Federal Reserve Economic Data

The FRED® Blog

Savings are now more liquid and part of “M1 money”

Regulation D has made savings deposits as convenient as currency

Money is marvelously nuanced. Because different assets can be used as money, we need several categories and definitions to keep track of it. M1 describes the most liquid and widely accepted assets used to easily settle transactions: currency, demand deposits, and highly liquid accounts.

A previous FRED blog post discussed how recent changes in the opportunity cost of money and the regulation of savings accounts have affected measures of the money stock (a.k.a. monetary aggregates). In this post, we tighten our focus on how these regulations have affected M1.

Before April 24, 2020, savings accounts were not part of M1. Limitations in the number of transfers from savings deposits made savings accounts less liquid than M1. M1 consisted of currency, demand deposits, and other highly liquid accounts called “other checkable deposits” (OCDs). An example of OCDs are the demand deposits at thrifts.

But the limitation on the number of these transfers was lifted on April 24 as an amendment to Regulation D, which specifies how banks must classify deposit accounts. Savings deposits are now just as liquid and convenient as currency, demand deposits, and OCDs. To reflect this fact, savings deposits are now included in M1.

The FRED graph compares the new M1 with what would have been M1 under previous regulations, when it included only currency, demand deposits, and OCDs. From May 2020 on, M1 comprises currency, demand deposits, and a new item called “other liquid deposits.” These are the OCDs plus savings deposits. Previously, the OCDs consisted about 17% of M1. Now, the other liquid deposits consist about 70% of M1.

As of May 2020, the old M1 would have had a value of around $5 trillion. The new M1 has a value of $16 trillion, a substantial increase and a clear break in the time series.

For all you data scientists and researchers: It’s no longer possible to reconstruct the old measure of M1 because OCDs and savings deposits are not reported separately anymore. They’re now reported as a sum under “other liquid deposits.” But the graph here shows the separate series for OCDs and savings deposits that were still available from May 2020 to January 2021.

The graph also shows that M1 is now close to M2. Before May 2020, the difference between M2 and M1 was large because a great portion of M2 consisted of savings deposits. These savings deposits are now part of M1, so M1 is much larger and closer to M2. M2 is still larger than M1 because it includes less-liquid assets such as time deposits.

How this graph was created: To graph the previous measure of M1, search for and select the seasonally adjusted series for “Currency component of M1.” Add the two other components to this line from the “Edit Graph” panel’s “Edit Line 1” tab: In the “Customize data” field, search for seasonally adjusted series for demand deposits and other checkable deposits. In the formula field, type a+b+c and select “Apply.” To add the current series of M1 and M2, use the “Add Line” tab to search for and select each aggregate: “M1 Money Stock” and “M2 Money Stock.”

Suggested by Andre C. Silva and Christian Zimmermann.

View on FRED, series used in this post: CURRSL, DEMDEPSL, M1SL, M2SL, OCDSL

Quits vs. layoffs in recessions and pandemics

The FRED graph above compares job separations and hires in the U.S. economy.

Usually there are more hires than separations; that is, the number of employed people increases except during recessions. As we see in the graph, the recovery after the 2008-09 recession was remarkable in that hires were greater than separations in almost every month. Of course, this graph is dominated by the wild swings during the pandemic. So let’s look at the details of these separations.

The FRED graph below shows the proportions of three categories of separations: quits, layoffs, and others (retirements, for example). There are usually more quits that layoffs, except during recessions: With a weaker labor market, employees hesitate to quit while employers are more likely to fire some employees.

The pandemic has been no different, except that this pattern has been even stronger. It may appear that quits dropped off a lot, but the actual numbers of quits throughout the pandemic have actually been only a bit lower than usual. (Just hover your cursor over the graph to see the numbers).

How these graphs were created: For the first graph, search FRED for “separations” and select the seasonally adjusted series. From the “Edit Graph” panel, use the “Add Line” tab to search for and add “hires.” For the second graph, do the same, but searching for “quits,” “layoffs,” and “other separations.” From the “Format” tab, select graph type “Area” and stacking “Percent.”

Suggested by Christian Zimmermann.

Comparing price growth for homes and stock shares

The FRED Blog has discussed how stock market fluctuations don’t accurately reflect overall economic conditions in the U.S. Today, we throw real estate prices into the mix and see what patterns we can find.

The FRED graph above tracks total stock shares in blue and Case-Shiller national home prices in red during the most recent economic downturn. We use an index equal to 100 in the first quarter of 2020, the start of the COVID-19-induced recession, to help us easily compare these growth rates over time.

Real estate prices took off during the second half of 2020. Stock prices slumped during the first half of the year and did not quite catch up by the second half. (The same pattern is visible when comparing the Case-Shiller home price index to the Dow Jones Industrial Average.) But during the first quarter of 2021, stock prices grew steadily and ended up topping the year-to-year growth in home prices. If this were a game of rock-paper-scissors, paper (stocks) would have beaten rock (real estate).

Now let’s look at these same asset prices during the previous economic contraction—the Great Recession. In this graph, we see the slump in stock prices was deeper and lasted longer. Although home prices also declined, they did so much more gradually. In that round, the house of bricks (real estate) beat the house of cards (stocks).

How these graphs were created: Search for and select “Total Share Prices for All Shares for the United States.” From the “Edit Graph” menu, use the “Add Line” tab to search for “S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index.” Again from the “Edit Graph” panel, select the “Edit Line 1” tab. In the “Units” drop-down menu, select “Index (Scale value to 100 for chosen date)” and choose “2020-02-01” for the first graph and “2007-12-01” for the second graph. Adjust the date range to mirror the dates shown in the blog post.

Suggested by Diego Mendez-Carbajo.



Back to Top