I have argued that high oil prices are contractionary in part because the funds are parked in Treasuries. The price of treasuries is determined by the time-path of the Federal Funds rate so unless the Fed Funds time-path responds by lowering in response to an increase in oil prices this is de facto tightening.
Money goes into T-Bills, but it can’t come out.
The thing is, the same thing is now true of IPhones. IPhones are contractionary. For exactly the same reasons. Folks hand their money to Apple, but Apple doesn’t hand it back to anyone.
From Cadiff Garcia
Apple alone represents $64 billion or 36% of the total $179 billion increase in corporate cash since 2009. And in 2011, overall corporate cash would have actually declined by $6 billion had it not been for Apple’s $46 billion increase. Unless Apple changes its philosophy towards liquidity by instituting a one-time or ongoing common dividend, or if Apple starts to buy back stock, we estimate Apple’s cash balances could increase by more than $50 billion in 2012 and approximate $150 billion.
Supported by our expectations that consumers worldwide will continue to feast on Apple products, we expect overall corporate cash and its concentration will increase in 2012. Apple alone could represent 12% of total corporate cash, about three times more than the next cash kin
Again, when Apple buys more T-Bills the price of T-Bills does not rise. This is obvious now since T-Bills are selling at essentially a zero interest rate. However, this is indeed always true.
If the price of T-Bill were to rise in response to Apple’s buying them then banks would sell T-Bills and lend the proceeds in the Federal Funds market. This would push the Fed Funds rate down.
The Fed would then contract (or in reality, decline to expand) the supply of money so that the Fed Funds rate would rise back to its target. It would do this by selling (or declining to buy) T-Bills, thus lowering the price of T-Bills back to where they were before Apple intervened.
Thus, if $64 Billion in profits are collected by Apple, $64 Billion is subtracted from the money supply.
In today’s world the way it works practically is that every dollar of profit collected by Apple simply represents another dollar in excess reserve balances held by banks.

11 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ March 14th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Carlos R. Graterol (@ChuckSRQ)
First of all, voluntary and beneficial private transactions in an economy are not contractionary. Secondly, Keynesian economics encourages that Apple buy T-Bills at these artificially low rates so that the government may spend it on “stimulus” and other artificial GDP boosting methods.
Are you admitting now that the government taking private sector money and spending it themselves is not as efficient or are you saying that corporations making a profit is contractionary? Or just Apple?
Wednesday ~ March 14th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
david
You can voluntarily and (individually-) beneficially desire to save in excess of available investment; attempting to do so is nonetheless contractionary.
This is because you cannot assume a priori that all markets clear just because all individuals carry out voluntary and self-beneficial actions; they must also do so in a way that satisfies a rather demanding additional set of assumptions which do not generally hold (complete markets and perfect information, for example). Without these assumptions you can get stuck in a prisoner’s dilemma of savings/loans market disequilibrium, where all actors rationally put themselves in a bad outcome; this is what underpins the (new) Keynesian excess-savings intuition.
Wednesday ~ March 14th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
david
Less technically, since I am aware the insight can be difficult to grok: the insight that a series of mutually beneficial private transactions easily lead to good outcomes in the aggregate is only trivial when each transaction has zero impact on all other individuals. But suppose that individuals are not all price-takers; instead some transactions influence the price vector at which transactions are made (which is actually the natural case: prices must come from somewhere, after all). Then whether or not a transaction is made affects the welfare of third parties, even though the transaction decision is only decided by the transacting parties; there are therefore externalities.
Unpriced “good” externalities mean that there are less transactions made than would be socially optimal: hence, it is possibly contractionary (correspondingly, unpriced bad externalities would entail a socially non-optimal expansion in NGDP, aka inflation).
Wednesday ~ March 14th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Max
The holders of Apple stock can spend their profits if they want, even if Apple doesn’t pay a dividend.
If Apple’s profits didn’t cause Apple’s stock price to increase, then you would have a point.
Wednesday ~ March 14th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Lord
Can doesn’t mean will.
Wednesday ~ March 14th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Lord
And it won’t unless its p/e falls.
Thursday ~ March 15th, 2012 at 4:15 am
FT Alphaville » Further reading
[...] – iPhones and oil. [...]
Thursday ~ March 15th, 2012 at 7:24 am
My AAPL Obsession « Modeled Behavior
[...] A twitter follower notes Karl Smith (@ModeledBehavior) has a quixotic focus on Apple’s cash reserves. http://modeledbehavior.com/2012/03/14/iphones-and-oil/ [...]
Thursday ~ March 15th, 2012 at 10:30 am
mutant_dog
You have misspelled Mr. Garcia’s, first name, Cardiff (like the city in Wales.)
Thursday ~ March 15th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Axel
Isn’t this point only about ZIRP/Bank hoarding Fed reserves? If you have a ‘functioning’ banking system, its purpose is exactly to recycle Aapl cash or T-Bills (are you sure it is only T-Bills btw ? it might be some short term corporate credit or deposit certificate or even mutual funds in liquid but riskier assets in this pile of cash).
If any cash/treasury saving today would be contractionary, why finger pointing ?
Sunday ~ March 18th, 2012 at 3:15 am
Global Trade Fragility « azizonomics
[...] Yeah, I bought one like millions of other suckers. Apple can take my dollars and recycle them buying treasury bills and so partially fund, at least for…. [...]