Explore why households and firms hold money, learn about Keynesian vs. Monetarist views on money demand, and master the classic Equation of Exchange (MV=PQ).
It can be surprising, right? You’d think people would rather invest all their cash into high-interest accounts, stocks, or something presumably more rewarding. Yet households and firms across the globe keep part of their wealth in good old-fashioned money. A big reason is that money is extremely convenient—no headaches with selling bonds or dealing with stock price volatility when you need to buy groceries or pay wages.
In general, economists like to categorize the demand for money into three main motives: • Transactions Motive: We all have regular expenses—gas, groceries, Netflix. Firms must pay salaries, suppliers, and utilities. Holding enough money to cover these daily (or monthly) transactions is simply easier than constantly liquidating assets. • Precautionary Motive: Life is uncertain. Households and businesses alike keep a cushion of surplus cash in case of emergencies—an unexpected hospital bill, a sudden drop in sales, or a spike in input costs. • Speculative Motive: Sometimes, it’s all about timing. For instance, if you think interest rates are about to rise, you might prefer to hold cash rather than bonds (whose prices typically fall when rates go up). Or if you anticipate a stock market dip, you might exit equities momentarily and wait in cash until new buying opportunities emerge.
In everyday life, it’s kind of like having a wallet with enough bills so you don’t scramble for your credit card every time you buy coffee. But at the corporate level, these decisions are more strategic, involving liquidity requirements and the outlook for future market conditions.
John Maynard Keynes emphasized that people hold money because they prefer liquidity (hence the term “liquidity preference”). According to Keynes, the interest rate is the price of giving up the “convenience” of cash. The higher the interest rate, the greater the opportunity cost of sitting on cash that earns no return.
Keynes split the demand for money into:
• Transaction Demand: Largely a function of income or output. As real GDP grows, people need more money for their transactions.
• Precautionary Demand: Influenced by uncertainty about the future. The more uncertain the economy, the more individuals and firms want a buffer of cash.
• Speculative Demand: Driven by expectations of future changes in interest rates or asset prices. If you expect bond yields to rise (and bond prices to fall), you might reduce bond holdings and wait with cash to pick them up later at a discount.
This view implies that money demand is somewhat elastic with respect to interest rates. If the central bank lowers rates too much, people might decide to hold extra money since they don’t lose out on much potential interest. Conversely, if rates are high, they’d rather invest in interest-bearing assets. In Keynes’s framework, the equilibrium interest rate gets “worked out” by balancing the supply of money (set by the central bank) with the public’s demand for holding money.
Contrast Keynes’s liquidity preference with Monetarists, led famously by Milton Friedman. Monetarists often emphasize the Quantity Theory of Money, a perspective that says changes in the money supply are the primary drivers of price levels over the long run.
Instead of focusing on interest rates as a key determinant of money demand, Monetarists look at the broader relationship:
(1) MV = PQ,
where:
• M is the money supply,
• V is the velocity of money (how often a dollar circulates in a year),
• P is the price level, and
• Q is real output.
Monetarists typically assume that velocity (V) is fairly stable over time (though it can fluctuate in shorter periods). As a result, changes in M tend to influence nominal GDP (P×Q). In the long run, Q (real output) is mostly determined by real factors like technology, resources, and labor productivity. Hence, if M grows faster than real output—in other words, if M grows rapidly for a sustained period—price levels (P) tend to rise, leading to inflation.
This perspective often leads to policy prescriptions that central banks should manage the growth of money supply in line with the potential growth of real GDP. That way, the economy avoids both runaway inflation (too much money relative to output) and deflation (too little money relative to output).
The equation of exchange,
M × V = P × Q,
is more than just a neat identity. It reminds us that total nominal spending in an economy—money times velocity—must equal total nominal output—price times quantity.
Depending on how we interpret velocity, we can arrive at quite different policy implications. If V is assumed constant, an increase in M directly raises P×Q. But in real-world settings, velocity can swing due to financial innovation (new payment technologies make money circulate faster), changes in confidence, or shifting economic structures. When velocity is unpredictable, controlling inflation solely by controlling M proves challenging.
Here is a simple conceptual Mermaid diagram illustrating the relationship among money supply, velocity, real output, and price level:
In practice, you might think of each dollar “turning over” multiple times per period. The faster that turnover, the higher the velocity, and the more nominal GDP can grow—even if M doesn’t budge.
When people suddenly want to hold more money—say, due to economic worries—this shifts the money demand curve rightward. If the central bank doesn’t offset that shift by supplying more money, interest rates tend to rise. The logic? More people want to hold cash, which is in limited supply, so they sacrifice more interest income to hold it.
Yet central banks often adjust monetary policy (e.g., by open market operations, discount rate changes, or reserve requirement tweaks) to stabilize interest rates or meet their inflation targets. When money demand surges, a central bank might announce a bond-buying program to flood the market with liquidity, thereby keeping rates from spiking. On the other hand, if money demand were to fall dramatically, and people flooded banks with deposits seeking interest-yielding assets, the central bank might tighten the money supply to keep inflationary pressures in check.
So it’s not just about how central banks manipulate interest rates; it’s also about how the public’s appetite for holding money interacts with supply. In that sense, money demand is crucial to understanding short-run fluctuations in interest rates and overall liquidity conditions.
In measuring money, economists distinguish between various “monetary aggregates.” Narrow money (often called M1 in some countries) includes currency in circulation plus checking accounts—essentially the forms of money readily available for daily use. Broad money (often called M2, M3, and so forth) includes everything in M1 plus less-liquid forms like savings deposits, time deposits, money market mutual funds, and certain other near-money instruments.
• Narrow Money (e.g., M1):
– Physical currency and coins in circulation
– Demand deposits
– Other checkable deposits
• Broad Money (e.g., M2, M3):
– All components of narrow money
– Savings deposits
– Time deposits
– Money market funds
Why do these measures matter? Well, different monetary aggregates can behave quite differently, especially during financial stress. Households might move funds in and out of savings accounts or money market funds at different rates than they handle the currency in their wallets. Consequently, velocity can differ across these aggregates. Policymakers watch both narrow and broad money aggregates for clues about liquidity conditions in the economy.
• Overlooking Velocity’s Fluctuations: Putting too much faith in a stable velocity can lead to policy missteps. If velocity suddenly plunges (e.g., during a financial crisis), simply maintaining a constant money supply may not be enough to avoid recessionary pressures.
• Failing to Track Expectations: Money demand is strongly tied to expectations about inflation, interest rates, and the broader economy. Underestimating the impact of public sentiment on speculative money demand can leave policymakers (and investors) flat-footed.
• Confusing Real vs. Nominal Variables: The equation of exchange might look straightforward, but mixing up real output growth with nominal expansions can muddy the analysis. Always keep track of whether you’re talking about nominal or real variables when applying MV=PQ.
• Understand Both Theories: You may spot exam questions that pit the Keynesian framework (with an interest-rate focus) against the Monetarist approach (with a money-supply focus). Be ready to explain each perspective clearly.
• Keep an Eye on Money Aggregates: It’s often tested which components belong to narrow vs. broad money. The difference is not merely academic—central banks watch different aggregates to track liquidity.
• Watch for Shifts in Money Demand: On exam day, you could see scenario-based questions about what happens to interest rates if precautionary demand for money spikes or if major uncertainty hits global markets.
• Practice with MV=PQ: You might get a question about how an increase in the money supply impacts nominal GDP or the price level, assuming velocity is stable versus velocity being variable.
• Look for Real-World Clues: Don’t forget the real economy. If output is near capacity, more money might mostly raise prices (inflation). If significant slack remains, more money might spur real output growth.
• Friedman, M. (1968). “The Role of Monetary Policy.” The American Economic Review.
• Laidler, D. (1985). “The Demand for Money: Theories, Evidence, and Problems.” Harper & Row.
• For an in-depth exploration, consult official CFA Institute curriculum readings on monetary policy and money demand.
• Online resources like the Federal Reserve Bank’s publications often have user-friendly dashboards of monetary aggregates and velocity metrics.
Important Notice: FinancialAnalystGuide.com provides supplemental CFA study materials, including mock exams, sample exam questions, and other practice resources to aid your exam preparation. These resources are not affiliated with or endorsed by the CFA Institute. CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned exclusively by CFA Institute. Our content is independent, and we do not guarantee exam success. CFA Institute does not endorse, promote, or warrant the accuracy or quality of our products.