the leading Circuitists. Circuitists (also known as horizontalists) are one "school" of theory within Post-Keynesian economics, and they share most of the same concepts as Modern Monetary Theorists. In section 9.3.1, Lavoie seems to describe the same dynamic that I have attempted to describe. Here is an excerpt:

"...for apparently the demand for money and the supply of credit are determined by two independent mechanisms. In the Lavoie and Godley (2001-2002) model for instance, the demand for credit, at the end of the period, depends on the part of investment expenditures which has not been financed by retained earnings and new equity issues..."

"...the decision by households to hold on to more or less money balances has an equivalent compensatory impact on the loans that remain outstanding on the production side."

While Lavoie only mentions "equity issues", I have seen evidence elsewhere that he uses that term as shorthand to describe any non-bank borrowing mechanism employed by a firm, i.e., his reference to "equity issues" is supposed to also encompass bond issues and some other types of liabilities.

For reasons that are unclear to me, some MMT authors repeatedly claim that QE does not add to the broad money supply. While it is true that if the primary dealers sell their own treasuries to the Fed, then only base money supply is affected, this scenario is too limited given the size of QE to date. As I understand it, primary dealers frequently act as an intermediaries to facilitate QE buying assets from the larger private sector. But if the private sector can react relatively quickly enough via the mechanisms described here to "undo" the money supply changes, then the money supply data won't show any bulge in broad money supply resulting from QE! (And of course there are other factors impacting the money supply at the same time, primarily a desired deleveraging within the private sector, so it is probably not possible to disentangle these different dynamics when looking at the data.)

Evidence in the Recent Data for the QE in the United States

In the last post on this topic, I showed a graph of Japan's bank and non-bank borrowing. While inconclusive, it suggests that Japan's Quantitative Easing from 2001-2006 may have caused a relative decrease in bank-based borrowing as compared to non-bank borrowing, which could add to evidence of the theories above.

Below is a graph of US borrowing from Q2 2004 to Q1 2011.

Effects of US Quantitative Easing on Bank Lending Compared to Total Borrowing:

(click to enlarge)

The red line shows the annualized percentage change in bank loans and leases, by quarter. The green line shows the annualized percentage change in total private sector debt (from the Z.1 report, which is not yet available for Q1 2011). The blue line shows the annualized percentage change in non-financial private sector debt (since the private sector's debt has many layers that could overwhelm the other trends, I thought it worth separating financials out.) I have not subtracted bank loans out of the total debt data, so the shape of the blue and green lines is slightly impacted by the shape of the red line (though the absolute amount of bank debt is around $7 trillion versus around $41 trillion for total private sector debt, so crossover impact is not huge).

Notice how bank loans declined substantially faster than total debt after the first round of Quantitative Easing started! The gap between the red line and the blue line is probably the most relevant. Despite tracking closely to each other until late 2008, they diverged significantly starting in 2009, perhaps as the private sector favored non-bank lending on a relative basis over bank lending, in order to "shed" the excess money supply imposed by quantitative easing!

The second round of quantitative easing is smaller in magnitude, and the data so far only covers the start of QE2. However, in Q4 2010 the gap between the red and blue lines appears to begin widening again. Will that effect continue? I would guess so, but I could ultimately prove to be wrong.

It is also not clear how big the lag effects in this process are. Also, the changes in bank loans versus total debt diverged most significantly in the middle of QE1, and the gap narrowed partially before QE1 ended. It could be that other dynamics that I am unaware of provide a more accurate explanation than what I suggest here.

Anecdotal Evidence

While it's far from scientific or conclusive, and I don't follow the details of specific financial markets, I occasionally see anecdotal evidence of the private sector's increased eagerness for non-bank lending. For example:

• Junk Borrowers Turn Tables on Investors With Looser Terms: Credit Markets: "...debt sold this week included a condition that allows the company to call 10 percent of the bonds at 103 cents on the dollar in each of the first four years... [The borrower] is trying to lock in low interest rates while getting the flexibility to repay debt any time, as it would with a loan..."
• Subprime Bonds Are Back
• [Maybe] recent increases in venture capital activity? (If true, it would be an example of equity issuance rather than bond issuance, but with a similar macroeconomic effect.)

PostScript / Technical Note

In generating the chart in this post, I discovered the importance of using the percent change bank loan data as prepared by the Federal Reserve in its H.8 release whenever possible, instead of starting with the absolute levels of loans. The latter's level jumps around too much due to balance sheet consolidations, acquisitions, etc, while the percent change data appears to be adjusted to remove this effect, if I am understanding it correctly. Details are on the about page and notes page.

Real GDP Per Capita and Myths about Japan's Stagnation

While addressing some myths about Japan, Bill Mitchell posted some graphs of contributions to real GDP. His graphs cover the same data I graphed last August -- the contributions of Consumption, Investment, Government Spending, and Net Exports toward inflation-adjusted economic growth. (A minor difference is I separated Inventories and other Investment in my graphs). Bill also usefully added in Ireland while emphasizing the negative effects of austerity on growth. Visuals such as these make it obvious that investment falls under austerity -- it doesn't rise on a supposed swell of increased business confidence that austerity proponents often claim will be triggered!

While I've been guilty of parroting some myths on Japan myself in years past, it has been enlightening to put more effort into reviewing the data for myself. Here is a graph I have been meaning to post for quite a while:

Annual Growth of Real GDP Per Capita in the US and Japan (1980-2009)



The blue line is for Japan, the red line for the US. It is quite astonishing how close in both magnitude and direction US and Japanese growth have been, when adjusted for population changes! The main divergences are Japan's burst of higher growth in the late 1980s, and its austerity-driven recession in the late 1990s. Once you adjust real GDP growth for changes in population, what you are left with is largely productivity growth. There are other factors that affect the level of GDP (and important things like employment!) but they have less effect on year-on-year growth rates once the adjustment has occurred.

Japan's famous deleveraging primarily meant a higher savings rate than before the deleveraging (corporate rather than household, in Japan's case), with the main effect being a one time shift downward in GDP level (but not growth). After the GDP shift caused by a savings rate shift, future and ongoing GDP growth is impacted by other factors such as whether aggregate demand is sufficient to bring growth back near potential growth, but Japan may have been a success story in this area! However, its success in achieving this real per-capita GDP growth may have been more a result of the falling household savings rate over the last couple decades than of government fiscal (or monetary!) policy.

Japan's stagnation myths (some people blame too much government spending, others too little!) derive in part from two sources of confusion -- real growth versus nominal growth (Japan has a low and sometimes negative rate of inflation) and GDP growth versus per capita GDP growth (Japan has a low-to-negative population growth trend).

Of course, real GDP growth (absolute rather than per-capita) does affect valuations of financial markets and real estate, since those valuations rely on the size of future earnings streams. Japan's asset markets have famously failed to "recover." To the extent that other nations follow in Japan's demographic footsteps, there will be some downside surprises in asset market returns in the medium to long term for many advanced nations...

UPDATE (same day):

To supplement the year-on-year growth chart above, here is a graph of the actual levels of per capita real GDP indexed for Japan and the US. Japan's surging growth in the late 1980s that accompanied its stock market and real estate bubbles did put it above the US trend, but the levels converge again before year 2000.



UPDATE 5/23/2011: After reading a post by Bill Mitchell today that appeared to contradict the findings in this post, I initially wondered whether I had erred by using the FRED2 data for Japan in which the real per capita GDP data is converted to 2009 US dollars at purchasing power parity. (i.e., perhaps this incorporated exchange rate effects as well.) However, today I extracted the appropriate source data from Japan's cabinet office and generated my own graph using yen-denominated values, and the trend line is identical to the FRED2 data I used. In other words, the trend lines for per capita GDP growth for the US as measured in dollars and Japan as measured in yen still are remarkably consistent with each other, just as this post initially showed. The main divergences in the two trends are in the time periods of roughly 1987-1990 and 1997-2000.

It turns out (based on my own graphs from the source data) that Bill seems to have accidentally switched the labels on the two lines in his second graph, so his nominal and real GDP per capita lines for Japan are reversed.

Nonfinancial Corporate Earnings: Could They Keep Falling Until the Economy Passes Through Another Recession?

While I ponder aloud whether this is a healthy stock market for investors (as opposed to momentum traders), this will be my second post on the topic, following the last post that graphed long term trends in earnings.

I tend to avoid analyses that take the form of "whenever A happened in the last B years, then C occurred at least D percent of the time." Much of the time this indicates data mining to validate a favored conclusion, whether bullish or bearish. While this post risks getting closer to that territory than I'd like, I'm going to avoid actually calculating percentages and such and keep it vague and qualitative! I have no clear conclusions, I simply found the data interesting.

Here is a graph of nonfinancial corporate business profits after tax (NFCPATAX) and financial corporate business profits after tax (CP minus NFCPATAX) from the national accounts data, generated via FRED2.

• Nonfinancial profits (the blue line) fell a nontrivial amount in Q4 2010. Have they peaked for this expansion? Or was there a special one-time event (such as an expiration of tax-friendly legislation) that explains it?
  
• Look at the historical pattern of past occurrences of nonfinancial profits first starting to fall. If the drop was nontrivial in size, nominal nonfinancial profits continued to fall and only reversed course once a recession had occurred and was reaching its end! This process seemingly can take several years to occur (e.g., especially in the late 1990s).
  
• The most obvious exception to the pattern is in the mid 1980s — a large drop in earnings was later followed by resumed earnings growth, with no recession.
• Financial profits (the red line) in the period leading up to and through recessions have acted quite differently than nonfinancial profits. In the 1991 and 2001 recessions in particular, financial profits kept growing, largely unfazed by recession! This perhaps had a lot due to with the rapid growth in household debt as well as the steeper yield curve due to the Fed lowering rates.
  

Here is the same data ending in 1992, so that the vertical scale for the earlier years is more visible:


The pattern of nonfinancial profits peaking in nominal terms months or years before recession occurs seems similar but less pronounced than in the later periods. Note that I am intentionally graphing nominal profits in all cases, rather than a ratio such as to GDP. This is because stock prices are likely more sensitive to nominal profits than profits ratios.

A natural question for an investor would be, what are the implications for stock prices?

Here is a graph of nonfinancial corporate profits and the value of the S&P 500 index:


Does the point at which nonfinancial earnings peak represent an "overvalued" stock market price, given that recession often follows within a few years? It appears that in many cases, the stock market continued to rise after earnings peaked, and the eventual stock market low during recession wasn't always lower than the stock price had been at the time of that prior peak in earnings. Thus, waiting to buy stocks wouldn't necessarily have provided a lower entry point in the future. There are of course exceptions, for example the most recent recession taking stock prices well below their price at the time of the prior peak in nonfinancial earnings.

I can suggest no insights from this data regarding the eventual impact on stock prices even if the current contraction in nonfinancial earnings continues. The future direction of financial sector earnings may turn out to be a key determinant of the outcome. Plus, as is well known, valuation multiples expand and contract independently from changes in earnings.

Here is the same data repeated but only up to 1992, so the vertical scale for the earlier years is more clear:

Stock Market Earnings Trends: What Happens This Decade?

What is the outlook for US stock market returns over the coming decade? There is no shortage of commentary on this topic, and I don't have any unique answers, but I thought I would share two graphs.

A lot of market commentary suggests the stock market is overvalued on the basis of measures such as stock market capitalization to GDP, Shiller's CAPE (10 Year Average Inflation-Adjusted PE ratio), Tobin's Q, etc. But for any elevated ratio, a reversion to the mean can occur via a combination of falling numerator and/or rising denominator. For example, GDP could grow rapidly while stock market valuation grows slowly, allowing the ratio of market cap to GDP to mean revert without a fall in earnings and stock prices. But how likely is the numerator to fall? That is what would most concern a medium to long term investor.

One prediction in particular that caught my attention was Robert Shiller's suggestion that the S&P 500 will be around 1430 in the year 2020. With the S&P 500 currently around 1300, that represents roughly a 10% total increase (not annual!) over a decade. Robert Shiller is known for recognizing both the dot-com bubble and housing bubble long before most people, so he is worth listening to.

Here is a chart of trailing 12 month reported earnings created from Shiller's spreadsheet, from 1871 through Q3 2010:



The green exponential trend line shows the long term earnings trend. Current earnings have rebounded quickly to well above the trend line. If earnings oscillate around this trend line as they have done historically, they should be centered around roughly $60 in 2020! At a 15 valuation multiple, that only represents an S&P 500 index value of 900 (a 31% decline!) However, this trend is for real (inflation adjusted) earnings, so the nominal level of earnings and corresponding S&P 500 valuation would be somewhat higher assuming continued positive inflation.

But what about the most optimistic case from the perspective of the stock market? What if we are in a sustainable new era in which the recent extraordinary corporate margins, earnings to GDP, etc, can be maintained indefinitely? The next graph shows the same trend line since 1980 but for nominal reported earnings. The red portion of the line is the estimated forward earnings from Standard & Poors S&P500 spreadsheet as of today, which is important because expected earnings represent what the market valuation is currently priced for, i.e., earnings of $90-$95.


This trend line shows the nominal earnings trend reaching the $90-$95 level around 2020. So current earnings and forward estimates are ten years ahead of "schedule"! This second graph seems to align with Shiller's suggestion of an S&P index of 1430 in 2020 (with a 15 valuation multiple, earnings would be $95).

The key question for a stock market investor is what happens to that earnings line over the next decade: does it remain above trend line (not impossible, if you look at the late 1990s period), does it crater again as in 2008-2009, or does something else occur?

This graph shows the extent to which nominal earnings can fall: a 35% fall from 1989-1991, a 54% fall from 2000-2001, and a 92% fall from 2007-2009 . So history shows that a falling numerator is not uncommon, i.e., reversion to mean not exclusively driven by a rising denominator. If falling earnings is a reasonably probable scenario, the next question is, when? With labor cost pressures low and held down by high unemployment, and rising commodities costs representing a possibly more manageable percentage of most cost structures, is a contraction in GDP the only thing that could meaningfully reduce earnings?

Comments are welcome.

Updated Macroeconomic Balance Sheet Visualizer

Around a year ago, I wrote a blog post about the draft copy of the macroeconomic balance sheet visualizer I had set up, and got some useful feedback (thanks!) At the time, I said:

"If you are learning this like me, I recommend you skip this until an updated version is ready, otherwise you could be unnecessarily misled or confused. I will post another blog entry when a more polished version is ready — both more accurate, and with added features, usability, more accessible step-by-step walkthrough, etc."

Since then, various knowledgeable folks have looked at it, and to the best of my knowledge what's there is correct. (I know the text descriptions still have room for improvement and better precision, which will come over time, but hopefully any issues are minor — let me know if that's not true!)

In the last few weeks especially (apologies for the full year it's taken!), I've made some batches of updates, including:

• Layout improvements.
• A "Replay Operation" button.
  
• Mouse-over text descriptions for each asset, liability, and equity block (e.g., reserves balances of the banking system).
• Step-by-step walk-through mode to give visitors who are at a loss for how to start a concrete way to be led through each operation in turn. (And it avoids the "Invalid Operation" message that you get if current balance sheet states don't support a particular operation.)

So if you heeded my warning and held off before, please give the tool a try now and see if it helps you:

Macroeconomic Balance Sheet Visualizer

While I still have a few ideas to work on and improvements to make (especially for the walk-through mode), if you have concrete suggestions for how the visualizer might be further improved, I'd love to hear from you in comments!

I am also still occasionally working on the macroeconomic flow visualizer that I hope will be comprehensible to a wider audience, but my time and progress on it to date have been much less than I'd hoped. So, more on that later, maybe.

How the Loan/Bond Choice Helps the Private Sector Self-Determine the Money Supply — AND Yet Another Reason QE is a Non-Event for the Economy

NOTE: Just to be clear, this post does not describe any established theory. It was intended as a thought exercise to elicit feedback (with no results so far). What it describes may or may not be accurate — it does seem logical to me, but I am not an expert on the banking system.

UPDATE 11/11/2010: Thanks to commenter Ramanan for pointing out that the concepts in this post overlap to some degree with existing Post Keynesian / Circuitist work, such as by Marc Lavoie.

UPDATE 4/28/2011: If you read this post and are interested in further details including a graph of QE's impact on bank versus non-bank lending in the US, please also read this more recent post.

Two fundamental types of lending enable the private sector to borrow money. The first type is bank loans, which "create money". The second type is other lending in all its forms, in which a lender (typically not a bank) lends existing money to a borrower. Sometimes loans of existing money are directly between two entities, for example a household buying a bond issued by a corporation. Other times they go through a lending intermediary that pools together loans, for example securitized loan pools sold to investors, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with their mortgage assets and "agency debt" liabilities. There is even a fledgling peer-to-peer lending industry that can involve either direct person-to-person loans or intermediary loan pools.

This post will explain how an economy with both forms of lending on offer allows the private sector to partially self-determine the broad money supply (i.e., according to its preference for holding liquid short-duration assets), semi-independently of the amount of private borrowing it desires. I have never seen this idea explained elsewhere before, so please comment below if you have seen it addressed elsewhere, or if you think my logic is incorrect.

One important conclusion of this is observation is that if the government attempts to force the private sector on aggregate to hold a larger quantity of money (short duration assets) than the private sector wants, then the private sector, given enough time, will counter the government's action by shifting from bank loans to non-bank loans (e.g., bonds), thus eliminating the increase in the money supply. Conversely, if the government offers insufficient short duration assets, the private sector will tend to favor bank loans (with their associated money creation) over non-bank loans, until the money supply increases enough to satisfy the private sector's liquidity desires.

However, this conclusion only holds to the extent that bank loans and other debt such as bonds can be used interchangeably to fulfill the needs of prospective borrowers. Clearly this is not entirely true, and substitutability between the two types may be limited by regulations, refinance cost frictions, or other factors. For example, investors may take some time to trust securitized loan pools again, and households can only borrow from banks, they can't issue bonds! (Though if peer-to-peer lending were to grow sufficiently, this limitation might be overcome...)

This conclusion also has implications for what to expect from quantitative easing. QE is nothing more than an asset swap that replaces long duration assets held by the private sector with new short duration assets (issued by the central bank). Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) authors have been saying this for years, and Paul Krugman has finally figured it out too. So, given enough time after quantitative easing and small enough frictions and impediments between the two types of lending, we should expect to see a relative reduction in bank lending (via money creation), and relative increase in other forms of lending (without money creation) as the private sector tries to eliminate its excess short duration assets ("money") by shifting into longer duration assets (e.g., newly issued bonds).

Thus yet another reason QE is a non-event for the real economy! Other authors have already shown that it will not cause any increase in bank lending (the money multiplier is a myth for today's currency systems!) But will QE even reduce long term interest rates? There is little evidence that it will. Long term rates rose during the Bank of England's recent QE program. James Hamilton, a frequently linked to traditional economics professor, summarizes estimates of the effects of Fed's QE at less than a 20 basis point reduction in long term yields, a trivially small amount that may also represent coincidence.

In fact, an implication of the theory explained above is that QE could actually accelerate the shrinking of banks' loan books, and aside from fee income from banks facilitating other types of bond-like lending, banks could actually be hurt by QE via the loss of expected loan income as loans are packaged into securities for yield-hungry investors or refinanced into bonds.

Japan's Experience

Does history show any evidence of this effect? Japan first experimented with a form of quantitative easing from 2001-2006. Here is a graph showing two types of liabilities summed up for Japan's private sector — loans and "securities other than shares" (which I am assuming are largely longer-duration liabilities such as bonds, but I am no expert on Japan's national accounts data and could be wrong on this).

(click on graph for a larger version)

Funding via "securities other than shares" (bonds, etc?) (red line) jumped to positive growth during the QE period, even amidst ongoing contraction in bank loans (blue line). If deleveraging was ongoing, absent other factors, shouldn't it have been ongoing in both categories? It seems this data might lend some support for the idea that a forced increase in money might be counteracted by the private sector favoring bond-like lending over bank loans to reduce the balance of unwanted money in the system.

Technical Explanation of the Trade-off Between Bank Loans And Non-Bank Lending

First let's look at the difference between a bank loan and other forms of lending, then at how interest rates are determined. The following images are snapshots from a slightly edited (for demonstration purposes) copy of my Macroeconomic Balance Sheet Visualizer. You can try the "Bank Loan" and "Private Bond Issued" operations there yourself, as well as the "Bank Loan Is Securitized" operation (not shown here).

Bank Loan — Balance Sheets Before Lending Occurs:
(the "Households" balance sheet below represents the borrower)

Bank Loan — Balance Sheets After Lending Occurs:

Private Bond — Balance Sheets Before Lending Occurs:

Private Bond — Balance Sheets After Lending Occurs:

Discussion of Balance Sheet Change Details:

As you can see, loans create deposits (this is widely misunderstood, as people assume that banks lend out reserves, which is not true). Because of the way the central bank ensures sufficient reserves in the system to satisfy reserve ratios (though these ratios don't even exist in many countries), the only limitation to bank lending is finding enough credit-worthy borrowers and meeting capital ratio requirements. The capital requirements dictate how much balance sheet equity a bank must have relative to its loan assets, since such equity is a "cushion" for absorbing losses. Banks can generally raise more capital as needed if there are worthy borrowers, so this is no limitation either beyond the very short term.

Comparing bank loans versus other bond-like lending:

• In both cases, the borrower's balance sheet adds a new short duration asset (money) and a new long term liability (loan or bond).
• In both cases, the lender's balance sheet adds a new long duration asset (loan or bond).
• For a non-bank lender, adding the long duration asset requires giving up a short duration asset (money).
• For a bank lender, adding the long duration asset requires adding a short duration liability (bank deposits, which are money for the depositor).
• In both cases, total private sector debt is increased.
• Only in the case of bank lending is the broad money supply increased.
  

So the KEY difference from a lender perspective is that bank lending requires accepting a new short duration liability, while non-bank lending requires giving up a short duration asset.

What interest rates would banks offer on loans compared to rates offered by non-bank lenders? In both cases, interest rates have to be sufficient to cover credit risks (i.e., the risk of borrowers defaulting on their debt) and inflation and interest rate risks. On top of this, a bank lender has to price in the ongoing cost of the new liability (paying interest to the depositor), while the non-bank lender has to price in the opportunity cost of the foregone short duration asset (money). At any given point in time, both these costs will be the same, since both the liability and the foregone asset pay interest at the current deposit rate on offer by banks. So, based on these factors alone, bank lenders and non-lenders should offer comparable interest rates to borrowers at any given point in time.

So which would "win" in lending to prospective borrowers? At times when there is a surplus of short duration assets (bank deposits) in the system (i.e., "too much money"), some non-bank lenders will be more eager to trade short duration assets for longer duration assets, and will likely bid down the lending rate and out-compete the banks. This will limit the increase in the money supply as non-bank lending doesn't create money. Conversely, at times when there is a deficient amount of short duration assets in the system, non-bank lenders will want to hold onto the deposits they have, so they will not match the lower lending rates offered by banks, and will thus let banks extend the loans to borrowers, thereby increasing the money supply. Loans would keep beating out bonds until the money supply had increased to a point of equilibrium (i.e., the amount of money desired by depositors on aggregate to meet their liquidity preferences). In this way, the ability of banks to "create money" when they lend provides an interest rate anchor for the economy (a sort of private sector "lender of last resort"). And because of this, the private sector has some control over the broad money supply, independent from the amount of debt it issues.

And if the suggestion just above is correct (i.e., that bank loans help anchor long term interest rates independently from the supply of long and short term assets), it may help in explaining why even a post-QE reduction in private sector long duration assets may not have any meaningful impact on bond prices and yields. (Generally it is argued that reducing the supply of something increases its price.)

Of course the whole dynamic posited here would probably be a "medium term" thing, not instant, as it would take time for shifts between types of lending to occur, so in the short term, none of this may apply.

What do you think? Is this (A) logical (B) flawed, or (C) an amateurish summary of some existing theory in finance or economics?

UPDATE: I had intended to also mention the theory that QE will drive up asset prices (stocks, housing, etc). This post does not address that directly, but to the extent that a shift away from bank loans occurs and counteracts the increased "unwanted" money supply, some of the driver for such an effect on asset prices might disappear (in the medium term).