Transcript A money Demand Function with Output Uncertainty, Monetary

A money Demand Function with Output
Uncertainty, Monetary Uncertainty,
&
Financial Innovation
WOON GYU CHOI
SEONGHWAN OH
Class: Macro-economic Theory
Dr. Mohammad Al-Sakka
Date 20th March, 2011
Presented by
Sareh Rotabi
Introduction
Hypothesis
Data and Methodology
Result discussion
Conclusion

The world is inhabited by rational agents who hedge their
portfolios against a backdrop of macroeconomic
uncertainties before making any decision.

The instability of money demand functions in the U.S. after
the mid-1970s received wide attention.

Many researchers have studied the money demand
function and its relation with economic uncertainties.
Objective:
To resolve the instability of M1 demand starting
from 1968 till early 1990s through introducing
new variables in the analysis of money demand
function.
What is money demand function or in another
word, what do we mean by demand for
money? And what does the stability of money
demand means?
Demand for money is a decision about the form in which to hold
your wealth.
The stability of money demands means that the relation
between money demand, interest rate and income remain
unchanged over time.
Demand for money depends on:
-Income
-Interest rates
M/P = f(i,Y)
V= Velocity of money
P= Price level
y= Real income/ Out put/ GDP
Y= Nominal income/ Output/ GDP- Py
M= Quantity of money supplied
Md= Quantity of money demanded
i= Interest rate
Does output uncertainty and monetary
uncertainty as well as output, interest rate, and
financial innovations affect money demand?
1st approach: Theoretical Model and Money Demand
Function using Money in the utility function (MIUF).
Consideration:
 Agents make forecast about output and inflation conditional on the
information set available when they decide on their money holding.
The cost of financial innovation that facilitate the transactions
Findings:
The following variables affect money demand
-Output uncertainty
-Monetary uncertainty
-Transaction volume
-Interest rate

1st approach, cont.
-Unlike Friedman and Schwartz who found the income elasticity of money
demand to be almost unitary over the period 1868-1975, this article
shows that estimated income elasticity of money demand tends to be
far less than unity when the postwar data are extended to the early
1990s.
-The difference may reflect missing variables arising from financial
innovation
2nd approach: Empirical Investigation (Money Demand
Cointegration Test and Error Correction Regression of Money
Demand), using quarterly U.S. data for M1, price level, real
income, and interest rate.
Consideration:
-Money demand function includes:
Financial service
Output uncertainty
Monetary uncertainty
2nd approach, cont.
Sample period: 1963-1996
-Price level measured by implicit GNP deflator
-Real income measured by real GNP
-Market rates measured as the three-month treasury bill rate (RTB), the sixmonth commercial paper rate (RCP), or the ten-year Treasury bond rate
(R10)
-The own rate of return on M1= RM1
-Opportunity cost= market rates – RM1
The data may involve shocks from the money demand side, e.g. Financial
technology shocks which its uncertainty positively influence the demand
for
money
2nd approach, cont.
Findings:
-The estimate of income and interest elasticities are sensitive to the ending
date of the postwar period sample. To reduce the correlation between
income and interest rate, the sample period has covered many years beyond
1982.
-Extending the sample period to early 1990s, results in an income elasticity
of far less than 1.
The model delivers a high income elasticity of money demand consistent
with cross-sectional evidence
2nd approach, cont.
Findings:
The behavior of money demand appears to be affected negatively by output
uncertainty and positively by monetary uncertainty
The implementation of disinflationary policy add positive and negative
affects to the effects of output uncertainty and monetary uncertainty,
respectively.
Variables in money demand functions
Residuals from cointegration regression
System D performs better than other systems,
where:



Missing money disappears
Great velocity decline
M1explosion weakened
The U.S. M1 demand puzzles during certain episodes are
largely due to misspecification of the money demand
function
rather than to actual economic behavior.

The result is supported through an empirical evidence in a
long-run, mainly by adding the financial service along with
other variables.

Past theories may not verify the current or the
expected behavior of the economy. I believe, it
is our generation’s role to manifest the
ambiguities