“Everyone has one…”

The key charts

From this (a simplified model of financial transactions)…

To this (quantitative, objective and logical macro analysis)….

Introduction

This is the second in a series of posts in which I develop a consistent “balance sheet framework” for understanding the relationship between the banking sector and the wider economy. The first post presented a simple mapping of the UK economy and its financial system and highlighted the relatively large size of the UK financial system and the relatively volatile nature of its relationships with the UK economy. In this second post, I focus on:

• the core services provided by the UK financial system
• how these services produce a stock of contracts that can be represented by financial balance sheets that link different economic agents over time
• how these balance sheets form the foundation of a highly quantitative, objective and logical analytical framework.

Summary

The UK financial system’s core services include making payments for goods and services, moving money from tomorrow to today (credit) and moving money from today to tomorrow (savings). The resulting “monetary circuit” facilitates the supply of goods and services and the subsequent consumption by households.

The core services also produce a stock of financial contracts that link different economic agents together over time. A fundamental principle of accounting is that for every financial asset there is an equal and offsetting financial liability. By definition, net financial wealth is therefore equal to the sum of financial assets less the sum of financial liabilities. If we take all the private sector financial assets and liabilities it is also a matter of logic that the sum of all the assets must equal the sum of all the liabilities.

The implication here is that for the private sector to accumulate net financial wealth it must be in the form of claims on another sector. In the case of a simple two sector economy, the net financial assets held by the private sector are exactly equal to the net financial liabilities of the government. The key message here is that in a two-sector economy, it is impossible for the public and private sectors to run surpluses at the same time. Of course, in reality these domestic sectors are also economically linked to foreign governments, firms and households, collectively termed the “rest of the world” (ROW). Hence, the private sector can accumulate net financial assets equal to public sector liabilities, the ROW’s net liabilities or a combination of two.

The three sectors described below – the domestic public sector, the domestic government sector and the ROW – can be treated as having income and savings flows over a given period (typically a quarter or a year). Extending the accounting principles described above any deficits run by one or more sectors must equal surpluses run by other sector(s). This leads to the key identity pioneered by the late Wynne Godley:

Domestic private balance +domestic government balance +foreign balance = zero

I analyse these trends for the key economic agents in the UK economy and their implications in more detail in my next post.

The core financial services

The core services of the UK’s (and any economy’s) financial system include:

• Making payments for goods and services
• Moving money from tomorrow to today (credit)
• Moving money from today to tomorrow (savings)
• (Managing risk – a core service but outside my analysis here)

By way of illustration, the diagram below depicts a series of transactions between six economic agents in a simplified (closed) domestic economy:

• two households (the Smiths and the Khans)
• two non-financial companies (Jane’s consumer durables and John’s commercial vehicles)
• two financial institutions (a bank and a unit trust company/NBFI)

The red arrows in this diagram represent a flow of money between each of the six economic agents. The yellow boxes show what was purchased with these funds (two non-financial assets, an apartment and a van ) and the pale blue boxes highlight the resulting financial assets. In turn:

• Payments of goods and services: the Smiths buy an apartment from the Khans and Jane’s consumer durables buys a transport van from John’s commercial vehicles. The payments might be made directly in cash between the four parties, but are more likely to be made via banks’ payments systems. Note that, modern economies need efficient payment systems to enable agents to pay each other for goods and services. An economy based on a complex division of labour would be unable to thrive without an efficient payments system.
• Moving money from tomorrow to today (credit): the Smiths finance the purchase of the Khan’s apartment via credit from the bank in the form of a mortgage. Jane’s company finances the purchase of the van by raising funds (selling shares) to the unit trust company. The financial system provides credit to both a household (HH) and a corporate (NFC) in this example.
• Moving money from today to tomorrow (savings): the Khans saved the money they received from the Smiths by investing in an equity fund offered by the unit trust company, while John’s company put the proceeds of the sale into a bank account to pay wages and raw materials in the future. The financial system provides different forms of savings products to the HH and NFC in this example.

This simple example is, in effect, an alternative to the well-known economic concept of “the monetary circuit.”

The monetary circuit

The monetary circuit concept argues that the purpose of a monetary economy is to facilitate the supply of goods and services and their subsequent consumption by households. Leave aside, for the moment, that the main reason for borrowing in the UK (and other developed markets) is the desire of HHs to purchase property (see graph above). With regards to production activities the main cause of borrowing is often that NFCs expect the demand for their goods and services to increase and therefore want to pre-finance production. In this scenario, the monetary circuit starts with expected demand which leads NFCs to pre-finance their production. NFCs pay their employees by a transfer of deposits at banks. These employees demand goods and services which (partially or otherwise) validates the NFCs expectations of future demand. The deposits of the firm will be replenished by the spending of households. These flows are illustrated in the simplified monetary circuit framework diagram below.

Foreshadowing a theme that I will return to in later posts, it is worth nothing the scenarios in which the monetary circulation described above fails:

• Holders of deposits decide to uses them to repay outstanding loans
• Holders of deposits are happy to hold rather than spend them (idle deposits)
• Holders may transfer deposits to other forms of savings
• Holders may use taxes to pay taxes

Of course, the decision to hold some form of excess deposits as a buffer against unforeseen circumstances is perfectly rational. Nevertheless with regards the monetary circuit and its main purpose – to facilitate production and consumption – there is a serious problem with hoarding/excess saving which has important implications for macro policy choices. More to follow on this theme in later posts…

Transactions to balance sheets

The three core services described above produce a stock of financial contracts that can be represented by financial balance sheets that, in turn, illustrate how different economic agents are linked together over time.

When the Smiths took out their mortgage from the bank in order to buy the Khan’s apartment, the bank provided them with the funds in exchange for a commitment from the Smiths to make repayments over time. In other words, the mortgage represents an asset for the bank and a liability for the Smiths and illustrates the connection between them. The diagram below illustrates the financial assets (yellow) and liabilities (blue) that result from each of the transactions above.

A fundamental principle of accounting is that for every financial asset there is an equal and off-setting financial liability. Hence, in this illustration, the Smith’s mortgage is a liability that is offset by an asset for the bank. Similarly, John’s commercial vehicles bank account is an asset that is offset by a liability for the bank.

Note, however, that while the assets and liabilities match each other, the associated future flows of money travel in the opposite direction to the flows of money created in the original transactions. The Smiths will have to repay their mortgage and the bank will have to provide funds if John’s commercial vehicles decides to withdraw money from its account. The physical assets shown in the earlier diagram are not included here as, unlike financial assets, they do not create an on-going relationship between the agents.

Note also the unique feature of banks in this relationship. They create deposits via lending not (as is commonly believed) the other way round. Of course, the bank needs to have liabilities to fund the lending but these do not have to be secured in advance of the loan being granted. The unique feature of banking is the fact that banks can simultaneously create loans and deposits and hence alter the quantity of money circulating in the economy. This is not the case for the unit trust company, which can only buy shares in Jane’s consumer durables by first securing an investment.

The key message at this stage is that balance sheets are at the very heart of the economy. The Bank of England has a balance sheet. The UK government has one, and as illustrated above UK banks, HHs and NFCs have balance sheets too. My balance sheet framework has the advantage of being both highly quantitative and objective since it focuses on transactions, debts, balance sheets and core accounting principles. It also allows me to follow the logic of the UK economy by monitoring the transaction records that show what is actually happening:

• The stocks and flows of credits and debits
• Who owes what to whom
• Who the creditors are
• Who the debtors are
• How they came to have these roles

Financial net wealth/worth

In general, at any given point in time, it is unlikely that any individual or economic agent has financial assets and financial liabilities of the same value (see graph above). Since, any balance sheet has to balance, we need to create an equilibrium value by inserting the entry “net financial wealth” into the left hand side of the balance sheet. (This is merely convention and there is an argument that net wealth should be shown on the asset side of the balance sheet with an inverted sign, as it is claim of the owner against the balance sheet).

In the case of the UK, HHs had financial assets of £6.7trillion and financial liabilities of £1.9trillion at the end of 2018. In other words, their net financial worth was £4.7trillion. In contrast, NFCs had financial assets of £2.5trillion and financial liabilities of £5.6 trillion ie, net financial worth of minus £3.1trillion.

Implications for analysis

Returning to basic accounting principles, if we take all the private sector financial assets and liabilities it is a matter of logic that the sum of all the assets must equal the sum of all the liabilities. This means that the net wealth of the private sector would have to be zero if we include only private sector IOUs (assuming that the public sector is not holding any private sector debt.)

The implication here is that for the private sector to accumulate net financial wealth it must be in the form of claims on another sector. In the case of a simplified two sector economy compromising the private sector (HHs and NFCs) and the public sector (all levels of government), the private sector could accumulate “outside wealth” in the form of government currency and/or government ST bills and T bonds. Note that the private sector can only accumulate net financial assets if its spending is less than its income in a given period. In this example, these financial assets are government/public sector liabilities (currency, bills and bonds). The government liabilities arise when it is spending more that it is receives in the form of tax revenues. The resulting deficit accumulates to the stock of government debt which is equal to the private sector’s accumulation of financial wealth over the same period.

In the case of a simple two sector economy, the net financial assets held by the private sector are exactly equal to the net financial liabilities of the government. If a government runs a balanced budget where spending is equal to tax revenue, the private sectors net financial wealth will be zero as a result. If the government runs a budget surplus with spending less than tax receipts, the net financial wealth of the private sector will be negative. The key message here is that in a two-sector economy, it is impossible for the public and private sectors to run surpluses at the same time. (In future posts, I will show that this is exactly what is occurring in Germany in practice)

Of course, in reality these domestic sectors are also economically linked to foreign governments, firms and households, collectively termed the “rest of the world” (ROW). Hence, the domestic private sector is able to accumulate net claims against the ROW even if the domestic government is running a balanced budget. In this case the private sector’s accumulation of net financial assets is equal to the ROW’s issue of net financial liabilities, although in reality it is more likely that the private sector will accumulate net financial wealth combining both domestic and ROW liabilities.  

Flows, stocks and sector balances

From an analysis perspective, the three sectors described here – the domestic public sector, the domestic government sector and the ROW – can be treated as having income and savings flows over a given period (typically a quarter or a year). If a sector spends less that it earns it creates a budget surplus. Conversely, if it spends more than it earns, it creates a budget deficit. A surplus represents a flow of savings that leads to an accumulation of financial assets while a deficit reduces net wealth. If a sector is running a deficit it must either reduce its stock of financial assets or it must issue more IOUs to offset the deficit. If the sector runs out of accumulated financial assets, it has no choice other than to increase its indebtedness over the period it is running the deficit. In contrast, a sector that runs a budget surplus will be accumulating net financial assets. This surplus will take the form of financial claims on at least one other sector. More details of how this works in practice will follow in later posts.

Conclusion – “where the money flows, there too the future goes.”

Having started this post with the observation that every economic agent has a balance sheet it seems appropriate to conclude by returning to basic accounting principles. Following the original economic work of Wynne Godley, we know that if we sum the deficits run by one or more sectors this must equal the surpluses run by other sector(s). Hence, Godley’s key identity:

Domestic private balance + domestic government balance + foreign balance = 0

In my next post, I will analyse these trends for the key economic agents in the UK economy and their implications in more detail.

Please note that the summary comments above are abstracts from more detailed analysis that is available separately.