Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Liquidity and Information
The annoyingly anonymous WSJ economics blog (one assumes it's Greg Ip, but can never be sure) talked to Richmond Fed president Jeffrey Lacker yesterday, and asked him about this year's Nobel Prize in Economics. In response, he made an interesting distinction:
Mr. Lacker says mechanism design theory suggests “it’s not clear that liquidity was an important constraint” in causing the recent turmoil in financial markets. Rather, it suggests that the problem was more a shortage of information, a conclusion he deemed “consistent with the lack of use we’ve seen in the discount window,” the way the Fed lends directly to bank.
Now Lacker can say this partly because there's no consensus on what exactly this curious animal called "liquidity" really is. In a narrow sense, it just means "cash" – and so yes, if an absence of liquidity is just the failure of banks to be able to borrow cash at any interest rate, then what we saw this summer was not a liquidity crisis. (Quite the opposite, in fact: the Fed funds rate dropped all the way to zero more than once.)
On the other hand, it's fair to say that all markets are markets in information, and that a shortage of information really is a shortage of liquidity in the sense that liquidity is whatever it is that lubricates markets and makes them transparent and efficient.
Now cutting overnight interest rates is not going to magically inject more information into the system: the idea is that it's more of a signal to the markets, and an attempt to strengthen that diaphanous creature known as "confidence". It is these second-order effects of rate cuts which are always, in the short term, much more important than the first-order effects on narrowly-defined liquidity.






