Skip to main content

Speculators Create Liquidity

Image result for liquidity

Liquidity, in law, is the ease with which an asset can be converted to cash. Real estate is considered an illiquid asset; it can take months to sell a plot of land. An interest in a privately owned company may be liquid or may not -- the question is very context specific. But a stock in a publicly owned and exchange traded company is very liquid -- it can be turned into cash by a call to one's broker.

This is distinct from, although, closely related to, the sense that the word "liquidity" has among economists or in the world of finance. In those worlds it is a market not an asset as such that has liquidity, And the liquidity is in essence the volume of activity.

It is a good thing that markets are liquid (in the finance sense), because it renders the assets involved liquid (in the lawyers' sense) and, all other things equal, one would rather have a liquid asset than an illiquid one.

In discussions of corporate management and accounting, "liquidity" has another sense. It is the ability of an enterprise to pay off its due or soon-to-be-due debts with its current assets. Obviously the accounts receivable office at the firm's counter-parties want cash. They don't want, say, office furniture. So if you don't have cash on hand you (dear CFO) better have highly liquid assets on hand.

All of these related meanings contribute to the significance of the common saying, "speculators provide liquidity."

Consider the corn market. It consists of farmers who have raised corn; commercial buyers who want corn to sell into the retail market; exchanges that mediate the relationship between them. Those are the most obvious participants, anyway. But the corn market also includes a healthy heaping of speculators, betting on the rise or fall they expect on the prices of corn and other commodities.

What good do the speculators do? Well ... they supply liquidity. They make the market deeper, and thus make it easier for the other parties to conduct deals, and even to continue managing liquid enterprises.

Speculation. It's a good thing.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
23 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

A Quote from Parfit

Recently  I wrote a little about ethicist Derek Parfit. I've been doing further research on him since, and will now describe his Big Picture as I've come to understand it. Parfit believes that the western world only started taking ethical philosophy seriously (as a domain separate from theology) around the time Nietzsche declared that God was dead. There are only three possibilities, in terms of the God/morality issue: 1) You believe that God exists and that His commands define morality 2) You deny that God exists and, like Nietzsche, infer from this that in the absence of commands there is no right or wrong, or 3) You deny that God exists yet persist in believing and attempting to discern right and wrong. From a certain point of view there could be a fourth category, for people who believe that God exists but that His existence is irrelevant to morality, He doesn't issue commands at all, etc.  Still, from DP's perspective that sort of God ...
1 comment
Read more