Readings in Money and Banking Part 30

The Boston bank can then no longer rely upon what would normally serve to build up its own New York balances. It will be simply acquiring a ma.s.s of unavailable credits at scattered points throughout the country.

The supply of New York exchange which it might have been willing to sell is consequently diminished, and the premium on exchange must rise to a point at which it will tempt some of the banks to sell exchange, even though it intrenches upon their balances with agents which are available for reserve.

The premium would naturally be especially high in those cities where the banks were most unwilling to reduce their New York balances.

Philadelphia seems a case in point, as its deposits with reserve agents, which were $30,995,000 on August 22, were reduced to only $29,389,000 on December 3. At that time the premium on currency in Philadelphia ranged from $1.50 to $3 per $1,000. It is, therefore, a reasonable conclusion that the banks were strongly disinclined to make use of their New York balances. In a few cities it is probable that the premium reached a high level because the banks had exhausted their New York balances. St. Louis may be mentioned as a probable example. Being a central reserve city, its banks would naturally have only such balances in New York as normal business requirements made necessary. The dislocation of exchange elsewhere or the course of payments between New York and St. Louis may have combined to produce such a balance of payments as would have required currency s.h.i.+pments if the St. Louis banks had remitted promptly to New York.

The extent to which banks in different cities delayed or refused to remit to New York on items collected by them for other banks cannot be determined. Banks in one city, very naturally and honestly, were inclined to lay the blame upon banks elsewhere. The banks in other places, however, may not have been able to secure payment of the items sent to them for collection from other banks in their locality with the usual promptness. When every allowance has been made, however, there can be no question that banks in certain cities, in these as well as in other matters, adopted a policy wholly designed to strengthen themselves regardless of consequences.

The general prevalence of the premium on New York exchange is, as we have seen, accounted for in part by the use of clearing-house loan certificates in settling balances between banks and by the delay in remitting in New York funds upon items collected for other banks. It seems probable, however, that, taking the country as a whole, the course of payments was favorable to the New York banks. At the beginning of November withdrawals for crop-moving purposes have in recent years begun to diminish, except to the South, and movements of money from eastern centers are distinctly in favor of New York at that season of the year.

If this were indeed the case in 1907, it affords still another reason for thinking that the New York banks might have met the crisis successfully without restricting payments. They would probably have been obliged to meet only withdrawals arising from lack of confidence and not real needs for crop-moving purposes, such as would have increased the difficulties of the situation had the crisis begun at the beginning of September.

Finally, it should be noted that the restriction of cash payments to depositors and the currency premium seem to have increased the demand for New York exchange. Only in that city was it possible to buy any considerable quant.i.ty of money. Many banks in various parts of the country purchased gold and currency at a premium in New York and, instead of drawing on their own balances, then entered their home market as purchasers of exchange which was remitted in payment.

In the few instances where exchange was below par the currency premium was a more direct influence; but exchange could not have dropped to the low figures recorded in 1893 in the case of Chicago [$30 discount per $1,000], because the Chicago banks in 1907 did not maintain payments among themselves as they had done on previous occasions. Exchange was at a discount only in those cities where the course of payments was so strongly against New York that practically all the banks found their balances in that city increasing. Chicago might have been expected to belong to this group, but its banks made extensive use of bills derived from grain exports to secure gold which was s.h.i.+pped directly to them. In general, exchange was at a discount, or at par only, in the Southern States, the banks of which, by means of cotton sales, are normally in position to draw money from the northeastern part of the country during the late autumn.

In conclusion, it should perhaps be pointed out that the quoted rates of exchange were often without much significance. The ordinary course of dealings was so completely disorganized in many places that the rates were purely nominal, representing little or no actual transactions.

FOOTNOTES:

[96] Frank A. Vanderlip, _Modern Banking_, Three Addresses delivered at Chautauqua, New York, August, 1911, pp. 17-29. The National City Bank.

New York. 1911 [?].

[97] E. W. Kemmerer, _Seasonal Variations in the Relative Demand for Money and Capital in the United States_. Publication of the National Monetary Commission, Senate Doc.u.ment No. 588, 61st Congress, _2d Session_, pp. 96-100.

[98] [Owing to the growth of deposit banking among the farming cla.s.ses, the increasing diversification of industry in the agricultural States, _Sub-treasury operations_, and the offer of remunerative rates of interest on loans in New York during the fall, the net autumnal currency movement since 1907 has frequently been to New York. See E. M.

Patterson, _Certain Changes in New York's Position as a Financial Center_, _Journal of Political Economy_. Vol. XXI, June, 1913, pp.

523-539.]

[99] E. W. Kemmerer, _op. cit._, pp. 101-105.

[100] _Ibid._, pp. 118-121.

[101] _Ibid._, 54. 55.

[102] O. M. W. Sprague, _History of Crises under the National Banking System_, Publications of the National Monetary Commission, Senate Doc.u.ment No. 538, 61st Congress, _2d Session_, pp. 293-297.

CHAPTER XVIII

FOREIGN EXCHANGE

THE NATURE OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE

[103]The bill, or order to pay money in a foreign centre, is the commodity that is actually bought and sold by dealers in foreign exchange, but it is better for the moment to leave bills out of consideration. They are only the tangible expression of the claim for money in another centre, and at this early stage of our inquiry it is better to keep our minds fixed on what is at the back of the bill, namely, the money in a foreign centre to which it gives its holder a claim. The French buyer of a bill on London buys it, as a rule, because by sending it to his English correspondent he can discharge a debt to him in English money. What he really buys with his francs is so many English pounds, and the labyrinth of the foreign exchanges is much easier to thread if, before we complicate the question by talking about bills, we keep our eye on the comparatively simple problem which is the key to the puzzle, namely, the exchange of one country's money for another's.

Thus stripped to its naked simplicity, the problem begins to look as if it were not a problem at all, and a critical inquirer may be excused for thinking that at least in the case of countries that use currencies based on the same metal, there ought to be no need for daily quotations of rates of exchange, because the relative value of their moneys ought to be constant. It is a natural question to ask, why should there be these daily fluctuations, and, since they are evidently there, what is the sense or purport of them? The answer is, that money in France and money in England are two different things, and the relative value of two different things is almost certain to fluctuate. Quite apart from any differences in the fineness of gold coined by two different countries, or the ease or difficulty with which a credit instrument can be turned into gold, mere distance is quite enough to make the difference that will create fluctuation in price. New York and Chicago use exactly the same currencies, but money in New York differs from money in Chicago by being nearly a thousand miles away, and consequently there are frequent variations in their relative value. The English and Australian sovereigns are identical in weight and fineness, but there is constant fluctuation in the buying power of the English sovereign as expressed in its brother that is circulating in the Antipodes.

These fluctuations are based on the same influence that sways the movements in the prices of all goods and services that are bought and sold, that is, the influence of supply and demand. Just as the price of boots, Consols, medical advice, football professionals, or anything else that can be the subject of a bargain, will depend in the end upon the number of people who want to buy them compared with that of those who want to sell them, at or near a certain figure, so the price of English pounds, when expressed in francs, guilders, milreis, or Australian sovereigns, depends on the number of people abroad who have to buy money in England as compared with the number of those who have money in England to sell. People abroad have to buy money in England when they owe money to Englishmen and want to pay it; and they have money in England to sell when Englishmen owe them money.

Jacques Bonhomme in Paris has been selling s.h.i.+ploads of Christmas kickshaws to John Robinson in London, and so has thousands of English pounds due to him by the said Robinson. But English pounds, as such, are not wanted by M. Bonhomme. He wants to sell them, to turn them into francs, the currency of his own country, with which he makes his daily payments at home. On the other hand, there are always plenty of Frenchmen who have imported English goods or have had services rendered by English bankers, or s.h.i.+powners, or insurance companies, and so want to buy English money wherewith to pay their English creditors. So it follows that the price that M. Bonhomme will get for his English pounds will depend on the value of goods and services that other Frenchmen have been selling to England, so producing English pounds to be sold in Paris, as compared with the value of the claims that have to be met in London, for the satisfaction of which English pounds have to be bought.

If the amount of English money on offer is bigger than the amount wanted, down will go the price of the English pound as expressed in francs, and the seller in francs will get less in francs for his pound.

If the amount of English money wanted is the bigger, the price will go up, and the seller will get more for his pound. When the price goes down, the exchange is said to move against London, because there is a depreciation in the value of the sovereign as expressed in francs. When it goes up the exchange moves in favour of London, because the buying power of the sovereign is enhanced.

The process is exactly the same, and is even more simple and easy to understand when we take away the complication of the exchange of the moneys of two different nations, and look at it at work between two distant towns of the same country. If in the course of trade New York has large payments to make in Chicago, money in Chicago will be wanted in New York, and compet.i.tion there will send up the price of it, so that a dollar in Chicago will be worth more for the time being to New Yorkers than a dollar in New York, and any New York bank or firm that has a balance or a credit in Chicago will be able to dispose of it at a premium. The extent of this premium, however, will obviously be limited by the expense involved in sending lawful money, as the Americans call it, from New York to Chicago. If we suppose, for the sake of simplicity, that the cost of sending a dollar and insuring it is covered by a cent, no one in New York will pay much more than one dollar and a cent for a dollar in Chicago. Rather than do so he will send his dollar. He will probably pay a small fraction more to save himself the trouble and time involved by sending and insuring money, and this minute fraction that he will sacrifice is the opportunity of the exchange dealer, who will send money to Chicago, and put himself in funds there, and so be able to supply money in Chicago to any one in New York who will pay for it at the rate of one dollar and one cent plus any profit that the exchange dealer can squeeze out of him.

Viewed in this simple example the problem of exchange has few terrors.

It is merely a question of the price of money in one place, as expressed in the same money in another, with fluctuations governed by supply and demand and limited by the cost of sending money from place to place.

This limitation does not mean that supply and demand cease to govern the market, but merely that at a point supply can be increased to meet any demand by the despatch of currency.

"FAVOURABLE" AND "UNFAVOURABLE" EXCHANGES

[104]The general feeling with regard to the function of the exchanges, as giving evidence of the mercantile (or rather monetary) situation of any country, is indicated by the usual phrase of a "favourable or unfavourable state of the exchanges." A phrase which occurs so frequently in all banking discussions that it cannot be pa.s.sed over without remark. It may originally have implied the erroneous theory that the object of commerce is to attract gold, and that that country towards which the tide of bullion sets with the greatest force is _ipso facto_ the most prosperous. Political economists, from their point of view, are correct in their statement that, as regards the country at large and the interchange of commodities, exports and imports are always balanced, and that both the words "unfavourable balance of trade" and "unfavourable exchanges" involve fallacy. But merchants and bankers are influenced by the feeling, that at any given moment they may be under greater liabilities for imports than they can temporarily meet, owing to the system of credit which disturbs the coincidence of payments for exports and imports, though their value may actually be equal; and further, by the anxiety as to the possibility of meeting these liabilities in that specific mode of payment to which they are pledged, namely, in gold or convertible notes. When, therefore, in banking treatises, it is said that the exchanges are favourable to any particular country, it should be understood that the intention is simply to state the fact that bills of that country upon foreign cities are difficult of sale, whilst bills drawn upon it from abroad are at a premium, indicating an eventual influx of specie. So, when it is said that the exchanges are unfavorable, a situation is described in which foreign bills are in great demand, and when, consequently, their value seems likely to be so enhanced as to render the export of bullion an unavoidable alternative.

THE ORIGIN AND SUPPLY OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE

[105]Underlying the whole business of foreign exchange is the way in which obligations between creditors in one country and debtors in another have come to be settled--by having the creditor draw a draft directly upon the debtor or upon some bank designated by him. John Smith in London owes me money. I draw on him for 100 pounds, take the draft around to my bank and sell it at, say, 4.86, getting for it a check for $486.00. I have my money, and I am out of the transaction.

The fact that the gold in a new British sovereign (or pound sterling) is worth $4.8665 in our money by no means proves, however, that drafts payable in pounds in London can always be bought or sold for $4.8665 per pound. To reduce the case to a unit basis, suppose that you owed one pound in London, and that, finding it difficult to buy a draft to send in payment, you elected to send actual gold. The amount of gold necessary to settle your debt would cost $4.8665, in addition to which you would have to pay all the expenses of remitting. It would be cheaper, therefore, to pay considerably more than $4.8665 for a one-pound draft, and you would probably bid up until somebody consented to sell you the draft you wanted.

Which goes to show that the mint par is not what governs the price at which drafts in pounds sterling can be bought, but that demand and supply are the controlling factors. There are exporters who have been s.h.i.+pping merchandise and selling foreign exchange against the s.h.i.+pments all their lives who have never even heard of a mint par of exchange.

All they know is, that when exports are running large and bills in great quant.i.ty are being offered, bankers are willing to pay them only low rates--$4.83 or $4.84, perhaps, for the commercial bills they want to sell for dollars. Conversely, when exports are running light and bills drawn against s.h.i.+pments are scarce, bankers may be willing to pay 4.87 or 4.88 for them.

For a clear understanding of the mechanics of the exchange market there is necessary a clear understanding of what the various forms of obligations are which bring foreign exchange into existence. Practically all bills originate from one of the following causes:

1. Merchandise has been s.h.i.+pped and the s.h.i.+pper draws his draft on the buyer or on a bank abroad designated by him.

2. Securities have been sold abroad and the seller is drawing on the buyer for the purchase price.

3. Foreign money is being loaned in this market, the operation necessitating the drawing of drafts on the lender.

4. Finance-bills are being drawn, _i. e._, a banker abroad is allowing a banker here to draw on him in pounds sterling at 60 or 90 days' sight in order that the drawer of the drafts may sell them (for dollars) and use the proceeds until the drafts come due and have to be paid.

1. Looking at these sources of supply in the order in which they are given, it is apparent, first, that a vast amount of foreign exchange originates from the direct export of merchandise from this country.

Not all merchandise is drawn against; in some cases the buyer abroad chooses rather to secure a dollar draft on some American bank and to send that in payment. But in the vast majority of cases the regular course is followed and the seller here draws on the buyer there.

2. The second source of supply is in the sale abroad of stocks and bonds.

Origin of bills from this source is apt to exert an important influence on rates, in that it is often sudden and often concentrated on a comparatively short period of time. The announcement of a single big bond issue, often, where it is an a.s.sured fact that a large part of it will be placed abroad, is enough to seriously depress the exchange market. Bankers know that when the s.h.i.+pping abroad of the bonds begins, large amounts of bills drawn against them will be offered and that rates will in all probability be driven down.

3. The third great source of supply is in the draft which bankers in one country draw upon bankers in another in the operation of making international loans. The mechanism of such transactions will be treated in greater detail later on, but without any knowledge of the subject whatever, it is plain that the transfer of banking capital, say from England to the United States, can best be effected by having the American house draw upon the English bank which wants to lend the money.

The arranging of these loans means the continuous creation of very large amounts of foreign exchange.

4. Drawing of so-called "finance-bills," is the fourth source whence foreign exchange originates. Whenever money rates become decidedly higher in one of the great markets than in the others, bankers at that point who have the requisite facilities and credit, arrange with bankers in other markets to allow them (the bankers at the point where money is high) to draw 60 or 90 days' sight bills. These bills can then be disposed of in the exchange market, dollars being realized on them, which can then be loaned out during the whole life of the bills.