Many explanations for the rapid growth of the shadow banking system in the mid-2000s focus on money demand. This paper asks whether the short-term liabilities of the shadow banking system behave like money. We first present a simple model where households demand money services, which are supplied by three types of claims: deposits, Treasury bills, and asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP). The model provides predictions for the price and quantity dynamics of these claims, as well as the behavior of the banking system (in terms of issuance) and the monetary authority (in terms of open market operations). Consistent with the model, the empirical evidence suggests that the shadow banking system does respond to money demand. An extrapolation of our estimates would suggest that heightened money demand could explain up to approximately half the growth of ABCP in the mid-2000s.

It is widely argued that shadow banking grew rapidly before the recent financial crisis because of rising demand for "money-like" claims. This paper assesses a key premise of this argument: that investors actually treated short-term debt issued by shadow banks as a money-like claim. I present a model where the financial sector and the central bank jointly respond to demand for money-like claims. The model generates predictions about the prices and quantities of Treasury bills, central bank reserves, and shadow bank debt. These predictions are borne out in the data, suggesting investors did treat shadow bank debt as money-like.