George G. Kaufman, Comment: Edelstein and Follain Papers, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 4, Proceedings of 14th Annual Conference of the Western Finance Association, June 21-23, 1979 (Nov., 1979), pp. 805-806

Like any course, the basic money and financial institutions course, or money and banking as it is more frequently designated, takes on the unique coloration of the instructor. However, this course appears to be so affected more than most other finance and economics courses at this level. This occurs because, although it is a second course, it is still a very broad course in design, and more importantly, because it encompasses the three approaches to the teaching of economics and finance–description, theory, and policy. Different instructors emphasize different aspects, at times, to the almost total exclusion of one or both of the other two. But, judging from the financial failure of textbooks that have attempted to focus on just one of these aspects, say, financial institutions or monetary economics, it appears that most instructors prefer the broader and more diffuse coverage. And so do I.

A number of recent articles have explored the reasons underlying observed differences in deposit variability among commercial banks. The variability of deposits at individual banks is of interest to bank management, the Federal Reserve, and the general public for several reasons:1. Deposit variability is frequently included as an important determinant of portfolio strategy. The more volatile a bank's deposits are, the more liquid its mix of assets will be.

George G. Kaufman, The Strange Journey of Monetary Indicators, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 2, Supplement: Outlook for the Securities Industry (Mar., 1972), pp. 1625-1639

Ceteris paribus, investors prefer to purchase municipal bonds selling close to their par value. That is, investors are willing to purchase at the lowest yield a municipal bond alike in all respects to other municipal bonds, but with a coupon that permits it to be sold at or near its par value. Conversely, investors are willing to purchase municipal bonds with coupons that cause them to be sold at prices either greatly above or greatly below par only at penalty or premium yields relative to similar par bonds.

During the past few years several money demand functions have been estimated for the United States. Although these functions may differ on the precise specification of the independent variables, most agree on their crude identity. Thus almost all functions include an income or wealth constraint and an interest rate price. Such functions have been applied exhaustively to data for various periods in United States history, both for the long run and for the short run. With few notable exceptions, the results differ more in degree than in substance. The quantity of money demanded is estimated to be a positive function of the constraint and a negative function of price. The studies have, however, overlooked an important body of possible collaborative evidence–that for other industrial countries. It may be reasonable to assume that the same basic forces underlie the demand for money in all industrial countries, it is of interest to contrast money demand functions for these countries with those obtained for the United States. This paper estimates demand functions for leading industrial countries and evaluates the results. No new theory is developed; rather, existing models are fitted to additional data to test their applicability to other countries.

A number of recent papers have shown that it is possible for an investor to immunize a portfolio of default and option-free coupon bonds so that the return realized over a given planning period will never be less than that promised at the time the bonds were purchased. In this way, a future fixed dollar liability may be discharged with certainty by acquiring an asset portfolio with a market value equal to the present value of the liability and setting its appropriate duration equal to the time remaining to the date of discharge. However, most investors have more than one liability to discharge. In his seminal article in 1952, F. M. Redington showed that a stream of liabilities may be immunized if an asset portfolio having the same present value as the liabilities is selected so that:1. its duration is equal to the duration of the liabilities; and2. “the spread of the value of asset-proceeds about the mean term (duration) should be greater than the spread of the value of the liability” ([16], p. 191).

G. O. Bierwag, George G. Kaufman, Chulsoon Khang, Duration and Bond Portfolio Analysis: An Overview, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 4, Proceedings of Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Western Finance Association, June 20-26, 1978 (Nov., 1978), pp. 671-681