Monday 19 March 2012

Crash course in fractions for portfolio managers

Dear Ms Park,

A fraction is when we divide the number above the line (called the numerator, which I shall abbreviate to 'num') by the number below the line (called the denominator, which I shall abbreviate to 'den').

So when we say one-quarter, we mean 1/4, or 0.25 or 25%, it's the same thing. The funny thing about fractions is, they are upside down. So although five is a bigger number than four, one-fifth (1/5) is smaller than one-quarter (1/4). It's very important to remember this, and that the rule only applies if the num stays the same, so although 1/5 is smaller than 1/4, 2/5 is bigger than 1/4! Confusing, huh?

I hope that you know what gross domestic product ('GDP') is, and that you also know what money supply is (put simply, it's like adding together all the money in people's bank accounts, or if you want to be really clever, it's like adding up everybody's mortgage - be careful not to mix the two up as one is a plus and the other is a minus).

For reasons best known to themselves, economists like dividing GDP by money supply and they call the result 'velocity'. So if GDP (the num) is about $15 trillion a year and money supply is $5 trillion (the den), the velocity is 3. So what do you think happens if GDP stays the same and money supply goes up?

Remember the example with 1/4 and 1/5? Yes..? Correct! If the num (that's the number above the line, which in this example is GDP) stays the same, and the den (that's the number underneath the line, which is this example is money supply) goes up, then your answer (which is 'velocity') goes down. It doesn't necessarily mean that the economy is doing worse (it might do, but not necessarily). No it doesn't. I just told you that GDP stayed the same, didn't I?

Right... we know that GDP in your country has more or less stayed the same (about $15 trillion) for the past five years (things aren't as bad as some people say, but not as good as other people say) and that money supply has gone up from about $7.7 trillion to $9.4 trillion, so it's not really surprising that velocity has gone down, from 1.95 to 1.6.

Yes... if we divide 15 by 7.7, we get the answer 1.95. If we divide the same number 15 by 9.4, the answer goes down to 1.6.

You can check your answer by multiplying back up again, if you like... no, too advanced. But the main thing you've learned today is that velocity is not really "plunging", is it? It's just that money supply is going up faster than the economy is growing. I think it's those naughty men in Washington allowing the Fed to print loads of money to give to the naughty men on Wall Street that causes this, but nobody is really sure.

Kind regards etc.

15 comments:

James Higham said...

A fraction is when we divide the number above the line (called the numerator, which I shall abbreviate to 'num') by the number below the line (called the denominator, which I shall abbreviate to 'den').

And do you know what the line's called?

Mark Wadsworth said...

JH, it's called Dave.

Woodsy42 said...

I understand exactly the calculation. But I totally fail to understand WHY such a number is useful. Presumably it reacts to the efficiency of use of the money supply, how much GDP you can get for your circulating pound, but isn't that oversimplifying?

Mark Wadsworth said...

W42: "I totally fail to understand WHY such a number is useful"

You and me both.

GDP changes are of importance, and money supply is of importance, because it tells us if there is a credit bubble. But dividing GDP by the latter is pointless.

View from the Solent said...

James Higham said...

And do you know what the line's called?
========================================
viniculum

Mark Wadsworth said...

JH, or possibly "vinculum" without the second "i".

Anonymous said...

I guess the issue is something to do with nominal versus real GDP, isn't it? If prices rise, and the money supply and real GDP stay the same, then the velocity must increase.

This also means that the inflation rate depends on velocity as well as "the money supply". Hence the big flaw in "monetarism", which simply assumes that the velocity remains constant.

Mark Wadsworth said...

AC, but price inflation is something else we can worry about quite independently, there's no need to invent a new thing called "velocity" and then split it back up into its constituent parts.

Bayard said...

I can see how money velocity works, the greater the activity and the less money, the faster that money is whizzing round the system. I can't see why low velocity is a bad thing or even supposed to be a bad thing. Surely, the faster the money is whizzing round the system, the faster a holdup in one place propagates to all other places and the more far reaching the effects of that holdup. Also, if money is moving slowly, it must be because it is ponded up in places (to use a water analogy), and this money will start to ooze back into the system downstream of the holdup. Or is that too simplistic (or too hydraulic)?

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, but in the absence of govt intervention, the money supply shrinks or expands so that we have the right amount needed. Money is not a thing in itself, it is a unit of measurement of real things.

Bayard said...

So there is a "natural velocity" and anything over or under that is a sign of government buggering about.

Derek said...

Velocity is pretty meaningless. Take the example again:

For reasons best known to themselves, economists like dividing GDP by money supply and they call the result 'velocity'. So if GDP (the num) is about $15 trillion a year and money supply is $5 trillion (the den), the velocity is 3.

That 3 means that the entire money supply turned over three times. But it doesn't tell us whether that turnover consisted of five $3,000,000,000,000 transactions, or three thousand $5,000,000,000 transactions, or five billion $3,000 transactions. Which would probably be slightly more useful knowledge, although not a lot.

So I'm not sure why they bother with it either.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, probably there is a natural velocity, maybe there isn't. But the pool that builds upstream, to use your analogy, which could just as well be a pool downstream is usually artificial, it is either created by land price/credit bubbles or by governments overspending or "printing money".

D, at least it appears that we aren't alone in questioning the relevance :-)

Woodsy42 said...

"You and me both. "

Thank goodness for that! I thought I might be missing out on some obvious universal truth.

James Higham said...

View from the Solent , Mark:

vinculum.

Top marks. 100 litres of cow's milk is yours for the taking - you just have to milk it.