Trump-proofing Canada means ending our dependence on SWIFT

It's time to stop staring into the headlights and respond to the fact that Canada is being eyed as a choice morsel by a much larger predator: our former ally the United States of America. In President Trump's very own words, he wants to use "economic force" to join Canada and the United States together. In anticipation of the U.S. turning its economic might against us, we need to locate all the ways in which our access points to various crucial financial networks are controlled by this predator, and switch those dependencies off, quickly, before they are used to hurt us. One of our most glaring dependencies is the SWIFT network.

Banking and payments run on networks. And network users tend to coalesce around a single dominant network, like SWIFT or the Visa and MasterCard networks. Which leaves whomever controls the dominant network, often the U.S, with tremendous power over all the network's other users. If Canada can reduce our exposure to some of these networks now, then we can't be exploited by the Trump regime down the road to weaken us economically, sap our strength, and threaten to take our resources or annex us.

I've already written about one point of failure: our dependency on the U.S.-controlled MasterCard and Visa card networks. Canada has enjoyed huge conveniences by being connected to the U.S. card networks. However, if Trump were to suddenly cut off our access, Canadian credit cards would be rendered ineffective in one stroke, throwing us into chaos.

The good news, I wrote back then, is that our MasterCard/Visa dependency can be solved by building a domestic credit card system, underpinned by Interac, our made-in-Canada interbank debit network. With a domestic fall-back in place, the threat of a Trump disconnection would no longer loom over our heads. Canada wouldn't be doing anything unique. All sorts of nations have their own indigenous credit card systems, including India, Indonesia, Brazil, France, and Japan.

The next chokepoint we need to address, and quickly, is Canada's dependence on the SWIFT network. Most Canadians don’t realize that SWIFT isn't just an international payment tool. It is deeply embedded in our domestic financial system, too.

What is the SWIFT network? Payments are really just synchronized updates of bank databases. A paying bank subtracts numbers from its database while the receiving bank credits its own. To initiate these updates, banks need to communicate with each other, which is where SWIFT comes in. Think of SWIFT as WhatsApp for bankers. It's a highly secure communications network that banks can use to coordinate bank-to-bank payments, otherwise known as wire transfers, between each other on behalf of their customers, using specialized financial languages like ISO 20022 or FIN.

The SWIFT network, owned by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, a non-profit based in Belgium, has over the years become the global standard for banks to signal cross-border database updates. There is currently no alternative. Decades ago, everyone gravitated toward using the SWIFT network for international payments; so that's where a banker has gotta be.

Canada's SWIFT exposure is especially problematic. Many of the world's largest nations only rely on the SWIFT network for international payments; they do not use SWIFT for domestic payments. For security reasons, these nations have built their own bespoke messaging networks and require their banks to use the domestic network for making within-country wires. For example, India has the Structured Financial Messaging System (SFMS), the U.S. uses FedLine*, and Japan has the Zengin Data Telecommunication System.

Yet a group of smaller countries, including Canada, also rely on the SWIFT network for domestic payments. The UK, Australia, and South Africa are part of this group, too. (I wrote about this domestic reliance a few years ago, if you want more details.) What it boils down to is that if a Toronto-based customer of Royal Bank wants to wire $1 million to a Calgary-based customer of TD Bank, it is the SWIFT network that conducts the communications necessary to complete this within-Canada wire payment.

That is, our domestic payment system is fully reliant on a piece of Belgian infrastructure. And this domestic reliance is a huge weakness.

Cutting countries off from SWIFT has become one of the U.S.'s standard tools for disciplining enemies. Over the years North Korea, Iran, and Russia have all undergone it. Being de-SWIFTed isn't a killing blow, but it makes it much tougher for the offending nation's banks to interact with counterparties to make payments. Without SWIFT, bankers fall back on ad hoc networks of fax machines, email, and telex. Efficiency is replaced by clunky, error-prone workarounds.

In 2025, Canada suddenly finds itself in the same boat as North Korea, Iran, and Russia: we are all U.S. targets (or is Russia about to become a U.S. friend again?) And so Canada faces a genuine threat of being de-SWIFTed. Some of you are thinking: "But wait, JP. SWIFT is a European-based platform. As a liberal democracy, Europe is on Canada's side. They would never allow us to be cut off, right?"

Yes and no. The U.S. market is far bigger than the Canadian market. Given a U.S. ultimatum between disconnecting Canada's banking system and facing U.S. punishment, SWIFT and the Europeans may very well choose to take the path of least resistance and cut Canada off.

A potential European betrayal is precisely what happened to Iran when it was severed from SWIFT in 2018. Recall that the U.S., Europe and other partners had signed a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015 whereby Iran agreed to cease its efforts to get the bomb in exchange for a cessation of western sanctions. Trump reneged on the deal in 2018, enraging the Europeans, who wanted to continue honoring it. The U.S.'s 45th president began to pressure SWIFT to remove Iran from its network, threatening sanctions and travel bans on SWIFT execs. At the time, I thought SWIFT might resist Trump's pressure. Europe remained supportive of Iran, after all, and the EU's "blocking statute" makes it illegal for EU firms like SWIFT to comply with American sanction demands. But Europe caved and Iran was quietly unplugged from SWIFT.

In short, Canada, like Iran, can't rely on Europe to uphold its SWIFT access.

As I said earlier, a de-SWIFTing is doubly serious for Canada. Not only would it sever our banks from the sole communications network through which they can make foreign payments. We would also lose our ability to make local wire payments in Canadian dollars. Need to pay $500,000 by wire to close a house purchase? Too bad. It won't go through.

For those interested in visuals, the chart below illustrates our SWIFT dependence. Note how all arrows pass through the SWIFT network:

How a Canadian wire transfer works: When a Canadian bank (i.e. the "instructing agent") makes a wire payment to another Canadian bank (the "instructed agent") on behalf of a customer, it starts by initiating a PACS message. This message is sent to the SWIFT network, which notifies Lynx, Canada's high value payments system. All Canadian banks have accounts at the Bank of Canada, our nation's central bank. Lynx's role is to debit the central bank account of the first bank and credit the account of the second bank. A confirmation message then flows back from Lynx to SWIFT and on to the recipient bank. SWIFT is central to this entire flow. All arrow lead to or away from it. If SWIFT is no longer permitted to bridge Canadian banks and Lynx because of a Trump ban, then this entire payments flow ceases to function. Image source: Payments Canada

While we can't do much about losing access to SWIFT's international payments services, we do have options for mitigating the effects of lost access on local transactions. Canada must build its own proprietary domestic financial messaging network — urgently. For argument's sake I'll call it MapleFIN. Once built, the government could require domestic banks like BMO and TD Bank to support MapleFIN along with the existing SWIFT option, giving financial institutions two routes for passing on financial messages to other Canadian banks. Then if we are threatened with a de-SWIFTing, at least our domestic payments system won't be paralyzed; we can fall back on MapleFIN.

The oddest thing for me about the sudden emergence of the U.S. threat is that I've been looking to bad actors like Russia and Iran for inspiration on how Canada must harden itself. Like Canada, Russia was historically dependent on the SWIFT network for "almost all" domestic transactions. For many years it had no domestic financial messaging system. Then Russia unjustly invaded Crimea in 2014. It was only at that point that, realizing its vulnerability, the rogue nation belatedly built its own domestic messaging network: the Sistema peredachi finansovykh soobscheniy, or System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS). When Russia's banks finally began to be de-SWIFTed in 2022, they were cut off from making cross-border payments, but at least they could fall back on SPFS for making domestic payments, saving its economy from all sorts of extra chaos.

Iran, too, has its own domestic financial messaging system, having introduced SEPAM in 2013, so when Trump's 2018 de-SWIFTing hit, at least Iran's domestic payments still went through.

We need to do what Russia and Iran did and build domestic payments networks.

A recent design change by the European Union really drives home the point that no nation should be 100% reliant on SWIFT. Like Canada, the EU has always used SWIFT for all of its domestic financial messaging traffic. SWIFT is based in the EU, so you'd think that Europeans would be comfortable being wholly dependent on it. But they aren't. In 2023, European Central Bank modified the domestic payments system so that in addition to SWIFT, banks could also transmit payment messages via a non-SWIFT competitor, SIAnet. (I wrote two articles, here and here, on Europe's decision to reduce its SWIFT reliance).

I worry that many Canadians are still stuck in the early stages of coping with the loss of our privileged relationship with the U.S. There's plenty of anger and betrayal. Many are in denial and think things will return to normal once Trump's regime comes to an end, assuming it ever does. But if we want to safeguard our economy against the years of instability ahead, we can't just stew. We need to accept that things have changed and quickly move forward to mitigate the threat. Financial messaging systems are not irrelevant bits of financial arcanery. They are a vital part of Canada's plumbing through which a large chunk of the nation's commerce flows. If the plumbing seizes up, our financial lives go on pause. Let's fix this, now.

---

*The Federal Reserve used to refer to its network as FedNet, but appears to have switched its nomenclature to FedLine.

Canadian banks as U.S. hostages?

BMO Financial Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Blink twice if you're in danger, BMO.

Donald Trump has said he wants to use "economic force" against Canada. In my previous post, I worried that one way this force could be wielded was through Canada's dangerous dependence on U.S.-controlled MasterCard and Visa. But there's an even bigger risk. Canadian banks with large U.S. operations may have become unwitting financial hostages in Trump's 51st state strategy.

As recently as a few months ago, back when things still seemed normal, it was widely accepted that big Canadian banks needed a U.S. expansion strategy. If one of our Big-6 banks wasn't building its U.S. banking footprint, its stock outlook suffered. Canada is a mature, low-growth banking market, after all, whereas the U.S. market remains fragmented and ripe for consolidation.

This motivated a steady Canadian trek into U.S. branch banking. BMO entered the U.S. in the 1980s and steadily expanded, most recently acquiring Bank of the West in 2023, making it the 13th-largest U.S. bank. TD Bank entered in the early 2000s and has since climbed to 10th place. Given this trajectory, by 2030 or 2035, one of the U.S.’s five largest banks could very well have been Canadian.

This strategy hasn’t been without flaws. Royal Bank's first U.S. retail banking foray, its acquisition of Centura, eventually failed, though its second attempt has been more successful. TD just paid the largest anti-money-laundering fine in U.S. history. But overall, the move south has been profitable for Canadian banks and their shareholders, who constitute a large chunk of the Canadian population. The U.S. has benefited, too. Canadians have historically been decent bankers, having got through the 2008 credit crisis unscathed. Allowing a bigger slice of the American market to fall under the prudential management of Canadian executives probably isn't a bad thing, TD's money laundering gaff notwithstanding.

But in just a few months, Trump has upended this entire calculus.

Canada is now a U.S. enemy, or at least no longer a friend. We are somewhere on Trump's timeline to becoming the 51st state, against our wishes. Our existing border treaties are no longer valid, says the President, and need to be redrawn. Trump has threatened to use "economic force" as his weapon to achieve this. The attacks have already begun, beginning with tariffs to soften us up for final annexation.

Next up? My worry is that Canada's banking industry may become a second front in this war, and the hint is a stream of strange pronouncements from Trump and his surrogates about Canadian banking. According to Trump, the Canadian banking system is stacked against U.S. banks:

"Canada doesn’t allow American Banks to do business in Canada, but their banks flood the American Market. Oh, that seems fair to me, doesn’t it?"

This grievance is false, as I explained last month, but accuracy probably isn't the point. A charitable reading is that Trump is laying the groundwork for U.S. banks to gain more access to Canada’s banking sector—a manageable concern. My worry is that it's the reverse. His complaints may signal a shift in how Canadian banks operating in the U.S. are to be treated. Trump may have teed up a financial version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident; an imaginary affront that can serve as a pretext for justifying aggressive action against Canadian banks' U.S. subsidiaries.

After years of U.S. expansion, Canada’s largest banks now have relatively large American retail banking footprints, making them tempting financial hostages. Both TD Bank and Bank of Montreal now have more branches in the U.S. than in Canada. Nearly half of BMO's revenue (44%) come from south of the border while in TD's case it's 38%. Royal Bank also has deep ties. According to a recent Bank of Canada paper, half of the Big 6 Canadian banks' assets are now foreign, far more than the roughly 40% or so in 2014, with much of that chunk being American assets.

Just another bank doing business in Florida, or a financial hostage?

By damaging their large U.S. subsidiaries, Trump would directly weaken the Canadian parent companies, potentially causing havoc with the overall Canadian banking system. And a weakened financial sector plays right into Trump’s stated goal of economically undermining Canada in order to annex it.

How can Trump hurt Canadian banks' U.S. subsidiaries? Trump and his allies control much of the U.S. financial regulatory apparatus, and he has shown little regard for legal constraints. To begin with, he could set the FBI and Department of Justice on Canadian banks, increasing scrutiny of TD, BMO, and Royal Bank’s U.S. operations under the guise of enforcing anti-money-laundering laws. More surveillance would inevitably lead to a wave of fines. To avoid punishment, a Canadian bank operating stateside will have to spend much more on anti-money laundering measures than an equivalent U.S. bank.

Another tactic could be limiting access to shared financial infrastructure, such as government liquidity programs or bank deposit insurance. Trump could also try to increase the hoops that TD, BMO, and RBC must leap through to maintain their all-important accounts at the Federal Reserve, which provides access to Fedwire, the U.S.'s crucial large-value payments system.

Trump’s regulators could also impose higher capital requirements on Canadian banks compared to their U.S. peers, forcing the parents to divert ever more resources to their U.S. subsidiaries.

If Canadian banks are squeezed hard enough, they may eventually be forced to sell their U.S. operations at distressed prices. Trump could worsen this situation by imposing punitive exit fees, ensuring that Canadian banks take even bigger losses on the sale of their U.S. subsidiaries. The impairments caused to the parents' bank balance sheets would weaken the Canadian banking system and might even force the Federal government to step in with financial aid.

Meanwhile, the discounted assets of Canadian banks could be handed over to Trump’s preferred U.S. banking CEOs. Trump, after all, seems to be on course to building a kleptocracy, and key to that is the leader's ability to generate a series of gifts (i.e. acquisition approvals) that can be bestowed on business leaders who have demonstrated their obeisance.

To limit the damage, Canada may need to act quickly. The first step is freezing any further U.S. investment by BMO and the others. If Canadian banks are already financial hostages, deepening their exposure would be reckless. Bank executives may very well have already halted their U.S. growth plans of their own accord, but if not, high-level discussions with Canadian officials should drive home the urgency of the situation.

Instead of doubling down on the U.S., Canadian banks should pivot toward growth opportunities in Europe, the U.K., Australia, Latin America, and Asia. Our banks have histories dealing with these geographies. Bank of Nova Scotia, for instance, is one of the leading banks in the Caribbean and Central America.

Finally, there’s also a case to be made for a preemptive retreat. Bank of Montreal, Royal Bank, and TD Bank could start selling off their U.S. operations today before things escalate. It's a terribly difficult step to take; Canadian banks have spent decades painstakingly building their U.S. franchises. But by exiting now, they could secure better prices and avoid becoming tools for harming Canada down the road.

What was once a symbol of Canadian financial success—our banks’ expansion into what used to be a friendly U.S.—has become a national security risk. Hoping Trump forgets his fixation on the Canadian banking system and his dream of annexing us is not a strategy. There’s a high chance he won’t, and Canada must prepare accordingly.

Crypto adoption in America

Source: America Loves Crypto

You may have recently come across the America Loves Crypto marketing campaign, sponsored by Coinbase, the U.S.'s largest crypto exchange. In an attempt to promote the voting power of crypto owners, the website makes the claim that 52 million American adults currently hold crypto, which constitutes 20% of the U.S. adult population. If true, that's a massive voting block.

As the source for its 20% statistic, Coinbase cites an online survey of 2,202 adults that it commissioned from Morning Consult last February, which among other questions queried respondents for how much crypto they currently hold.

If you've been following other sources for cryptocurrency adoption data, Coinbase's 20% statistic seems... questionable?

To see why, let's dig into U.S. crypto adoption data. What follows is a quick rundown of what the best surveys have had to say about Americans crypto ownership. Later on in the article I'll get into who they are, how much they own, and why they hold it.

1) The granddaddy of all U.S. payments surveys is the Federal Reserve's Survey and Diary of Consumer Payment Choice, or SDCPC. The SDCPC is a long-running data collection effort that tries to paint a comprehensive picture of U.S. consumers' payment preferences and behavior. It fortuitously began to incorporate crypto-related questions way back in 2014, although crypto is just a tiny portion of the incredible amount of data collected by the SDCPC.

The Fed's SDCPC is run through the University of Southern California's Understanding America Study panel. In its 2022 iteration the SDCPC polled more than 4,761 participants. Notably, the SDCPC includes both a survey and a 3-day diary portion. Diaries are more labor intensive to administer than surveys, but provide better information since they minimize recall bias.

The SDCPC found that 9.6% of American adults owned cryptocurrency in 2022, up from 9.1% in 2021, and far higher than the 0.6% it polled back in 2015. However, that's far less than Coinbase's 20% claim. Only one of these numbers can be right. Which one is it?

The SDCPC's historical findings are in the table below.

U.S. cryptocurrency adoptions rates. Source: Federal Reserve's 2022 Survey & Diary of Consumer Payment Choice

2) The Federal Reserve publishes another survey that also sheds light on U.S. crypto adoption. The Fed's annual Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED) examines the financial lives of American adults and their families, and is therefore more general than the Fed's SDCPC, which is focused exclusively on payments.

The Fed's SHED is administered by Ipsos using Ipsos's KnowlegePanel panel. In 2022, 11,667 participants completed the SHED.

The SHED only began to include questions about crypto in 2021. It finds that 10% of Americans used cryptocurrency during 2022, where "using" is defined as buying, holding, or making a payment or transfer with crypto. This amount was down from 12% in 2021 (see table below). The number of Americans who held cryptocurrency as an investment, a narrower definition than "using", fell to 8% in 2022 from 10%.

Source: Federal Reserve's 2022 SHED

The SHED's 8-10% number neatly confirms the SDCPC's 9.6% finding while disaffirming Coinbase's 20% statistic.

3) The next decent source for crypto adoption data is tabulated by a group of four economics and finance researchers using quarterly surveys of the Nielsen Homescan panel, comprised of 80,000 households. With response rates of 20-25% per survey, that represents data from 15,000 to 25,000 respondents.

Weber, Candia, Coibion, and Gorodnichenko (Weber et al) found that at the end of 2022, the fraction of all households owning crypto had risen to 12%. The black dotted line in the chart below shows how ownership rates have changed over time.

Source: Weber et al (2023) using Nielsen Homescan Panel data

 

4) The fourth in our survey of crypto surveys was conducted by the Pew Research Center using its American Trends Panel. In a March 2023 survey of 10,701 panelists, Pew found that 17% of American adults have "ever invested in, traded, or used" a cryptocurrency. This is a very broad category, and would presumably include someone who casually bought $25 worth of bitcoin back in 2015 and sold it three days later, and has never touched it again.

Drilling in further, of the 17% who have ever owned or used crypto, 69% report that they currently hold some, which works out to a 2023 ownership rate of 11-12% among American adults. That's not too far off the two Fed surveys and Weber et al, but significantly different from the Coinbase result.

5) A fifth source of data comes from Canada, which serves as a decent cross-check against U.S. data given that both countries are quite similar in terms of culture and geography. Of the two key Canadian surveys, the first is the Bank of Canada's long-running Bitcoin Omnibus Survey (BTCOS), administered by Ipsos, which amalgamates participants from three different panels.

The 2022 BTCOS polled 1,997 Canadians and found an ownership rate of 10%, down from 13% the year before (see chart below). This constitutes a lower bound to ownership rates since it only includes bitcoin owners. The 2022 BTCOS also finds that 3.5% of Canadians own dogecoin and 4% own ether. However, it's not possible to add these amounts to the 10% bitcoin ownership number since many respondents own multiple types of crypto. 

Source: Bank of Canada 2022 Bitcoin Omnibus Survey

The second Canadian survey of note was carried out by the Ontario Securities Commission in 2022 to explore Canadian attitudes towards crypto assets. Conducted with Ipsos, the survey polled 2,360 Canadians in early 2022. It found that 13% of Canadians currently own any type of cryptocurrency, including crypto ETFs, which are legal in Canada but illegal in the US.

-----

So there you have it. The two Federal Reserve surveys put crypto ownership at 9.6% and 8-10% respectively in 2022, while Weber et al peg it at 12% using Nielsen Homescan data. Pew has American crypto ownership at 11-12% by early 2023. And in Canada, the Bank of Canada calculates bitcoin ownership to be at 10% by the end of 2022, while the Ontario Securities Commission pegs total crypto ownership at 13% in early 2022, before much of crypto imploded.

Given this range of data, the 20% adoption rate that Coinbase's Morning Consult survey trots out is a glaring outlier and probably deserves to be thrown out. The American crypto owner is a potentially sizeable voting group, but not as big as Coinbase would like us to believe.

For what it's worth, I've found a few other odd things with Coinbase's Morning Consult survey that further adds to my skepticism. Morning Consult reports that 8% of respondents currently own a cryptocurrency called USDC, down from 10% the quarter before (see here for more). The survey also says that 5% currently own Tether. USDC and Tether are stablecoins. To anyone who follows crypto closely, the idea that 1 in 10 Americans own any particular stablecoin is absurd. Given that Morning Consult has surely got this wrong, perhaps through a sampling error, that makes you wonder about the quality of their overall work.

However, even if we ignore Coinbase's Morning Consult survey, the 9.6% adoption rate found in the bellwether SDCPC is still breathtakingly high. In just fifteen years, crypto has gone from a strange niche product to something that is being held by tens of millions of Americans.

What additional facts do we know about America's crypto owners?

Size of holdings

Going through the SDCPC data, the majority of Americans who own crypto only have a little bit of the stuff. Out of all U.S. crypto owners surveyed, 45% owned just $0-200 worth of crypto in 2022. This is illustrated in the chart below. The median quantity of crypto held was $312. Given such small amounts, I doubt that these crypto owners qualify as durable crypto adopters, as opposed to folks who've jumped on the bandwagon when they saw a Superbowl ad from Coinbase, bought some dogecoin, and have since stopped paying any attention.

The SDCPC data suggests that 1 in 4 crypto owners are what I call crypto fundamentalists, holding more than $2,000 worth of crypto. Given that 90% of Americans don't hold any crypto at all, two in every 100 Americans qualifies as a crypto fundamentalist.

This skewed distribution of crypto ownership is confirmed by survey results from Weber et al and the Nielsen Homescan panel. An outlier group of hard-core owners, representing around 8% of all crypto owners, allocates their entire portfolio to crypto (see chart below). By far the largest group of crypto owners is comprised of small dabblers who put just 0-5% of their portfolios into crypto.

Source: Weber et al (2023) using Nielsen Homescan Panel data

Reasons for ownership

Why do Americans own cryptocurrency? Despite being labelled as "currencies," cryptocurrencies are not generally used as a medium for making payments. Price appreciation is the dominant motivation for owning them.

When the SDCPC survey queried participants in 2022 for their "primary reason for owning virtual currency," the most popular answer (at 67%) was investment (see chart below, orange rows). The second most popular reason (21%) was "I am interested in new technologies." It was rare for respondents to list any sort of payments-related use case as their primary reason for ownership. As for lack of trust in banks, the government, or the dollar – all of which are common cryptocurrency themes – these were rarely mentioned in 2022 as a primary reason for ownership.

Interestingly, Americans crypto owners were not always so obsessed with price appreciation. In 2014, the SDCPC found that American crypto currency owners tended to offer a much broader set of motivations for owning crypto, including lack of trust, cross-border payments, and to make purchases of goods and services (see chart above, blue rows).

The dominance of investment as the motivating reason for owning crypto is echoed in Weber et al's analysis of Nielsen Homescan survey data. Respondents were allowed to give multiple reasons for owning cryptocurrency, the most popular reason (see chart below) being to take advantage of "expected increase in value." The desire to use cryptocurrencies for international transfers was almost nonexistent, as was the desire to be "independent of banks."

Crypto owners don't care about making international transfers, private purchases, or being "independent of banks," as the chart shows.

What they want is "increase in value."

This is a fairly reliable data source: 80,000 households participating in the Nielsen Homescan Panel. pic.twitter.com/0oBfATgFoY

— John Paul Koning (@jp_koning) June 22, 2023

The Fed's SHED survey isolates the same pattern as the other two surveys (see table below). Of the 10% of Americans who report using cryptocurrency in 2022, most do so as an investment. One small difference is that the SHED reports that around 2% of all survey participants used crypto to send money to friends of family in 2022. This suggests the transactional motive, while not primary, may be somewhat more prevalent than the previous two surveys suggest.

Source: Federal Reserve's 2022 SHED

Types of cryptocurrency held

What sorts of crypto were popular with Americans? Using Nielsen Homescan data, Weber et al found that of the 11% of survey respondents who are crypto owners, 70% held bitcoin while just over 40% held ether and dogecoin respectively.

Around 11% of American households owned crypto in 2021, according to a Nielsen Homescan survey of 80,000 households.

Of this 11%, 4 out of 10 households held Dogecoin.

So around 6 million US households owned Dogecoin in 2021, which is just nuts. pic.twitter.com/31FjTbfqBE

— John Paul Koning (@jp_koning) July 4, 2023

This distribution is echoed in the Fed's 2022 SDCPC. Almost 65% of all crypto owners surveyed held bitcoin (the data is here), making it the most popular type of cryptocurrency. Meanwhile, 44.8% held ether and 38% held dogecoin, a coin that was originally created as a joke in 2013. That works out to around 4-5% of all Americans who are in on the joke.

Crypto bros

There's a reason that people throw around the term "crypto bro." Without exception, all of the U.S. surveys find that cryptocurrency owners tend to be young, male, and have a high income. 

The same goes for Canada, where in 2022 there were three male bitcoin owners for every female. The Bank of Canada has also regularly tested bitcoin owners for their degree of financial literacy using the Big Three questions method, and finds that they tend to have lower financial literacy than non-bitcoin owners.

The prototypical Canadian bitcoin owner in 2022 was a young university-educated male, employed at a high-income job, and lacking financial literacy. pic.twitter.com/N3hQX4AWes

— John Paul Koning (@jp_koning) September 28, 2023

Interestingly, in addition to isolating the crypto bro pattern – the tendency for crypto owners to be young, male, and wealthy – both the Pew survey and the Fed's SHED (see table below) find that U.S. crypto owners are more likely to be Asian, followed by Black and Hispanic, and least likely to be White.

The Fed's SHED survey dug deeper into usage by demographics, and found that while "investment" remains the driving case for owning crypto, and that the rich use the stuff proportionally more than the poor, certain demographic groups tend to rely on it more than others for making transactions. Specifically, the SHED finds that among low income families, 5% report an investment motivation for holding crypto while 4% report a transactional motivation.

Source: Federal Reserve's 2022 SHED

All of this data suggests to me the existence of three American crypto archetypes. 

The most dominant crypto archetype is the young wealthy male crypto dabbler, most likely non-white, who holds a few hundred bucks worth of doge or some other coin in order to gamble on prices going up. Coinbase's America Loves Crypto campaign makes the claim that "the crypto owner is a critical voter," but I suspect this doesn't hold for the dominant dabbler archetype, who probably doesn't have much attachment to their casual $50 bet on doge or litecoin or bitcoin, and thus can't be assembled into a voting block for crypto-related cause.

Another archetype is the much rarer crypto fundamentalist, a young male who has committed most of his savings to crypto. I suspect these are the types I encounter on Twitter, who evangelize and debate crypto to anyone who'll listen. This may be a small group, but they are also the most likely to vote for crypto-related causes.

Lastly, there seems to be a very small group of low-income people who are using crypto for actual transactions, the original use-case that Satoshi Nakamoto intended when he introduced the first cryptocurrency back in 2008.

Another Indian payments idea: a lightweight portable payments system for catastrophes

India is so far ahead of most of the world when it comes to payments technology that when a new Indian payments idea emerges, we should probably pay attention.

In its recent annual report, the Reserve Bank of India, the country's central bank, put forward the idea of a super-resilient back-up payments rail, which it calls the Lightweight Payment and Settlement System (LPSS). If a war or natural disaster cripples core payments infrastructure such as India's real-time gross settlement system, then the LPSS would kick in to process essential payments. The LPSS would be "independent of conventional technologies," portable, and capable of being operated "anywhere by a bare minimum staff."

Here is the full description:

Source: RBI

In my admittedly not-very-technical head, what I'm imagining is some sort of truck filled with computers and other apparatus for processing payments, sort of like a mobile police command vehicle. I could imagine a fleet of them. And there would be multiple way for these mobile payments bunkers to communicate with commercial banks, some of which wouldn't rely on the internet, like... ham radio? Transactions recorded on DVD and delivered by hand? (Yes, apparently that's a real thing). Dunno. I'm sure others will have a better idea how the LPSS works.

Central banks already plan for disasters by creating layers of payments redundancy, specifically back-up data centres in fixed locations.

In the U.S., for instance, the key Fedwire system is hosted at the Fed's East Rutherford Operations Center in New Jersey. Should disaster strike at the East Rutherford hub, a secondary back up data center at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is designed to resume Fedwire operationality 60-90 minutes later. A third backup center exists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. (The source for this is here.)

As for Canada, our new Lynx high-value payments system is hosted at a primary site (I don't know where) with a secondary site ready to turn on as a back-up, as explained in this document. If both sites go down, then the system moves to good ol' fashioned manual processing.

I assume that India currently uses the same fixed primary/secondary site strategy as Canada and the U.S.

Ultimately, every single digital payment gets settled via transfers of central bank deposits over core payments infrastructure. So ensuring that these systems are available is crucial. No central bank wants to fall victim to something like the infamous 2014 breakdown of CHAPS, the UK's wholesale payments system, which prevented people from making crucial payments for ten hours.

Ages ago, some of us suggested that blockchain-based systems might provide a suitable layer of redundancy. If key centralized infrastructure like India's RTGS, U.S.'s Fedwire, or Canada's Lynx were to stop working thanks to a disaster, a central bank could temporarily fail-over to a decentralized option until the primary system is restored. This model has never been tried out. Perhaps in a world with ever-increasing natural disasters and renewed geo-political tensions, an LPSS, some sort of truck-full-of-payments-processing-machinery, is the best solution for central banks.

Zelle vs Interac e-Transfer, or why it's so difficult to kickstart a payments network in the U.S.

It's difficult to grow a payments product to universality in the United States, and that's partly due to the fact that the U.S. has a stunning 4,127 banks, 4,760 federal credit unions, and 579 savings & thrifts institutions, for a total of 9,466 depository institutions.*

Let's compare that to Canada. The rule of ten applies to most Canadian/U.S. comparisons. That is, the U.S. has around 10 times the population, so to get Canadian equivalents just divide by ten. (For example, there are 13,515 McDonald's restaurants in the U.S. Meanwhile, Canada has 1,363. That's almost perfectly in-line with the rule of ten's prediction.)

The rule of ten suggests that if the U.S. has 9,466 depository institutions, then Canada should have 946. But that isn't the case. Canada has 81 regulated banks and around 208 credit unions, for a total of just 289 depositories. (I am counting the 213 credit unions belonging to the Desjardins co-operative federation as one entity.)**

The rule of ten particularly fails with respect to banks. Canada has just 81 banks, not 412 as suggested by the rule. Banks are more influential than credit unions because they tend to be much larger.

So why is this data relevant to payments? A payments network is really only useful if it has a lot of participants on it, but a lot of participants aren't going to be on it in the first place if it isn't useful. That's the chicken-and-egg problem of payments networks.

To solve the chicken-and-egg problem, it helps to have a few large actors – a vanguard – commit to using the network at the outset, which kickstarts its usefulness, and then everyone else gets dragged into joining up. Voila, universal payments.

When you've got 9,466 depository institutions, it's hard to build a strong vanguard group in order to drive quick adoption of a new payments network.

Take The Clearing House's Real-Time Payments (RTP) network, for instance, a U.S. payments network which was launched in 2017. Out of the U.S.'s 9,466 depositories, RTP has attracted just 285 participating institutions, effectively limiting RTP's reach to 65% of all U.S. checking accounts. (The 65% number is from RTP's website.)*** That's not bad, but it's not great.

Another example is Zelle, a U.S. bank-owned person-to-person payments network that was introduced in 2017. By 2021, Zelle boasted 1,700 banks and credit unions on its bank-to-bank payments network. That's better than RTP, but according to Zelle, this still only represented 74%, or 577 million of all U.S. checking accounts, in 2021. (As of early 2023, Zelle reports having 1,900 financial institutions on its network, so it probably now connects 75-80% of all U.S. checking accounts.)

In Canada's case, with just 81 banks and 208 credit unions, it's much easier to build a vanguard group to drive a payments network forward.

For instance, Interac e-Transfer is the Canadian equivalent to Zelle, providing instant person-to-person transfers via bank and credit unions. As of 2023, Interac e-Transfer has 250 participating banks and credit unions. (It lists Desjardin Group, a federation of 213 credit unions, as a single entity). That's almost all of Canada's 289 depositories, and effectively 100% of all Canadian chequing accounts. That's ubiquity for you.

Admittedly, Interac e-Transfer has been around a lot longer than Zelle and RTP, having debuted in 2003, and so it has had more time to spread into all the cracks. (I wrote about Canada's big head start in instant payments a few years ago.) But even at the outset of the adoption process, e-Transfer enjoyed buy-in from Canada's five biggest banks (Royal, TD, Scotiabank, CIBC, and Bank of Montreal), which together owned 86% of all Canadian banking assets at year-end 2003. That's a huge vanguard group. The chart below, which uses 2022 data, gives a good feel for how significant this is.

I made this chart to show how diffuse the U.S. banking system is compared to the Canadian one.

The assets of the top-6 🇺🇸 banks represent a much smaller proportion of total banking assets than the top-6 🇨🇦 banks. pic.twitter.com/87sd1p0kqd

— John Paul Koning (@jp_koning) April 24, 2023

The above chart also illustrates how small any U.S.-equivalent vanguard group will ever be. Zelle's 2017 group of 30 first-adopters may have seemed large on the face of it. After all, it included America's largest banks: JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, US Bank, PNC, and Capital One. Yet this vanguard still only constituted 52% of total U.S. banking assets, much less than the 86% committed to Interac e-Transfer on day one.

The diffuse nature of U.S. banking (and the concentrated nature of Canadian banking) will play into the upcoming launches of FedNow and Real-Time Rail (RTR), two instant retail payments system belonging to the Federal Reserve and Bank of Canada, respectively. I'd expect RTR usage to amp up quickly, given that Canada's big-5 banks will likely help sponsor it. FedNow adoption will lag. It's just not that easy to get 9,466 institutions on the same page.

---

* Number of US banks and savings/thrifts is from FDIC. Data on credit unions is from the NCUA
** Number of Canadian banks is from OSFI. Number of credit unions is from CCUA
*** A tweet where I list my data source for RTP data

In which I catch Canadian banks paying more interest to customers than US banks do

TD Bank operates on both sides of the border, yet pays more in interest on one side than the other. Source: TD

Long-time readers will know that I like to muse on the competitiveness of U.S. and Canadian banking. In my last post on the topic, I was surprised to see how Bank of Montreal's net interest margins – a measure of how much a bank is squeezing out of its customers – were far lower in Canada than the U.S. The fact that Bank of Montreal is squeezing more out of Americans than Canadians suggests that competition is stiffer north of the border than south of it.

The idea that Canadian banking is more competitive than U.S. banking goes against what I'll call the "standard view." In short, this view is that while Canadian banks are safer and better-regulated than U.S. banks, this comes at a steep price. Up here in Canada, we've ended up with a few big oligopolistic institutions capable of charging exorbitant fees and paying unnaturally low interest rates, which hurts the consumer. Meanwhile, there are many more banks in the free-wheeling U.S., and while this makes for more bank failures and runs, the public benefits from lower fees and receives higher interest rates.

Anyways, I recently stumbled on another anecdotal piece of evidence that contradicts the standard view. TD Bank operates on two sides of the border, as the screenshot at the top of this blog post shows. Yet it pays depositors a different rate, depending on what country they live in:

Data like this is why I'm slowly starting to recant my view that America's 4000 or so banks create a healthier competitive environment than Canada's sleepy big-5 banking cartel. pic.twitter.com/QdcIS564li

— John Paul Koning (@jp_koning) March 31, 2023

As the chart shows, TD Bank consistently pays higher interest rates to its Canadian depositors. Why a persistent interest rate differential? You can't blame it on central bank policy rates being higher in Canada, since over much of this time frame policy rates were higher in the U.S. Is it possible that TD has to be more competitive in Canada in order to attract deposits?

An alternative explanation for the differential is that TD's deposits are of a different character in Canada. A big chunk of TD's Canadian deposits are fixed-term deposits that mature in 12-months or more, whereas its U.S. base of fixed-term deposits is typically shorter term, usually 3-12 months. Because it costs more in interest to convince depositors to stick around for longer periods of time, could it be that it is the difference in term – and not competition – that explains why TD's interest costs are so much higher in Canada?

Not quite. Even if we compare U.S. and Canadian interest rates for the same fixed term, Canadian banks still pay more interest to depositors. In Canada, the term of art for a fixed-term deposit is a guaranteed investment certificate, or GIC. In the U.S., it's a certificate of deposit, or CD. In the chart below, I've charted out the interest rate that Canadian banks pay for 1-year GICs compared to what U.S. banks pay for a 1-year CDs.

(For more on the data, see footnote*). 

You can see that over the last few years, the big-6 Canadian banks have consistently paid more to 1-year fixed-term depositors than U.S. banks have. Again, you can't pin this on central bank policy rates being higher in Canada. 

Canadian banks not only consistently pay more interest, they are also far more responsive to central bank policy rate increases. Both nations' central banks, the Fed and the Bank of Canada, began to hike rates in lockstep with each other beginning in March 2022, starting from close to 0% and rising to 4.75% and 4.5% respectively as of today. Yet Canadian banks began to pass-off these increases months before U.S. banks did. They have also done so far more completely; the 3.0% on a 1-year GIC is far closer to central bank policy rates of 4.5%-4.75% than the 1.5% on an equivalent CD. (And by the way, I wrote about sticky U.S. deposit rates last year.)

Could it be (gasp) that Canadian banks are more competitive?

Trust me, I don't like this conclusion. I quite enjoy thrashing Canadian banks for being noncompetitive. So if you have some good counter-evidence, please send it my way.

By the way, the above data confirms an anecdote from last year. I caught Canada's largest bank, Royal Bank, paying much more to Canadian depositors than U.S.'s largest bank, Chase, pays its American depositors:

Here's a riddle for folks who like to analyze the US and Canadian financial systems.

A 1-year t-bill yields 2% in 🍁 & 🇺🇸

Canada's biggest bank, Royal, pays 1.25% on a 1-year GIC. The US's biggest bank, Chase, offers just 0.05% on a 1-year CD.

What gives? Why such a huge gap?

— John Paul Koning (@jp_koning) May 4, 2022

It's very possible that the standard view is wrong, and the tug of war between Canada's 6 nationwide heavyweights result in a more competitive price than in the U.S. where – although there are more than 4,000 banks – they are often small and regional and lack the heft to engage in high calibre competition.

If so, it appears you can have your cake and eat it too. Not only can a country have a safe and robust banking system, but that needn't come at the price of less competition.

---

*A note on my data sources for this chart. Canadian data comes from the Bank of Canada, which is compiled from posted interest rates offered by the six major chartered banks in Canada. The number is the statistical mode of the rates posted, which may explain the series' choppiness. U.S. data comes from FDIC, which compiles the data from S&P Capital IQ Pro and SNL Financial Data. Certificate of deposit rates represent an average of the $10,000 and $100,000 product tiers. Averaging across dozens or hundreds of banks would explain the smoothness of the U.S. series.

There are a number of complexities that are not explained by either data source. For instance, is the Bank of Canada's GIC data made up of non-redeemable GICs only, or do they include redeemable GICs, too? As for the U.S., banks like Chase offer a "relationship rate" to customers that far exceeds the non-relationship rate. Which rate is the FDIC collecting? I've suggested in my blog post that the difference in U.S. and Canadian 1-year fixed term deposits rates could be explained by competition, but it could also come down to data artifacts like these.

A CBDC, eh?

David Andolfatto recently wrote a helpful article about whether Canada needs a central bank digital currency, or CBDC. I agree with David that a CBDC is "not an essential initiative at this point in time."

The way I see it, there are two big elephants in the room when it comes to introducing a central bank digital currency. Both of them suggest we should slow down any effort to issue CBDC.

But before I get to that, what is a CBDC? In brief, a CBDC is a new payments option that would allow regular Canadians to interact digitally with our nation's central bank, the Bank of Canada. For example, instead of having to use your Royal Bank account or Visa card to buy stuff at the supermarket or on Amazon, you could pay with a central bank digital tool, perhaps a Bank of Canada app or card. The Bank of Canada has been exploring whether the idea of issuing a CBDC for several years now, but so far hasn't pulled the trigger.

Here are what I believe to be the two big risks to rolling out a Canadian CBDC.

The most important one is white elephant risk.

In mature democracies like Canada, the provision of retail non-cash payments is a mostly-solved problem. Decent access to payments is already provided by a panoply of bank accounts, financial  apps, and cards. These existing options for connecting to the payments system are very safe. The $1,000 we hold in a checking accounts to make payments, for instance, is protected by government deposit insurance.

So if the Bank of Canada were to issue a CBDC, it's not obvious to me that many of us would bother using it. It would be just one more safe payments account among a sea of safe options.

That leaves the central bank in the position of having spent large amounts of money building and maintaining a payments network that none of us really needed or wanted in the first place.

Getting rid of an expensive and lacklustre CBDC could be difficult. Central bankers may feel like their reputations are tied to their CBDC projects. This, combined with the fact that central bankers don't feel the sting of a bottom line, may allow these white elephants to limp on for a very long time.

At the moment, most Canadians don't interact with Bank of Canada products (apart from holding cash, usage of which is falling). We mostly view the central bank as a competent technocratic body that does complicated stuff with interest rates. A CBDC project would suddenly put the Bank of Canada in direct digital contact with Canadians. But if the CBDC were to become a white elephant, this proximity could backfire on the central bank. It'll be know as the agency that runs a bloated payment system that the public dislikes. We don't want the Bank's brand to be hurt. We want the Bank of Canada to be trusted and deemed competent.

The second risk is black elephant risk. A black elephant is an obvious risk that people avoid discussing ahead of time.

Most discussions about CBDC centre on the technological hurdles involved in building one. But they often ignore the pesky sociological difficulties of running payments systems.

Fickle customers want to be able to reverse payments when they aren't happy with the products they buy. Users are frequently swindled out of their money by fraudsters and will expect restitution. If Jack accidentally send $500 to Alice instead of the $50 that he intended to send, he will want $450 back. What if Alice disagrees?

This requires that central bank constantly arbitrate disputes.

That's not all. Criminals will try to use a CBDC to sell illegal products. The central bank will have to start policing what is illegal and what isn't. Controversial businesses, say white nationalist publishing houses or kinky porn sites, will line up to use it. That means getting embroiled in politics.  

These are the not the sorts of issues I want my central bankers to get bogged down in. The risk is that demanding CBDC users distract the Bank of Canada from the vital task of conducting monetary policy.

The Bank of Canada might try to outsource the governance of a CBDC to the private sector. But that begs the question: if the central bank doesn't want the burden of running a payments system, why is it trying to get in the game at all? Why not just stick with the status quo, which seems to be working?

In sum, if I had any suggestions for Canadian citizens on how they should appraise a Canadian CBDC, it would be this. Given the above white & black elephant risks, the Bank of Canada shouldn't lead, it should follow. Watch the first few trail-blazing central banks to see how their CBDC projects pan out. (The Swedes, who are aggressively purchasing a CBDC, are a good candidate). If the Swedish CBDC succeeds, copy it. If the Swedes fail, continue on as before. There's no advantage to being the first to market.

Are the Bank of Canada's bond purchases illegal?

Pierre Poilievre, Conservative MP for Carleton, alleges that the Bank of Canada's bond buying program contravenes the Bank's powers enunciated in the Bank of Canada Act.

The unprecedented money printing the government is doing to fund its spending is not only causing an inflation tax, it is illegal under the Bank of Canada Act. pic.twitter.com/KDfJd3niPJ

— pierrepoilievre (@PierrePoilievre) July 20, 2021

Allegations that the Bank of Canada has broken the law should be taken very serious. They should not be made lightly, either. We give our public servants at the Bank of Canada a wide range of powers to enact monetary policy, but only within the bounds that we permit them.

Poilievre has been actively criticizing the Bank of Canada's pandemic response ever since Covid-19 hit in 2020. I can't say I've ever seen as much Bank of Canada-targeted criticism emanating from a single Canadian politician since Poilievre began his campaign. It breaks with a long Canadian political tradition of staying (mostly) silent on the Bank of Canada's operations.

I have mixed feelings about Poilievre's approach. Yes, it's great to have more public discussion about arcane topics like the Bank of Canada Act. On the other hand, up till now Canada has avoided most of the hyperbole and conspiracies that bedevil U.S. central banking. It would be nice if things stayed that way.

Poilievre's allegations were first aired in Parliament in June. A month later he posted them on Twitter, where I became aware of them. (They garnered over 900 retweets, which is a lot for a tweet about an arcane issue like the Bank of Canada Act!) Poilievre's claims are based on his reading of Section 18(j) of the Bank of Canada Act. Section 18(j) allows the Bank to make loans to the Federal government, but those loans should not "exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of the Government of Canada for its fiscal year."

Poilievre calculates that given 2021 government revenue estimates, this would cap Bank of Canada loans to the Federal government at $118 billion. Poilievre then points to the Bank of Canada's purchases of Government securities, which have pushed the Bank's holdings of Federal government debt above the $400 billion level. Poilievre suggests that this contravenes 18(j).

The allegations caught the attention of columnist Andrew Coyne, who takes a dig at Poilievre:

Alternatively, there’s your theory that the Bank has illegally purchased $300 billion in government bonds and no one noticed it but you.

— Andrew Coyne (@acoyne) July 20, 2021

In fairness to Poilievre, it's not unimaginable that the Bank of Canada has done something illegal and no one has noticed but him. 

Back in August 2007, after all, the Bank of Canada announced its intention to extend its purchases of certain kinds of securities. It was responding to the first signs of a nascent crisis in credit market. Unfortunately it lacked jurisdiction to purchase these instruments. Its actions were unwound by September 2007 in order to bring the Bank back in compliance with the Bank of Canada Act.

I only know this because I phoned the Bank of Canada up that August wondering what legal justification it had for its actions. Several awkward conversations later, it was apparent that a mistake had been made by bank officials.

My observations made their way into a report that December for the CD Howe Institute. From there a process to update the Bank of Act began. After discussions in Parliament (including a contribution from then-governor Mark Carney here) the eventual result was an update to the Act in the spring of 2008. Tucked into Bill C-50, changes included striking out Section 18(k) and rewriting Section 18(g).

These modifications to the Bank of Act made it permissible for the Bank of Canada to conduct the purchases it had originally set out to do in August 2007, and prepped it for the much bigger fallout to come: the September 2008 credit crisis.   

So maybe Poilievre has caught a breach of law. It's happened before. That being said, echoing Coyne (who cites economist Mike Moffatt), I'm not convinced by the meat of Poilievre's argument.

In response to Poilievre's allegations about 18(j) being broken, Bank of Canada officials would probably respond that their large-scale asset purchases are authorized under Section 18(g).

The Bank of Canada's ability to make securities purchases for monetary policy purposes is set out in Section 18(g), which replaced the much narrower 18(k) in 2008. The scope of Section 18(g) is very broad. First, it is open-ended about what instruments it allows the Bank to purchase. These securities can include bonds, stocks, commercial paper, mortgage-backed securities, and more.* Second, 18(g) doesn't say anything about the Bank's purchases needing to happen in the open market. If necessary, the Bank of Canada can buy straight from the issuer.

The bit of legalese that Poilievre points to, 18(j), only applies Bank of Canada loans to the Government, say a line of credit or some other type of credit facility. Because the Bank has limited its interaction with the government to buying securities, 18(j) hasn't been triggered. And so Poilievre's allegations are just that, allegations.

Section 18(j) was devised to prevent the Bank of Canada from financing the government and preserving the Bank's independence, as Poilievre rightly points out here. And I think that's a laudable goal.

In that spirit, it's worth considering that most (but not all) of the Bank of Canada's purchases of government bonds have occurred in the open market. That is, most of the securities in the Bank's government bond portfolio were bought only after the public had initially purchased them from the Government. So in a sense, the Bank has prudently removed itself from the initial price discovery process.  

More specifically, the Bank has purchased $362 billion in Government bonds since March 2020. Of that amount, $303 billion, or 84%, was bought in the open market. The remaining $59 billion was bought directly from the Government.

Since the pandemic broke out in March 2020, the @bankofcanada has bought $362 billion worth of Federal government bonds. Most of these have been bought in the open market, but 16% ($56 billion) were bought directly from the government at periodic bond auctions.

Running tally: pic.twitter.com/DbNoS1819r

— John Paul Koning (@jp_koning) July 26, 2021

Even when the Bank does participate in bond auctions, it does so on a non-competitive basis. That is, the Bank pays the average of all competitive bids submitted to the auction. The competitive bids are provide by banks and other primary dealers. This practice further prevents the Bank of Canada from playing an active role in setting the government's cost of capital.

So to sum up, I think the Bank of Canada is on firm legal ground. Furthermore, I also think the spirit of 18(j), a prohibition on financing the government, remains intact.

---

* The one security that Section 18(g)(i) deems to be off limits are instruments that "evidence an ownership interest or right in or to an entity." If I recall correctly refers to certain types of asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP).

Judy Shelton at the Bank of Canada? No thanks

How would I feel if Judy Shelton was a candidate for Governor of the Bank of Canada? Here are my thoughts.

A bit of background first. Judy Shelton was a Trump appointee to a key spot on the Federal Reserve board, the U.S.'s central bank. A President's appointees must be confirmed by Congress, and this was probably the most heated confirmation process I've ever followed. Shelton has espoused several controversial view points, including a return to the gold standard. 

The reason this appointment is so important is because Federal Reserve board members determine American monetary policy. That is, they decide whether to pluck interest rates up or down in order to ensure that the central bank is hitting its mandated targets.

That's a pretty important job! Not only would Shelton have been in the monetary policy hot-seat, she would have been on track to become the next head of the Federal Reserve. But it was all for naught. Shelton narrowly lost the spot as several Republican senators, including Mitt Romney, dissented.

So Shelton for Bank of Canada? Here's a simple set of guidelines I'd suggest Canadian voters adopt when they consider what sorts of people should be at the helm of the Bank of Canada. 

First, I'd suggest that anyone being considered for the Canadian monetary policy cockpit have a PhD in economics, preferably one in macroeconomics. And second, they should have administrative experience. (I'd be willing to accept a master's degree in economics as a substitute, with sufficient time spent working up the rungs of a central bank. The administrative experience is important because candidates will be in a management position.) Once they've passed those two hurdles, the finer points of their candidacy can be discussed.

A quick scan of Shelton's background reveals that she has a PhD in an unrelated discipline and no prior central banking experience. So if she was being floated for the job of Bank of Canada governor she wouldn't have passed through my filter. (Current Fed governor Jerome Powell, who is a lawyer, wouldn't have got through either.) 

Some readers may think I'm only stating the obvious. "Of course the most important people at a nation's central bank should have high-level economics degrees." But other readers will be disappointed in my criteria. I mean, here I am, an independent blogger—one who doesn't have a graduate degree—advocating an elitist sclerotic filtering mechanism.

Note that I'm not criticizing Shelton for her controversial stance on the gold standard. If she was a trained economist whose gold standard views had survived through years of rigorous training, she'd pass through my basic filter. Nor am I criticizing Shelton because she was a Trump appointee. Christopher Waller, another recent Trump appointee, would have easily passed through my filter.

Here's why I think my filter makes sense for Canadian voters. Monetary policy is complicated. Luckily we have an institution that teaches it: economics departments. Once someone has attained a PhD (or Masters + experience) in macroeconomics, odds are they'll be better than most at understanding how to operate the levers of a central bank. 

Why not draw central banking talent from other venues like the media, activism, think tanks, law, finance, business, or the blogosphere (ahem)? These venues don't attack the problems of central banking in as disciplined a manner as an economics department does. And so the average quality of these talent pools will not be as high.

In particular, I want to comment on the idea of drawing central bankers from the business/finance community. Many voters may think that Canadian business personalities like Kevin O'Leary, investor Prem Watsa, or banker David McKay would be uniquely qualified to run the Bank of Canada. I disagree. Sure, these titans of business will have good administrative experience (although no better than anyone else at the top of their field). 

But running monetary policy has little in common with running a business. Like the litre, second, and meter, the Canadian dollar is one of Canada's most important weights & measures. We put well-trained physicists at the National Research Council (NRC) in charge of maintaining our key physical measurements, not business people. (In fact, NRC scientists recently guided us onto a new standard for the kilogram.) Likewise, we need people with proper scientific training to manage our key economic measuring unit, the $.

Will my filtering system leave out a lot of good candidates? Yes. Will it bring in some bad ones? Certainly. Economics departments have tons of problems. Trust me, I've heard stories from insiders.

But even if it's not a great filtering system, it's still the best filtering systems we've got. Imagine that the plane you're on has lost its pilot in mid-air and needs a replacement. If one of the passengers has been to flight school, that person is probably going to be the best pick for flying the plane.

The WSJ marketed Shelton's candidacy on the basis of diversity. Yes, diversity of opinion is important. We want the co-pilot on our plane to criticize the pilot when one sees him/her make a mistake. But we still want both to be trained pilots with solid skills. They need to know exactly what that little red button above and to the left of their heads does when pressed. We wouldn't put a cake decorator, a plumber, and psychologist in the cockpit, just for the sake of diversity.

It's interesting to contrast U.S. and Canadian central banks on my very simple filter. Going back to 1970 the U.S. has missed twice: Jerome Powell and William Miller. The hits include Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker.

Canada hasn't missed once. Everyone from Louis Rasminsky and James Coyne to Mark Carney, Stephen Poloz, and Tiff Macklem qualify.  

A very very simple explanation of monetary policy

Scale & weights | Aylmer, Quebec | Canadian Museum of History

 

This post is for my dad, who says he doesn't understand my writing but remains a loyal reader nonetheless.

I am going to try and explain one of the most important things that central banks do: monetary policy. We often see news clips in which bespectacled central bankers discuss their "inflation targets," or tell us that they are ratcheting interest rates up or down, or that they are engaging in "quantitative easing". The catch-all term that we use to describe what they are doing is monetary policy. But what does this mean? What is monetary policy?

Central banking is confusing, so here's what I propose. Let's find something simple, something we all intuitively understand. And then I'll show why monetary policy is like that simple thing. Hopefully that demystifies what is going on. I'm going to use a Canadian example, but it applies just as well to any nation.

K50, K75, and K106

People take their national system of weights & measures for granted. But we simply couldn't function as a society without a standard way of measuring things: kilograms, metres, seconds, or degrees Celsius.

A nation's system of weights & measures doesn't just manage itself. Take the kilogram. The Canadian Federal government had to push and prod for years to get the kg into popular usage. Canadians had historically relied on the imperial measurement system with its strange mix of ounces, drams and grains. In 1970, Pierre Trudeau passed the Weights and Measures Act, giving birth to the Metric Commission and its mandate to get Canada officially onto the metric system. Fifty years later we Canadians all reckon in terms of kilograms, grams, and a raft of other metric measures. (Ok, not entirely, I admit. I cook in Fahrenheit, not Celsius, and weigh myself in pounds, not kg. But I definitely don't drive in miles.)

The Canadian government's job didn't stop once the kilogram was widely accepted. It has continued to manage the kilogram ever since. The main thrust of this ongoing effort is to ensure that 1 kilogram is 1 kilogram all across Canada. No agency is more involved in this harmonization effort than the National Research Council of Canada, or NRC, the Federal government's research and development lab.

National Research Council building in Ottawa

The NRC's headquarters in Ottawa houses three individual physical kilogram weights. Known as K50, K75, and K106, these specimens represent Canada's official kilograms. Because Canadian manufacturers require incredible precision, they can periodically visit the NRC and calibrate their weights against K50, K75, or K106 to ensure accuracy. If the manufacturer's weights diverge by even a few micrograms from the NRC's official weights, they will have to be replaced with more accurate ones.

And so the definition of the kilogram diffuses across Canada, first from the National Research Council, then to industry, and finally to Canadians who consume carefully weighed products.  

The National Research Council's K50, K74, and K106 are in turn copies of the most important kilogram weight in the world, the International Prototype Kilogram. Manufactured in 1889, the IPK is stored at in the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in France. Scientists at the National Research Council used to periodically hop on a plane with K74 and fly to France to cross-check it against the IPK.

In 2018, the world stopped using physical artifacts to define the kilogram. The problem with using actual objects like the IPK and K50 is that over time they suffer from slight degradation. K50, for instance, began to display fluctuations of a few micrograms due to "tiny cracks in the surface which adsorbed and released water from the air." And so our standard for weight suffered. 

We now rely on a much superior non-physical standard for the kilogram, one that is defined in terms of Planck's constant. But even though the definition of the kilogram has changed, the National Research Council is still key in ensuring that the kilograms Canadians use are good kilograms.

The beginning of the long dash...

The National Research Council also maintains Canada's official time. Cesium atomic clocks are the world's most accurate method for recording the passage of time, of which the NRC's time standards office in Ottawa has several. The NRC broadcasts official time on the web, via short wave radio band, and by telephone. Faithful CBC radio listeners will all be familiar with the NRC's habitual: "The beginning of the long dash indicates exactly one o'clock..." For $7,500 per year, industrial customers can even get authenticated access to NRC time servers.

An NRC control room containing systems used to disseminate official time to the public, including the telephone talking clock, the CBC daily time broadcasts, and computer time clocks.

Precise timing is particularly important to the Canadian financial industry. Take the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, or IIROC, which regulates the Toronto Stock Exchange and all the firms that deal on it. (IIROC is sort of like Canada's version of the SEC). To ensure that all market participants are on the same rhythm, IIROC sets its internal clock off of the NRC's clocks. All firms that trade in Canadian securities must in turn synchronize their clocks to IIROC's clock. And thus the NRC and its atomic clocks impose order on the chaos of the stock market. 

kg, s, and $

Now let's bring this back to monetary policy. 

The main suggestion in this article is that readers put the National Research Council and the Bank of Canada in the same bucket. Both institutions are responsible for upholding Canada's system of weights & measures. 

But whereas the NRC is in charge of managing physical measures, the Bank of Canada is responsible for managing the nation's key unit of economic measure, the $. So when you see news about the Bank of Canada and the dollar, and you start to get confused, consider reframing the news as if it was the National Research Council making policy changes to the way it manages the kilogram. Hopefully that will make the news more relatable.

The dollar is the universal sign we Canadians use to express economic value. It shows up in grocery aisles, at online stores, in our bank statements, and is used in our heads to calculate bills.

But like the kg, the $ must be managed. As I wrote earlier, the NRC originally defined the kilogram in terms of a physical artifact before switching to a non-physical construct. Likewise, a long time ago the Canadian dollar was set at 23.22 grains of gold. But these days the Bank of Canada (much like the NRC) measures the dollar in terms of a theoretical construct, a basket of consumer goods.

What does it mean to measure the dollar in terms of a basket of consumer goods? 

Each month government statisticians canvas store aisles and websites for price data which they use to calculate the cost of purchasing a basket of consumer goods. This data compilation is known as the consumer price index, or CPI. It includes items like groceries, rent, gas, etc. 

In its definition of the dollar, the Bank of Canada promises citizens that the $ unit will be capable of buying the same amount of consumer baskets from one month to the next. (It's a little more complicated than that, but that's for another post).

So then what are interest rates for?

Sometimes the Bank of Canada will make the news because it is increasing or lowering interest rates. What is happening here? Recall that the National Research Council had a number of tools for diffusing official time across Canada, one of which is broadcasting across channels such as the CBC. The Bank of Canada also has tools for diffusing its definition of the dollar across Canada. Interest rates happen to be its favorite tool.

If the dollar falls in value such that it is no longer powerful enough to purchase the appropriate quantity of consumer baskets, the Bank of Canada will increase rates. In theory, this pushes the dollar's purchasing power back up to target. And if the dollar is too powerful and purchases more baskets than the Bank of Canada's target, the Bank will decrease rates. This should nudge the dollar's purchasing power back down.

Updating the definition of $

So when experts discuss standards bodies like the National Research Council or the Bank of Canada, they are likely having two sorts of discussions. Half of their conversations will be about the definitions that these institutions uphold (i.e. should we define the kilogram using K50 or Planck's constant? Should we define the dollar in terms of grains of gold or consumer goods?). And the other half will be about strategies and tools for diffusing the standard across Canada (i.e. should we provide the public with more channels for accessing official time? Should we increase interest rates or keep them unchanged?)

The Bank of Canada is currently in the thick of the first sort of discussion. Every five years the Bank of Canada and the government come to an agreement about how the Bank will define the dollar for the ensuing five years. The next agreement is scheduled to be inked in 2021. 

Some people involved in this discussion want to adopt new definitions for the dollar. Recall that the Bank of Canada already uses consumer basket to define the dollar. One group wants to redefine the dollar in terms of nominal gross domestic product. Others want to add a reference to employment. 

Much like discussions about whether to redefine the kilogram in terms of Planck's law, this is a complicated debate, one that non-experts cannot easily access. But whatever the decision, you can be sure it will have implications for all Canadians. After all, the $ is a measure that each on of us uses on a daily basis.