Wednesday, December 22, 2010


By Annaly Capital Management

Following up on our post from Friday, in which we illustrated the currency reserve and GDP market share of a number of different countries, a kind reader asked a question: “I wonder what percentage of the world’s foreign exchange reserves the dollar had when it was redeemable among central banks in gold?”

Our source for the graph, the IMF, only showed data going back to 1995, so we dug a little more and found the answer in a paper written by Barry Eichengreen of the University of California in 2005. The answer: The dollar’s status as a reserve currency was even more dominant back then. In 1973 it accounted for 84.5% of the world’s foreign exchange reserves. (Today it stands at 62.1%.)

In Eichengreen’s paper, “Sterling’s Past, Dollar’s Future: Historical Perspectives on Reserve Currency Competition” (the paper can be purchased here, and it’s worth the $5), he argues that the hegemony of the dollar during the second half of the 20th century has some obvious roots: America’s dominance of global trade and payments in a period when Europe and Japan were still licking their wounds, the liquidity of the US financial markets and the capital controls put in place by other potential reserve-currency competitors. Britain’s sterling was the reserve currency of choice in the first half of the 20th century, largely for the same reason (between 1860 and 1914, according to Eichengreen, about 60 percent of world trade was settled in sterling), but this status waned as Britain’s economic prowess declined.

As his paper’s title suggests, Eichengreen is concerned about the future of the dollar’s status. He concludes that the dollar may end up sharing reserve status with another currency, likely the euro, but that the yen and the renminbi probably wouldn’t make the cut—the yen because of Japan’s poor demographics and the yuan because of China’s capital controls and its lack of credible political/financial infrastructure.

What could possibly tip the world away from the dollar? In a word, inflation. “[W]hether the dollar retains its reserve currency role depends, first and foremost, on America’s own policies. Serious economic mismanagement would lead to the substitution of other reserve currencies for the dollar. In this context, serious mismanagement means policies that allow unsustainably large current account deficits to persist, lead to the accumulation of large external debts, and result in a high rate of U.S. inflation and dollar depreciation. Clearly, this would make holding dollar reserves unattractive. This is a lesson of British history in the sense that an inflation rate that ran at roughly 3 times U.S. rates over the first three quarters of the 20th century, in conjunction with repeated devaluations against the dollar, played a major role in sterling’s loss of reserve currency status.” Absent sustained periods of inflation, says Eichengreen, the stability, liquidity and vibrancy of the US economy should enable the dollar to maintain its reserve currency status.

So, is the US engaged in prudent economic policies or “serious economic mismanagement”? We probably won’t know the answer to this question for some time. In the meantime, the market has been re-pricing the yield on sovereign debt around the world. The graph below looks at selected sovereign rates since Ben Bernanke’s speech in Jackson Hole last August, in which he first suggested the possibility of another round of quantitative easing. Ever since, market participants have been deliberating about the possible ramifications—including the inflationary prospects—of this policy decision.


The content on this site is provided as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. All site content shall not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell any security or financial product, or to participate in any particular trading or investment strategy. The ideas expressed on this site are solely the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions of firms affiliated with the author(s). The opinions of all guest authors or contributors can and will differ from those of Mr. Roche. These opinions do not necessarily represent the opinions or investment decisions of Mr. Roche. The author(s) may or may not have a position in any security referenced herein and may or may not seek to do business with one another or companies mentioned via this website. Any action that you take as a result of information or analysis on this site is ultimately your responsibility. Consult your investment adviser before making any investment decisions.

A brief note on comments – The increase in users in recent months has resulted in an increase in unproductive comments. Any user who engages in the use of racial epithets or uses the comment section as a place to insult other users will be banned from the site. The comment section is welcome to all readers who are interested in asking pertinent questions and/or engaging in thoughtful, intelligent, and productive debate. In short, just be nice. Thanks.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at
Five Filters featured site: So, Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?.

View the original article here

No comments:

Post a Comment