Q&A…THE ANSWERS
Sorry for getting to these late…It’s been a busy week. You guys were supposed to let up on me with the questions. So shame on you for not giving me 30 lobs that I could just crush out of the park….Just kidding of course. Thanks for another set of great questions. I’ll do my best to answer them:
eb: how was rail traffic this week? appreciate all your posts.
CR: Rail data was mixed again. See here for more.
Tyler: Cullen, Thoughts on the idea that current corporate profit margins are unsustainable?
CR: I’ve covered this topic in a series of recent posts (see here and here). In short, I think margins have likely peaked, but won’t collapse unless we see a major decline in revenues, which have been largely driven by the budget deficit during the last few years. So keep an eye on that budget deficit as the balance sheet recession slowly ends….
Jon: Hi Cullen, Just wondering what your 5-year forecast for the S&P 500 or any asset class is.
CR: 5 years is a tough time frame in. Almost entirely unpredictable in my opinion. I tend to be very optimistic about the long-term. The trend in human innovation and perseverance is just too powerful to stay bearish for long periods of time in my opinion. I personally don’t think anyone can forecast precisely what will happen with the markets more than about a quarter in advance or under about a 10 year period. Beyond that, you’re crazy (in my opinion) to be bearish….Not the answer you’re looking for I know, but it’s my view.
Ville: In my opinion in the long run the ultimate cause for mankind’s ruin will be population growth (scarce resources will become even scarcer). Do you think we should control population growth globally?
CR: Boy, that’s a tough one. I honestly can’t say that I’ve ever thought about it, but I guess you’re right. In the very long-run it’s inevitable that population growth will become a huge problem (if it’s not already). I would imagine that this growth will have to be controlled at some point. The numbers just don’t make sense given the depletion of resources and now exploding growth. When that reaches a point requiring action is anyone’s guess….
perpetual neophyte: If you had to deploy cash today, what strikes you as an attractive asset class on a risk/reward basis? Unattractive?
CR: Another tough one. A lot of this depends on your time frame and approach, but if I were going to buy and hold a few assets I have to say that I really like Jeff Gundlach’s ideas to buy Spain and natural gas (I would buy nat gas producers and not the actual commodity). These are assets you should just tuck away and look back at in 10 years….
artifical investing: Cullen, As a student, like you’ve said before, our institutions do not really teach the fundamental reality of how our monetary system works. Do you see any academic work on MMR happening? What schools understand what is actually going on?
CR: MMR is similar to MMT in many ways and the University of Missouri Kansas City has an excellent program with a MMT focus. Of course, MMR and MMT have had some disagreements in recent months so I can’t say that I fully endorse the MMT approach, but that’s as close to classroom heterdox economics as you’re going to get.
Conventional Wisdumb: Cullen, Why does QE help stock prices?
CR: I believe it’s mostly psychological and partly the portfolio rebalancing effect. When the Fed implements QE they are just swapping assets. Reserves for bonds. So the private sector doesn’t have MORE assets after QE is implemented. But there is a widespread perception that QE is money printing or debt monetization. And since markets are in large part a result of perception it’s not surprising that QE would have some impact. The other major impact is the portfolio rebalancing effect. That is, when the Fed removes a certain amount of bonds from the market they force investors to take on more risk to replace these assets. Many managers can’t afford to sit in low yielding assets so they move up the risk chain.
blagosaur: Any career advice for the younger generation in the financial industry? Should I pack my bags and travel around the world while I am young with few obligations? Is it going to be impossible for me to get a job along the coast in this economy?
CR: If you’re going into the finance industry make sure you go in with the right mentality. If you’re going into it to make money and that’s all then your heads in the wrong place. Personally, if you can afford to do it, there’s no better time to travel the world than when you’re young. Trust me, by the time you get to 30 you just won’t have the time or energy….
Whatsgoinon: 1) Why do I have a hard time reconciling that the Fed can control the entire yield curve with the theory of market suppy/demand forces setting rates.
CR: It’s not a matter of if. The Fed can impose its will on the bond market any time it wants. It has the ability to create infinite reserves so the Fed can buy every issued bond if it wants. If they want to be the price setter they can.
Whatsgoinon: 2. I’m confused on reserves (and QE so a few questions)
a. Do reserves from fractional banking differ from reserves from base money?
b. Related to the above, what is the limit of QE in terms of reserves. That is, if the Fed implemented QE to the maximum, would the magnitude of QE undertaken be equal the reserves of the base money in economy or equal to the reserves of base money + reserves from fractional system?
c. And is there any difference in inflation if QE is applied base money or to reserve of fractional banking.
CR: Reserves are essentially required cash held on “reserve” at regional Fed banks. In the USA the reserve requirement is 10% so banks must keep 10% on “reserve” at all times. If a bank has a deposit then it must keep 10% of that on “reserve” at the Fed. There is no limit to the Fed’s ability to create reserves. The creation of reserve does not necessarily result in inflation unless the policy results in changes in net financial assets or credit supply.
Whatsgoinon: 3. Why are currency swaps needed with the ECB (and the Euro banks)?
CR:I discussed the swap lines here. The Fed also has a good FAQ on this.
jt26: Investing/trading-wise how do you approach elections? (Esp. this year with France+some PIIGS – next year with Germany; this year Presidential.)
CR: I do not trade/invest based on elections specifically or pay much attention to supposed Presidential cycles….
BJM: In your opinion, are we in a secular bear market or are the conditions ripe for a secular bull to continue assuming it began in March 2009? I realize you avoid market valuation calls, but I think you could answer from a macro standpoint….
CR: I do believe we’re still in a secular bear and that we can’t officially call off the secular bear until many of the broad secular negative trends (like the Euro crisis and the balance sheet recession) have officially ended….
Steve W: I get the jist of why the Federal government needs to keep spending money during this balance sheet recession, but do you have some opinions as to how Uncle Sam might spend the money more efficiently, or make better choices on how the money should be spent?
CR: There are a lot of problems with the form of spending we implement. I was a particularly vocal critic of policies like the cash for clunkers and housing tax credit which exacerbated debt problems in the middle of a balance sheet recession. Government’s have to be careful in their spending policies because they can so dramatically alter the output of the private sector. I generally prefer tax cuts because it takes the politicians out of the spending decisions, but that’s a generalized comment. Not all spending is bad and in fact spending can be extremely beneficial if properly targeted.
Michael H: Cullen, love your work. Aside from your Web site, what do you consider to be the “must read” list of books and articles for someone who wants to learn about MMR and MMT? Thanks.
CR: Warren Mosler’s site is and has always been my favorite MMT website. You can find just about everything you need there and I think you get a less policy biased view from him. I learned MMT almost exclusively from Warren. As the founder of the theory, he’s the ultimate source and someone I owe an enormous amount of credit to for all he’s done for me. See moslerconomics.com
Of course, I prefer that readers just read my primer for the ultimate in unbiased and apolitical views, but that’s just me!
Rich: As we know banks are not reserve constrained, but are only capital constrained in their lending. One thing I’m not sure of is how a bank would call upon its common stock to cover loan losses…
CR: Issuing common stock helps recapitalize a bank in that it increases equity capital. If you recall, this was the preferred method of recapitalization for the big banks in 2009. This reduces earnings per share and dilutes existing shareholders, but is an obvious benefit versus being insolvent….
Bob Barker: Cullen, You always talk about how during recessions that the Congress can large deficits to offset slowing aggregate demand and/or household desired savings. And then when aggregate demand picks up and/or households desire to save less, then the government can reduce the deficits to control any possible inflationary pressures. And while in theory this is correct, it would seem to me that practically speaking that this would never happend because deficits are “sticky” because politicians never want to make cuts given that people get used to the spending being directed their way as well as the politicians always desire to increase their electability. As such, why should we feel comfortable implementing this kind of deficit increase given how we know it will turn out in the long run?
CR: Bob, big fan of your TV show. It got me through years of my childhood. I always wanted to spin that damn wheel just once. Or play Plinko. That game looked fun. Anyhow, one of my big disagreements with MMT is their idea to replace monetary policy with a fiscal approach to control inflation. I just don’t think this is a realistic view of the world. As you rightly point out, deficits are sticky to a certain degree. Relying on politicians to alter policy on a dime is a pipe dream. Now, I’ve been particularly anti monetary policy, but that’s been because of the balance sheet recession. Monetary policy won’t always be inept….So don’t view my perspective during the balance sheet recession as a broad and permanent belief….
rhp: Cullen, this question was asked by me and another once before, about the ability of ECB or anyone else to create new euros. You linked to another website which was great at explaining how the eurozone handled settling of debts and money flow, but I could find nothing on creation of new net euros.
Question: Does the eurozone have ANY means of vertically creating new euros or was the net amount of euros currently circulating set in 1999 at the time of old currency conversions?
CR: Eurozone central banks are essentially agents of the ECB. They can create Euros, but the problem is that they can’t break the rules as they pertain to budget limits. So, it’s a system where they can technically print their own Euros, but politically they are constrained. It would be like California having a central bank, but having to ask the Fed and Washington DC first before it can do so. So Germany and the ECB run the show in essence.
Wantingtoretire: Does the US need the rest of the world to save its future…………..?
CR: I am not sure what this means precisely. The USA relies on the rest of the world for many goods and services. And this works both ways. Foreign trade is called “trade” because it benefits both sides in ways that are viewed as fair. That doesn’t mean the trade is always beneficial in equivalent ways, but it might appear so in the micro. So, the USA might not NEED the rest of the world to survive, but we certainly benefit from relationships with the rest of the world….
Larry: Cullen, what is your economic growth model forecasting for 2nd half 2012 growth based on sectoral balance data and the other data which you use? Thanks
CR: I actually have an update on this in the pipeline. Stay tuned!
Andrew P: How do you think ECB policy will change, assuming that Francois Hollande is elected President of France on Sunday? In his campaign pledges he has promised to tear up the fiscal austerity pact, and promised to force the ECB to monetize EU State debt across the entire EU and hold interest rates down in every EU State. If he carries out those promises, will the EU recession end quickly?
CR: I don’t think Germany is going to change their policies because of Hollande. But his election certainly points to a change in the trend. The situation is becoming increasingly tenuous. I’ve repeatedly noted that the biggest risk in Europe is Germany stalling on a true solution and the populace eventually becoming impatient and demanding change through unrest and re-elections. We’re beginning to see this now….
Sam A: Cullen, I’m curious on what you think of Hugh Hendry’s latest investment letter, specifically, his notion that China cannot escape an economic crisis that will affect global growth. If he’s right, how can one position to at least avoid the worst of a china led economic crisis.
CR: I have not read Hendry’s latest. Does anyone have a link to this? Maybe I can follow-up tomorrow????
okl: 1) Why does there seem to be a general resentment towards establishments, esp govts these days? What do you think?
2) IMHO, the Job Guarantee is just an idea that stems from what is possible if the monetary system is viewed from the MMT/R view. In fact, you could have a “re-skilling program” for all citizens/residents to upgrade their education, skillsets and what not to increase productivity, one of the many key things to keeping a country and it’s citizens strong. Another idea on the welfare side is of course, better healthcare and health insurance programs. if we need more people/technology to defeat ppl like hitler, then we spend more on military.
It just seems like we’re stuck in this “big vs small” govt argument all the time rather than focusing on what would work best and how to get there. it’s just a colossal waste of time and resources. interest rates, monetary policy, fiscal policy and all that are just distractions from the key issues; all that won’t work if there’s nothing to ‘regulate’.
CR: Americans are very skeptical of the state becoming excessively powerful. It’s in our DNA. We know the state has the ability to impose its will on us and do almost anything. It could sentence me to death tomorrow. It could drop a nuke on San Diego. It can technically do many things. But there are constraints on the state because these powers are often corrupted by misguided individuals. There’s no guarantee that many of these big government programs will work for the betterment of Americans. I don’t fall in the camp that says government is always evil or that spending is always bad, but that doesn’t mean I am a full bore supporter of government having a blank check, just because it has a supposed bottomless money pit.
I hope that MMR will provide people with an unbiased and apolitical view of the monetary system and potentially result in a less politicized process regarding the way we all view these debates….I am naively hopeful.
Cowpoke: Will the “Floating Treasury” be of any concern for folks to consider?
CR: I don’t see the point of these instruments. The Treasury is supposedly looking into these instruments in order to find other “funding” sources. As if they can run out of borrowers for US Treasuries. They don’t seem to understand that they issue the currency that is used to buy bonds in the first place. It makes no sense. So no, I see no reason to pay this much attention.
Cullen Roche
Mr. Roche is the Founder of Orcam Financial Group, LLC. Orcam is a financial services firm offering research, private advisory, institutional consulting and educational services.
Follow Me:
44 Comments
I think rhp’s question is one that I’ve stumble with at times and its partly because the ECB and Euro’s implementation is very difficult to compare to any other form of monetary system. Because of how many readers here understand a system like the USA’s (where there can be a clear distinction between vertical and horizontal), I guess a follow up I would ask is -
Is there any form of purely vertical transaction in the Eurozone? If a member country’s central bank can ‘create’ euros, is that a vertical transaction (I have always understood it to not be, but have never been sure)? My understanding is that these are not sovereign issuers and therefore cannot create NFAs. How are new Euro NFAs created?
That more or less confirms what I gathered from the source you referenced earlier.
Thanks for your thoughtful replies, including the balanced response to ‘artificial investing’ (as well as in your FT piece).
Aren’t those EU State bank overdrafts just part of the TARGET2 automated settlement system? As I understand it from a recent article, their system keeps the number of Euros constant in each State unless the State Central Banks settle the imbalance in Euros. So, if a Greek citizen transfers 100 Euros from his local bank to a bank in Germany, the 100 Euros in the Greek bank are simply reassigned ownership to the Greek Central Bank, and the Bundesbank credits his account in Germany 100 Euros. Then the Greek Central Bank owes the Bundesbank 100 Euros. In normal times these settlement credits and debits net out to zero, but not during a time of capital flight from certain States. The ECB has tolerated the accumulation of huge debts within its settlement system, and the amounts are so large that if the PIGS States had to truly settle their accounts the system would collapse immediately. My understanding is that tolerating these settlement debts is the only thing that has prevented capital flight from bringing down all the banks in the PIGS States.
As always, thoughtful and well-researched. Thanks, Cullen! As it looks you still collect questions, let me ask you this one. You are optimistic about long-term. But what do you think about aging of population as a driving force of this secular bear market and FRBSF prediction (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2011/el2011-26.html) that it will last till 2025 and only then recover? Sounds very compelling to me… Thanks in advance!
The USA has a benefit over many other countries. Despite demographic trends, the immigration issue is still a big growth driver in the USA. Come one, come all. At least that used to be the saying….
I don’t know about Spain. Since the flare up of the recent crisis EWP vs EWG or SI vs GE?
I’m no buy and hold guy, but EWP would be a pick of mine if you held a gun to my head and made me hold something for 10 years….maybe some nat gas names and US tech also….
1. Corporation still have too much debt and that’s unsustainable in (a severe) deflation. And in an attempt to survive companies will cut their dividens.
2. I am looking for a Dow to Gold ratio of 1.
3. Deflation will reduce the population growth and actually lead to a shrinkage of the population . Because then a lot of folks can’t afford healthcare anymore and will die much earlier. So, the resource depletion problem will – for the time being – postponed. But deflation brings its own problems with regards to the production of oil. It could turn out that deflation actually will lead to Peak Oil MUCH sooner.
4. Hendry’s latest newsletter:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/hugh-hendry-back-full-eclectica-letter
And he’s on the same page when it comes to my (broken record(??)) of Current Account Balance/Trade Balance stories. And he thinks japan has been saved by China in the last say 12 years.
CR: ” Issuing common stock helps recapitalize a bank in that it increases equity capital. If you recall, this was the preferred method of recapitalization for the big banks in 2009. This reduces earnings per share and dilutes existing shareholders, but is an obvious benefit versus being insolvent….”
Especially, when you get a sweetheart deal like Warren Buffett…why anyone would buy common stock in a bank is beyond me. You are subordinated to the bond holders, and preferred stock holders…plus, management thinks that any excess profits belong to them (as reward for the superior managment skills…and, of course, the generousity of the taxpayers).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/25/bankofamerica-buffett-warrants-idUSN1E77O12P20110825
Hi Cullen, Im also interested in your comments on Hugh Hendry’s letter. A link can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/91764042/April-2012-TEF-Commentary
Courtesy of zerohedge. Thanks!
Cullen, here is the link to Hugh Hendry’s latest letter,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/91764042/April-2012-TEF-Commentary
Thank for the great work on the website!
Okay, I read it. Personally, I just can’t find reliable data on China so it’s really hard to analyze what’s going on. Their economy is a black box. It’s a govt project in true central planning. I’ve long said that a lot of things don’t add up in China, but it’s impossible to make predictions. Could Europe and their collapsing export market be the thing that sends China into a major downturn? I have no idea. There’s just no reliable data sources coming out of China. I don’t know how Hendry can be so confident about something there is so little factual data about. I tend to just steer clear of Chinese investments. Better off going to Vegas. That said, his thesis sounds totally plausible. I just don’t know hoe he can have conviction about it….
read this:
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Cook/nov112009.html
Indian farmers did the same thing by stock piling their cotton crops (look at BAL in the spring in 2011). This scary part is if the article is true the Chinese are in addition to stock piling copper and other commodities, are using leverage which Minksy warned will lead to “instability”
Also we don’t the amount of inventory that is stockpiled but copper doesn’t appear to have the speculative parabola that cotton or other bubbles had.
@ I0nEr whoops, beat me to it
Cullen thanks for the answers – re. QE/Reserve question.
If I understood correctly, than “net assets” could increase if the Fed either
1. creates reserves in banks in excess of the all outstanding debt after purchasing all outstanding public and private debts (in effect undoing fractional banking system)
2. creates reserves without purchasing a corresponding debt on the open market
The Fed only creates net financial assets in certain ways. The easiest would be buying assets well above their actual value. Another form is actually funding private sector entities directly (buying munis and funding state spending would be one way).
Remember, reserves are an asset. They are not necessarily capital so they are just one part of the balance sheet. Swapping one private sector asset with another (as QE2 did) does not increase net financial assets.
So QE1 also did not create Net Assets because they were bought at market value (if we accept they were fairly priced)
Also what are the limitations on the Fed regarding buying assets such as equities etc? Do they need permission to do this?
Regarding the question on population growth, you might try reading Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist for a more hopeful perspective on our ability to accommodate future population growth.
It’s important to remember that Malthus believed population growth was a severe problem centuries ago. Earlier today Bryan Caplan noted: “Malthusianism was Hitler’s official argument for his greatest crimes.” (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/05/eugenics_malthu.html)
This is not to suggest anyone here is making a similar argument, but rather to recognize that attempts to control population have often been disastrous and unnecessary.
“I don’t see the point of these instruments. The Treasury is supposedly looking into these instruments in order to find other “funding” sources. As if they can run out of borrowers for US Treasuries. They don’t seem to understand that they issue the currency that is used to buy bonds in the first place. It makes no sense. So no, I see no reason to pay this much attention.”
The Federal Reserve issues the currency, not the Treasury. The primary dealers and other central banks buy the Treasurys at auction.The Fed buys and sells Treasurys in OMO’s to affect the money supply by increasing/decreasing reserves. You make it sound like the Treasury simply prints the money it needs to buy its own bonds. That would be akin to just printing debt-free money. But it is certainly not debt free. They pay interest to the Treasury holders. Some of the money used to buy Treasurys is exchanged from other currencies, so even if the Fed creates money out of thin air for the purchase of Treasurys, some money for Treasury purchases does come from outside.
Bank in around 1980 Volcker increased interest rates in order to prevent a bond market collapse caused by runaway inflation. If the Treasury simply printed the money it needed in the way suggested by your comment, there would be no need for a Treasury market, or Treasurys for that matter.
Your comment is rather presumptuous in that you presume to know the working of the Treasury better than the Treasury itself.
I don’t separate the Fed and Tsy like you do. Their operations are one. They are different pockets in the same pair of pants. The Fed’s independence is a myth.
You need to read more about the history of banking and central banks in particular.
Perhaps. What do you recommend? It’s likely that I’ve already read it, but I am always up for suggestions.
Murray Rothbard is a good start, but there are many more more sources on this subject. I’m sure you can find them. In terms of the workings of the Fed, the Fed itself is not a bad source. And read some of the stuff put out by Fed officials themselves throughout history. They don’t hide the truth, they just use obfuscatory language to conceal reality.
“Murray Rothbard is a good start….”
Uh oh. Mises cult
Oh, brother. Is that the best you can do?
Great stuff Cullen. Big fan of your clean and consistent thought process.
A follow up question on the myth of Fed independence…
Do you think the President (whoever that was, is, and will be) exerts significant pressure on Fed policy?
It’s nice to see fans come to your defence, even if they have nothing of value to contribute.
Try to play nice John. This isn’t a battle for supremacy. Just a discussion among nerds.
Apologies if I was rude. Have a good one.
I am rude some times. It happens. Thanks for acknowledging and no worries.
Thanks Hedge!
I think, as we learned in 2008/2009, as the other pocket in the govt pair of monetary pants (tsy being the other one) that the Fed HAS to be political at times and MUST work to achieve goals in-line with the govt. So, I can’t say if the Prez directly influences monetary policy, but they’re basically running in the same direction most of the time.
” I believe it’s mostly psychological and partly the portfolio rebalancing effect. When the Fed implements QE they are just swapping assets. Reserves for bonds. So the private sector doesn’t have MORE assets after QE is implemented […]”
QE was/is not just about buying Treasurys. The Fed bought all kinds of assets. One of the assets it purchased were MBS’s. These and other securities had little to no market value (remember mark to myth?), ultimately because the underlying collateral (housing) dropped in value. They were based on debt that ultimately was worthless because they were no longer generating cash flow. The Fed had to create the money with which to buy the assets. The money itself is fundamentally worthless because it is not backed by any collateral. So the Fed created unbacked money to buy unbacked assets. That’s monetization.
At least when the Fed creates funny money to buy Treasurys, those assets are backed by the taxing power of the state, guaranteeing cash flow and thus value.
They bought agency MBS. Fannie and Freddie were backed by the govt. Always were. Those assets were never worth zero. They were always worth 100 cents to the penny.
If they were worth 100 cents [on the dollar] then why did the Fed have to buy them? There would have an actually market to sell them to, not a buyer of last resort.
The market for everything died in 2008. Lots of solvent companies would have gone bankrupt if the govt had not restored faith in the system. Should all of those companies have gone to 0 just because people panic and overreact some times?
That’s circular reasoning. There was no market because assets were worthless? Or assets were worthless because there was no market?
I said there was no market because people were panicking for irrational reasons.
This is going off topic now, but the banking system was imploding. I would say people had good reasons to panic. But regardless, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say an asset is worth full value but there is no market for it. It is the market that imbues it with value. You can’t have one without the other. Anyway, I have to go, but thanks for the debate. You do good work. Keep it up.
Thanks John and thanks for questions. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I definitely an opinion on many things! I don’t think you need a market for assets just to prove they’re worth 100 cents on the dollar. Lots of assets are illiquid. That doesn’t mean they’re not worth the for sale price. All that was happening in 2008 was markets had been WAY marked down and there was no bidders. So banks were carrying assets at deeply depressed values and marking them to market….
Yes, illiquidity is not necessarily a determinant of price, because liquidity is a relative quality, not an absolute. Houses are relatively far less liquid than stocks, but houses still have value.
However, outside of sentimental value or other personal measure, of course you need a market to determine the value of an asset. Without a market there is no price. The idea that an asset may be worth “100 cents on the dollar” is just a reference point (usually a reference to the issue price or the price you paid for it), but it too is not an absolute. Bond prices can go above par value or below par value. Par value is just a reference point, but what really matters is the price the market will bear. When an asset goes no bid, as far as the market is concerned, at that moment in time, it has no value. If the Fed steps in and buys it, that does not mean the asset in question has market value. Unless you deem the Fed to be a market. But using that logic, the Fed can turn manure into gold if it was just willing to pay $1600 per ounce for it.
Cullen,
Does the Fed ever need to unwind their balance sheet?
If so would how would interest rates be managed?
No. They can hold to maturity. That’s what setting the interest on reserves allows. They can keep the reserves in the banking system without having to remove them to raise rates. So no need to change balance sheet. And the IOR is the de facto Fed funds.
Cullen:
I just read your “Understanding the Modern Monetary System”. Great stuff. Is there a forum to comment on it? I was particularly interested in Greenspan’s mistaken ideology…thought it was incomplete.
Doesn’t tell us which part of his ideology was mistaken, and what it was replaced with.