Full text of Working Papers (Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago) : Government Equity and Money : John Law's System in 1720 France, Working Paper 2003-31

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

Government Equity and Money: John
Law’s System in 1720 France
François R. Velde

WP 2003-31

Government Equity and Money:
John Law’s System in 1720 France∗
François R. Velde
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
November 30, 2003

∗

The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Chicago or the Federal Reserve System. I wish to thank Jean Cartelier, Antoin Murphy, Larry Neal,
Tom Sargent, Chris Sleet, Daniel Szpiro, Randy Wright, audience members at the EHA 2001 and
SED 2001 meetings, and at workshops in the Federal Reserve Banks of Chicago, Cleveland, Atlanta,
and Kansas City, Université Paris X–Nanterre, University of Iowa, University of Georgia, New York
University. Danielle Velde provided precious assistance with archival research. Remaining errors
are mine.

Abstract
John Law’s System was a radical restructuring of French public finances, carried out from
1716 to 1720. It involved on the one hand a conversion of the existing French public debt
into something like government equity, on the other hand the replacement of commodity
money with fiat money. For strategic reasons, Law supported the equity at too high a level,
resulting in uncontrolled money creation. The System ended with the recreation of a public
debt at, surprisingly, the same level as before.

Keywords: Système, John Law, government equity, bubble, debt conversion (JEL B31,
E42, N13, N23).

1

Introduction

The government’s budget constraint and the interplay between its components across time
and states is at the core of many macroeconomic questions. The nature and timing of taxes,
the ability to and advisability of borrowing, the proper structure of government liabilities,
are all recurrent themes. The purpose of this paper is to present a particular historical
episode which uniquely illustrates them.
The episode takes place in the early eighteenth century in France. From 1716 to 1720,
a Scotsman named John Law undertook a radical restructuring of French public finances.
Because the entire operation appeared to be based on rational principles, it has been called
“Law’s System.” The operation involved the floating of shares in a private company, the
issue of paper money, and the conversion of government debt. The System ultimately
unravelled with a coincident, and dramatic, fall in the market value of both the money and
the equity.
Law’s System, also known as the Mississippi Bubble, ranks as one of the mythical early
bubbles (Garber 1990, 2000). It also represents a daring experiment in public finance,
carried out by a man whom Schumpeter (1954, 295) placed in “the front ranks of monetary
theorists of all time.” Its story has been told many times,1 but not (in my estimation) in a
way that does full justice to the economic issues. This paper seeks to do just that.
The System had two components, one involving an operation in public finance, the other
involving fiat money. The operation resulted in the conversion of the existing French public
debt into a sort of government equity. Strictly speaking, a publicly traded company took
over the collection of all taxes in France, ran the mints, monopolized all overseas trade and
ran part of France’s colonies. This company offered to government creditors the possibility
of swapping their bonds for its equity, making itself the government’s creditor. Since it was
already collecting taxes, the government’s annual payment was simply deducted from tax
revenue by the company. Thus, bondholders became holders of a claim to the stochastic
stream of fiscal revenues.
All the company offered was an option to convert, and visible capital gains provided a
strong inducement for bondholders. As it happened, the System’s other component was a
plan to replace the existing commodity money with fiat money, at first voluntarily, later
based on legal restrictions. Law used money creation to support the price of shares, and
legal restrictions to support the demand for money. Inflation did not follow immediately, but
exchange rate depreciation did, leading Law to reverse course and seek ultimately fruitless
ways to reduce the quantity of money. The end result was a reconversion of shares and
money into bonds and a return to the pre-existing arrangements.
In retrospect, Law’s System appears conceptually reasonable. Sims (2001) argues that
government debt is like private debt in a fixed exchange rate regime, but like private equity
in a flexible rate regime; he also thinks that the latter is preferable. France was notionally
on a fixed exchange rate regime (with frequent departures); I interpret Law’s System as
1 A complete bibliography of the early writings on Law by Paul Harsin can be found in Faure (1977).
Major recent works include Harsin (1928, 1933), Faure (1977), Neal (1990), and Murphy (1997).

1

an attempt to move government debt closer to equity without sacrificing price stability.
As for replacing commodity money with fiat money, what incongruity the idea held for
contemporaries has clearly dispelled.
Law’s System has been called a bubble; it has also been called a default. Quantitatively,
I find that the share prices were overvalued at their peak by a factor of 2 to 5, but I attribute
this to Law’s systematic policy of price support. With fairly optimistic assumptions, a lower
level of price support would have been feasible. As for the public debt, it was not significantly
increased during the System, and it was restored by Law’s successors at roughly its earlier
level. In other words, France’s first experiment in fiat money (as her second, see Sargent
and Velde 1995) was far from a default, perhaps surprisingly for a country otherwise prone
to defaults.
I proceed as follows. I first briefly describe the French fiscal system and practices in the
late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, so as to know what Law was restructuring.
I then describe the steps involved in the construction of Law’s System and its collapse. I
then conclude with an evaluation of the System. A separate appendix contains details on
the securities issued during the System and their prices.

2

Features of French Fiscal System

2.1

Spending

A long tradition in macroeconomics takes as given the process governing the government’s
spending obligations. The main characteristics of the process faced by France in the early
modern period (sixteenth to eighteenth centuries) can best be seen by dividing government
spending into military and nonmilitary components (net of debt-related spending). The
way accounts were kept distinguished spending in various ways: in some accounts, expenditures are divided by the treasurer who made the payments. More generally, the government
distinguished between ordinary and extraordinary expenditures. The former were the recurrent, stable, and predictable items; the latter were temporary and unexpected items.
Thus, my category of military spending includes ordinary items like peacetime garrisons
and troops, upkeep of fortresses, horse-farms, and the like, as well as all extraordinary items
related to wars. Nonmilitary spending net of debt-related items includes expenditures of
the royal household (a quarter to a third of the total) and salaries and wages of government
employees.
The pattern is shown in Figure 1.2 The main source of variation in government spending
comes from wars. Peacetime expenditures (standing army and non-war related expenditures,
mostly labor costs of providing justice, police, etc) are stable, and small compared to wartime
2 The

numbers used in Figures 1, 2, and 3 are based on series published by three historians
whose coverage varies: Mallet (1662–95), Boislisle (1683–1707) and Forbonnais (1682–1716). The series themselves are available as part of the European State Finance Database of Richard J. Bonney
(URL <http://www.le.ac.uk/hi/bon/ESFDB/ accessed June 2002, datasets rjb/boislisl, rjb/forbon,
rjb/frmalet). Roughly, I use Mallet’s numbers until 1695 and then Forbonnais’s numbers, complemented
with Boislisle’s numbers.

2

200
War of Spanish Succession

180
160
Nine Years War

140

millions L

120
100
Dutch War

80

War of the Reunions

military spending

60
40

War of Devolution

20
0
1660

Figure 1:

non−military spending
1670

1680

1690

1700

1710

1720

Military and non-military spending in France, 1662–1715 (debt service excluded).

expenditures. The main wars of Louis XIV are easily spotted on the graph: the conflicts
appear to become both longer and more costly over time, culminating in the War of Spanish
Succession.
Figure 2 shows the evolution of the primary surplus (revenues less non-debt spending),
while Figure 3 compares revenues with spending inclusive of debt service. The French
government raised taxes to some extent in wartime (notably introducing an income tax at
a critical moment in the last war of Louis XIV’s reign, in 1710). It also resorted to a lot of
borrowing.

2.2

Taxes

Fiscal revenues consisted of a mixture of direct (income or wealth) taxes, indirect (consumption) taxes, and feudal dues arising from the royal demesne. The assessment and collection
of these revenues was decentralized. For direct taxes, a global amount was set by the government, and then broken down into assessments for each province, where local authorities
would proceed with the next level of assessment, and so on to the local level.
For indirect taxes, collection was carried out by tax farmers on behalf of the government.
The procedure was much like the one in place since Medieval times for running the royal
mints. The right to collect a given tax was auctioned to the highest bidder. The bidder
offered a fixed annual payment to the king for the duration of the lease. Meanwhile, he
took upon himself to collect the tax, hiring all the necessary employees. Any shortfall in

3

100
80
60
debt service

millions L

40
20
0
primary surplus

−20
−40
−60
−80
1660

Figure 2:

1670

1680

1690

1700

1710

Primary surplus and debt service (interest payment) in France, 1662–1715.

revenues from the promised sum was made up by the entrepreneur; conversely, any revenue
collected above and beyond the price of the lease was retained as profit by the entrepreneur.
In the 1680s, most farming contracts were consolidated into a single 6-year contract called
the “united” or “general farms.” But new taxes were later created and usually farmed out
separately.
Government monopolies, such as salt (which was part of the general farms) and recently
introduced tobacco, were also farmed out in the same fashion. Indeed, the ability to create
monopolies was one of the king’s resources; one of the more outlandish examples being the
exclusive right to sell snow and ice in the district of Paris, sold for 10,000L per year in 1701
(Forbonnais 4:193).
Table 1 presents fiscal revenues in selected peacetime years.
Spending is decentralized as well to various treasurers. Each tax had an associated
bureaucracy of collectors and treasurers, either government employees or officers (direct
taxes) or employees of the tax farmer. The treasurers spent some of the monies they
collected, upon presentation of payment orders emanating from the government, and turned
over the remainder, if any, to the royal treasury in Paris.

2.3

Borrowing

Government borrowing at the time took several forms, depending on the maturity.

4

300

250

spending (gross of interest)
millions L

200

150

100

50
1660

revenues

1670

Figure 3:

1680

1690

1700

1710

Revenues and spending, 1662–1715.

Given the decentralized nature of tax collecting and disbursement, payments often took
the form of payment orders issued by the Treasury to treasurers: these orders would then
be taken by the payees to the treasurers in order to collect cash. The orders were often
made payable a year or more in the future, and were taken at a discount by the payee.
The anticipatory notes allowed the government to borrow against specific future revenues.
At other times, it seems the government or its treasurers issued pure IOUs in exchange for
goods and services, particularly in wartime.
Long-term borrowing took two forms. The first was in annuities (rentes), which were
either life annuities (payment contingent upon the life of a particular individual) or perpetual
annuities. Usually, annuities were assigned on a specific tax revenue, and the interest was
paid by the tax collector either directly to the creditor or to a centralized paying office
located in Paris. In this sense, the debt was called “funded.” The annuity contract was
a common instrument between private parties as well, and was medieval in origin. As a
result of the Church’s strictures against loans, annuities always carried a repayment option:
the creditor could never demand repayment of the original capital, but the debtor had the
option to extinguish the debt by repaying the capital in full.
The other form of long-term borrowing was through the sale of offices. An officer was
someone who held a government position not on commission or at the king’s leave, but as
of right, and enjoyed various privileges attached to the position (in particular the collection
of fees related to his activities). Offices were sold, and the king paid interest on the original

5

indirect taxes
united farms
other farms
direct taxes
taille and misc.
capitation
dixième
royal demesne
woods, incidental
Total
livre index

1683

1700

1715

62.8
2.2

58.6
8.0

47.0
12.9

47.7
—
—

41.6
—
—

51.8
25.8
24.0

116.0
1.05

3.4
112.1
1.08

3.9
165.6
1.00

Table 1:

Revenues of the French state. The livre index measures the silver content of the unit
of account (1 in 1715). Sources: Mallet, Boilisle, Forbonnais (5:212).

sale price, which was called the wages of the office (gages). A wage increase was really a
forced loan, requiring the officer to put up the additional capital. Officers could not be
removed except for misconduct; however, the office itself could be abolished, as long as the
king repaid the original sum. Thus, offices as a form of debt also carried the same repayment
option as annuities. Creation of offices was a feature of wartime, and the War of Spanish
Succession gave rise to extraordinary ingenuity in the invention of new offices. From 1689 to
1712 over 3,000 offices were created to supervise the markets of Paris in the minutest details,
including “inspectors-gourmets of wines”, inspectors of pig’s tongues, and distinct officers
in charge of respectively loading, unloading, and rolling barrels (Encyclopédie méthodique:
Finances, 1785, 2:49).
Offices and annuities (which I will generically call bonds, and whose owners I will call
bondholders) could be transferred or sold, but with fairly high transaction costs. Both were
considered forms of real estate, and could be mortgaged. In the late 17th century the French
government, like others in Europe, had begun experimenting with life annuities, tontines,
and lottery loans, but on a limited basis, and had not yet issued bearer bonds. Even the
short-term debt described above was registered in the sense that the payee’s name was on
the instrument, and could be transferred only by endorsement.
A final form of borrowing combined tax creation and lending. The procedure consisted in
creating a new tax for some limited time and immediately farming its collection in exchange
for a single, lump-sum payment representing the tax’s net present value.

2.4

Money

Money at the time is a system that involved two separate elements. The first was a set
of standardized objects produced by government-operated factories (called “mints”), which
people exchanged against goods and services. They were called coins, and were made of
metals like gold and silver. The second element was a unit of account, called the livre
(abbreviated L in this paper). Numbers such as prices and monetary obligations were
expressed in the unit of account. The king regulated the relation between the two elements,
coins on one hand, unit of account on the other. He did so by naming two vectors. One
assigned a number of units of account to each coin. The other set the price at which the

6

mint was obligated to provide each coin in exchange for quantities of gold or silver (either
in the form of foreign or domestic coins, or in the form of bullion or wrought metal). These
vectors could change.
For a given coin, there are two numbers set by the king: its “face value” and the number
of such coin that will be paid out for an amount of metal. Knowing the metal content of
a coin, one can compute an index of the numbers of units of account per weight of metal,
which is called mint equivalent (M E). Likewise, one can express the second number as a
mint price (M P ), also in units of account per weight of metal.3 I will track changes in the
vectors assigned by the king to the main silver coin using the M E and M P .
The meaning of a face value X assigned to a coin was that the coin was legal tender
for any debt or in any purchase up to the amount X livres. If X changed, the coin could
discharge a greater or smaller debt. Sometimes X was set to 0, and the coin was demonetized.
It was always the case that M P ≤ M E, the difference 1 − M P/M E being called the
seigniorage rate which the king charged to convert metal into legal tender. The M E of
silver had been constant since 1641, and in 1679 M P had been set equal to M E. However,
from 1689 to 1726, the M E of silver changed 64 times, 8 times in the year 1720 alone (see
Table 5. It remained unchanged from 1726 to 1795.
One reason for changing the parameters of the monetary system was to engage in a monetary “reform,” to induce or coerce individuals into submitting to the seigniorage tax, which
was usually increased at the same time. This was done by announcing the demonetization
of an existing coin, and its replacement with a new coin of higher face value. Owners of the
older coin who needed legal tender had to turn it in exchange for new coins, and thereby
submit to seigniorage rates that ranged from 6 to 25%. This method was used in 1689,
1693, 1701, 1704, and 1709.

2.5

France in 1715

In 1715, Louis XIV dies after a reign of 72 years. The War of Spanish Succession ended
with a draw, but it had proven very costly for France. At his death, Louis XIV left debts of
2800mL livres of which 1068mL were in perpetual annuities (bonds with coupon payments
that go on forever), 830mL in sold offices (the “wages” paid to the officer being the interest
on the price of the office), and 920mL in floating debt (various notes and bills whose final
payment had not been settled, some of which bore interest in the meantime). The interest
payments amounted to 45mL for the annuities and 41.5mL for the offices. With revenues
at 166mL and spending at 71mL, the primary surplus was only 48mL, to service at least
86.5mL in debt service, without even taking care of the floating debt which would add some
40mL at a 4% interest.
The debt was large, no matter by what measure. The interest alone amounted to two or
three times the primary surplus. The face value was about the same as France’s output at
3 The weight of metal used in this paper is the marc, or half pound (244.7g) of standard silver (22/24
fine).

7

Date

Feb

8

Oct
Sep
Oct
Sep
Dec
Jan
Jun
May
Oct
Nov

1700
1707
1708
1710
1710
1713
1713
1715
1715
1716
1717
1720
1724
1726

Perpetual
capital
460.0
642.7
672.7
757.6
757.6
885.0
750.0
1068.6
1044.1

interest
24.0
35.7
37.7
42.2
37.9
44.0
30.0
45.2
42.0

933.6
1600.0
1800.0
1800.0

41.3
48.0
51.5
49.0

Offices
capital
487.4

Unfunded

interest
24.1

capital

interest

Total
capital
947.4

interest
48.1

482.8

830.0

41.5

830.0
830.0
370.3
741.4
741.4

39.5
39.5
10.6
35.2
35.2

918.9

558.1
0.0

13.0
0.0

2817.5
2793.0
2793.0
2321.7
1970.3
2541.4
2541.4

86.7
83.5
81.5
93.7
58.6
86.7
84.2

Revenues

Surplus

Livre
index

122.6
145.6
150.0
126.0

39.9
-70.3
-28.3
-64.0

161.5

-7.8

165.6

47.7

163.9
169.4

87.1
93.5

185.4
199.4

67.5
92.1

1.60
1.60
1.51
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.78
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.60
1.20
1.00

Table 2: The debt in France, 1700–26. Sources: BN Fr. 7740, fol. 39, 43. Vührer 1:129–30, 139; Clamageran 3:45–46,
107–114; Forbonnais 4:307; Marion 1:63–69, 121, 149; Etat général des dettes; Riley (1987). ∗ : imputed from the
interest payment, assuming the same average rate as in 1717. The livre index measures the silver content of the unit
of account (1 in 1726).

the time.4 Britain’s debt burden at the time was lower, both on the government’s finances
and on the country’s resources. In 1715 the primary surplus was £2.5m, against a debt
charge of £3.2m. Total debt of around £38m in 1716 compared to output of around £60m
(Mitchell 1988, 575, 578, 600). 5
At Louis XIV’s death his great-grandson and successor Louis XV was five years old, and
a regency was installed, with the late king’s nephew, the duke of Orléans, as regent. It was
during this regency that Law’s System would unfold.6 Before this took place, however, the
regent’s government took a number of measures to address the fiscal situation.
One of the first measures was monetary reform of the livre on December 23, 1715,
followed by another reform on May 31, 1718. The two reforms cumulatively reduced the
M E of the livre from 28 to 60, diminishing some expenses but some revenues as well. The
main advantage, in the short-term, was to force coin holders to submit to a seigniorage rate
of 20% in 1715, 33% in 1718. The devaluation of December 1715 brought in 62.8mL in 1716
and 12.7mL in 1717, while that of May 1718 brought in 29.9mL over one year.7
The Regent’s government, headed by the duke of Noailles, carried out partial defaults
and reductions in October 1715 (on perpetual bonds), January 1716 (on wages of offices),
April 1716 (on the floating debt), and in June 1717 (on the perpetual bonds). As a result
it cut 7mL from the debt service and brought the debt down to 2bn. Moreover, the floating
debt was shrunk from over 900mL to 200mL through a variety of more or less forcible
means, and converted into bearer notes called billets d’État bearing 4% and with no definite
redemption date or assigned backing. These notes traded at a 37% discount soon after their
issue, in mid-1716 (Dutot 1935, 2:241). Although there was still some 240mL in unfunded
arrears and floating debt, debt service was now at 92.5mL. A special levy on “profiteers” was
assessed through a special court, mostly payable in government debt (see White 2001). The
wartime levy on incomes was ended in August 1717 because of political pressures, resulting
in a loss of 25mL in revenues (BN Fr 7766, fol. 250–55), but collection of indirect taxes
improved by 5mL. Spending cuts, particularly in the military, brought the primary surplus
to 93.5mL. By 1718, after the second devaluation, French finances were not too far from
balance, although 40mL remained in unpaid arrears.
The Regent’s cabinet was fairly successful at using the most traditional methods of
French public finances, of which they were not proud: monetary manipulations, disguised
or overt defaults, arbitrary fines levied through rigged courts. They put an end to the
emergency, but left the State militarily diminished and unable to face an eventual conflict.
4 Riley

and McCusker (1983, 281, Chart 1) give a population of 21.5m in 1700 and 130L per capita output
in 1700, corresponding to a total 2800mL for output.
5 £60m for national income (Brewer 1989, 41); £55m in 1688 for national income (Mitchell 1988, 821)
citing Lindert and Williamson; I have computed GDP of £65m in 1700, £73m in 1725 using Crafts (1985)
for growth rates and starting from nominal amounts in 1831 from Deane and Cole (1967, 166).
6 Throughout this paper, the phrase “the king” will refer to the Crown or its government, rather than
literally to the 10-year old whose face appeared on the coins of the realm.
7 Bibliothèque

nationale manuscripts (hereafter BN), Fr. 11159, fol. 287 and Joly de Fleury 566, fol. 199.

9

The European political situation, however, was still unsettled. The War of Spanish Succession had ended in 1714 without a peace treaty between the principal antagonists, Spain
and Austria, leaving those powers unhappy with and uncommitted to the settlement which
had been imposed on them. In 1717, Spain retook some of the Italian possessions it had
lost or ceded. The Regent was allied with Britain and wanted to force Spain to accept a
compromise, but this could require another war. It is no surprise, then, that the Regent’s
mind was open to someone who would propose a radically new and rational way to manage
public finances based on credit.

2.6

Law’s System: an overview

John Law’s origins and early career as son of a Scottish goldsmith and man-about-town
in London is recounted in Murphy (1997). He fled England after killing a man in duel in
1695 and spent the next twenty years moving around Europe, writing on economics and
proposing to various sovereigns a plan to found a Bank, more or less influenced by the Bank
of England (founded in 1694). He came to France in early 1715 and submitted his proposals
to the government, emphasizing the help that it might receive from his proposed State bank.
He ultimately convinced the Regent, but opposition in the cabinet forced him to settle for
a smaller and purely private Bank. Law’s beginnings were modest, but progressively the
various companies he created merged into a gigantic conglomerate that took over most of
the fiscal activities of the French state.
Law’s experiment in public finance lasted from the creation of his General Bank in May
1716 to his escape from France in December 1720. Whether or not he was following a
coherent plan inspired by his theoretical writings, or whether he was improvising as he
went along, his scheme became known as a “System.”8 There are four stages in the history
of the System. The first stage, from 1716 to 1718, established a privately owned bank
that successfully issued bank notes. The second stage, from 1717 to 1719, saw the parallel
formation of a trading company, whose shares were publicly traded, and whose purpose
shifted from colonial development and overseas trading to management of public funds. In
the third stage, from 1719 to 1720, the bank and the company merged, Law became finance
minister, the company reimbursed the whole national debt, and its notes became the sole
currency. The final stage, the year 1720, is the period of collapse, followed by a complex
cleaning-up operation. My presentation will follow these four stages.

3
3.1

Law’s System (1): the Bank
The General Bank, May 1716

The first step was the creation of the General Bank in May 1716. Law had initially proposed
a 100%-reserve public bank that would handle the government’s financial transactions, but
8 The phrase ”le nouveau Système des finances” appears in a defense of his policies, written or inspired
by him, and published in newspapers in February 1720 (Law 1934, 3:98).

10

the plan was rejected in October 1715. The Regent, sympathetic to Law, allowed him to
set up a purely private bank. The Bank’s capital was raised by an IPO: 1200 shares were
offered at 5,000L each, payable mostly in billets d’État at face value (which stood at a 60%
market discount to their face value at the time) and the rest in cash; Law himself bought
a quarter of the shares (Law 1934, 3:245).9 Moreover, only 1/4 of the purchase price was
required immediately, the rest payable at some future date. Thus, it took only 690L in
cash to initially buy a share. The Bank’s assets consisted initially of 375,000L in cash and
1.125mL in billets d’État, the interest on which was used by the Bank as working capital
(which only amounted to 45,000L per year). It seems that the remainder of the subscription
price was ultimately paid by shareholders.10
The Bank was structured similarly to a modern limited liability company. A general
assembly was to be held twice a year with dividend distribution. Shareholders voted in
proportion to their shareholdings, management was responsible to them, etc.
The Bank’s main activities were to discount bills, sell foreign exchange, take deposits
and manage current accounts (charging a fee of 0.025% on transfers between accounts and
on cash payment orders), and issue notes payable in specific silver coins (écus) on demand
to the bearer. It was not allowed to engage in trade or to borrow.

3.2

The Bank notes

Getting the notes to circulate, and not return constantly to the Bank for redemption, was
critical to the Bank’s profitability. The Regent and several influential and wealthy backers
seemed to have played a role in this, by depositing large sums at the very early stages; so
the first note issues were made against deposits, not discounting, and the depositors were
willing to hold the notes they received and not redeem them.
More importantly, various measures were taken by the government to enhance the attractiveness of the notes. A decree of Oct. 7, 1716 ordered that the various tax collectors
redeem the bank notes into cash on demand. The government was implicitly undertaking
to accept these notes at face value from the tax collectors. This enrolled the vast network
of hundreds of tax collectors and tax accountants throughout France into unpaid branches
of the General Bank, and also made the notes close to legal tender for taxes. On April 10,
1717, a decree made the bank notes explicit legal tender in the payment of taxes by individuals. On Sept. 12, the government’s tax accountants and cashiers were to keep accounts
and make receipts and payments in notes.
The notes, denominated in écus, provided protection against a particular type of monetary manipulation, namely devaluation of the silver coinage. It worked as follows.
9 The

share of billets in the purchase price was not specified by the letters patent creating the bank.
Murphy (1997, 158) states 75% billets and 25% cash; Dutot states all billets; an undated manuscript source
(BN NAF 22245, fol. 293) indicates 1/16 only in cash.
10 Murphy

(1997, 158) says it was not, but the declaration of Dec. 4, 1718 which nationalized the Bank
states (art. 2) that the 6mL in billets d’État had been invested in shares of the Company of the West, and
the Bank’s account of 1723 lists dividend payments on 12,000 such shares (Harsin 1928, 309). Hence the
subscriptions must have been paid in full.

11

The bank issued notes in denominations of 10 écus, 100 écus and 1,000 écus. The écu
was the standard silver coin, roughly the size of a thaler or Spanish dollar. In 1718, 8 écus
were minted out of a marc of standard silver, and its face value was 5L. A 100 écus note was
therefore a claim to 100/8 marcs of coined silver, and had a legal tender value of 500L. The
bank notes had the following promise written on it: “the Bank promises to pay on sight to
the bearer 100 écus of the weight and fineness of this day” (Lafaurie 1981, 68). In other
words, the bank notes were claims to a determinate number of coins of a determinate type.
When new silver écus were issued in June 1718 of lighter weight (10 to a marc) and
higher face value (6L), the old écus were given a new legal tender value of 6L until August 1
and 0 afterward. The new mint price was set at 40 per marc. Hence, after demonetization,
the old écu would fetch 5L at the mint. The holder of 100 écus had 500L in coins before
May 1718, but suddenly found himself owning a pile of silver which was temporarily worth
600L, but would soon have no legal tender value, and which would only purchase 500L in
new legal tender at the mints.
A decree soon clarified that, since the old écus were circulating at 6L like the new ones,
the existing 100 écus notes of the Bank would be taken at 600L by tax collectors and at the
royal mints (“les billets de la Banque seront pris en paiement et acquittés [...] sur le pied de
6 livres l’écu”).11 The holder of a 100 écus note, then, saw his holdings in units of account
increased from 500L to 600L, and his note was legal tender for taxes at 600L, or convertible
at the mints or the tax collectors’ offices into 600L of the new legal tender. He was thus
clearly better off than the holder of coins. This essentially waived part of the seigniorage
tax for all holders of notes, and was a subsidy, in the form of a tax credit.12 It made the
note an attractive way to hold money balances, given the recurrent monetary reforms.

3.3

The Bank’s “nationalization” in December 1718

The result was that the Bank was able to issue a fairly large amount of notes, 40-50mL
per year on average, while maintaining a reasonable specie reserve (about 50%); when the
Bank was converted to a Royal Bank in December 1718, it had 39.5mL in circulation. The
notes circulated at par and were trusted. The Bank’s total dividend payments (3 half-yearly
payments from 1716 to 1718) amounted to 615L, a respectable 15% rate of return on the
cash price of the initial shares, although not as high as one would expect given the note
circulation. If it held 50% of assets in specie and the rest in bills yielding 4 to 6% (the
discount rate it charged), the income should have been about 1,000L per share annually.
11 Arrêt du Conseil (hereafter AC) Jun. 1, 1718. The notes were taken at 600L in payment of taxes, and
redeemed in silver at the same rate. No time limit was set in the decree. The notes issued after June 1718
were claims to 100 new écus, or 10 marcs of coined silver, and were also legal tender for 600L. But since the
old notes and the new notes were claims to different quantities of metal, they were considered different.
12 There was also a provision that allowed one to bring a marc of old écus and 16L in billets d’État, and
receive 56L in new écus; this allowed individuals to pay most of the seigniorage tax in the form of billets
d’État. In the event, the demonetization of the old écu was postponed to November 1, and in the meantime,
on September 20 the mint’s price for the old coins was raised to 6L, thus reducing the seigniorage tax to
the same level as on note-holders, whose advantage was therefore short-lived.

12

The Bank’s success was visible in other ways. It succeeded in lowering the commercial
paper rate in Paris, because the Bank successfully discounted at rates from 4 to 6%. It
provided valuable foreign exchange services to the government, and to private clients as
well. By late 1718, the Regent was convinced that the Bank was a profitable enterprise, and
accepted Law’s suggestion, already made in May, to nationalize it. The Regent, on behalf
of the king, bought out all the existing shareholders in cash at the face value of the shares
(5,000L).13 The operation was made public by a declaration of Dec. 4, 1718. The Bank
would henceforth be managed by Law on behalf of the king, and all profits turned over to
the Royal Treasury.
For a shareholder who was bought out in December 1718 by the King, the rate of return
on his investment over 18 months was an annualized 64%, a very good deal indeed. This
nationalization had two consequences: it gave the king a functioning printing press for the
first time,14 and it shows the gains to be made by investing early in a company launched
by Law.

4

Law’s System (2): The Company

Meanwhile, Law went to work setting up a trading company, the Company of the West
(Compagnie d’Occident).
The Company’s initial business was to develop Louisiana. This was a common arrangement by which European rulers had developed their colonies in the Americas and elsewhere:
the rights to develop the colony were granted to a private entrepreneur or a company, who
was given monopoly rights to ensure profitability. The ruler generally profited by receiving
a payment from the entrepreneur, and eventually by increasing his tax base as the colony
prospered. Also, since the early 17th century, it was thought that long-distance trade such
as that with India and the Far-East could only be carried out by large companies with
monopoly rights, on the model of the Dutch and English Indies Companies.
The colony of Louisiana consisted in the watershed of the Mississippi river, or 41% of the
lower 48. It had been French for over forty years but no one had made much money from
it, and by 1717 its population was about 500. The colony’s previous proprietor returned
it to the king in payment of taxes in 1716, but strongly suggested that its development be
entrusted to a company with a financial structure similar to Law’s Bank. Projects for a
small-scale company were being drawn in early 1717 when Law took them over, made them
far more ambitious and secured the government’s approval in August 1717 (Giraud 1966,
3:3–27).
13 Law himself bought out the shareholders using “my own funds or my credit” (Law 1934, 3:246) and was
later reimbursed by the Regent.
14 The earlier instruments issued in France with the name of “billets,” such as the billets de monnoye and
billets d’État, were interest-bearing, registered bonds with no convertibility and no redemption date, rather
than non-interest bearing bearer demand notes.

13

Louisiana was ceded to the Company as a fief in perpetuity;15 moreover, the Company
had a 25-year monopoly on trading with the colony,16 as well as on the profitable beaver fur
trade in Canada. The Company was allowed to raise a private army, to enter into treaties
with the Native Americans, and to call on the government for military assistance against
other European powers. At the expiration of the monopoly, it would retain ownership of
the colony but it would have to sell any forts and military equipment to the king.

4.1

The IPO

As in the Bank’s IPO shares were issued, this time wholly payable in billets d’État. The
IPO began on September 14, 1717 and 29mL had been subscribed within two weeks, but
of that amount 13.3mL were bought by Law himself (Murphy 1997, 171).17 After that,
subscriptions were very slow, and dragged into 1718. In June 1718 measures were taken up
to speed up payment, notably by introducing a down-payment system (a subscriber paid
20% of the price to secure an option on a share, with the rest payable within five months,
else he forfeited the down-payment). The subscription was closed on Dec 31, 1718, with
100mL sold; of that, 40% was owned by the King, using spare billets d’État that had been
printed but not spent.

4.2

The Company’s resources

For a holder of a billet d’État, subscribing to the IPO meant converting a 4% bond into a
share in a Company whose main assets were the same bond and Louisiana. From the point
of view of the government, the debt was still the same, and it had given away an existing
asset that, to be sure, had proven so far about worthless. There seemed to be only upside
potential for the subscriber, and it is a little hard to see why the government went along,
unless the idea (explicitly negated in the terms of the Company’s charter) was ultimately
to substitute the returns on Louisiana for the interest on the bonds. This would be the idea
behind the System, but it was not officially the initial idea behind the Company.
Consistent with the notion that the underlying debt remained intact and merely changed
hands, the Company had an arrangement with the government to exchange the billets d’État
it received during the subscription for perpetual annuity contracts between itself and the
King, with interest accruing from January 1717. These annuities would provide a working
capital of 4mL per year. The Company’s first dividend was not payable until July 1718.
15 The

company was technically the vassal of the king for Louisiana, and its only obligation was homage
to the king and a fee of 30 marcs of gold (7.3kg) at the beginning of each new reign.
16 The

monopoly was extended to 50 years in August 1719 and became perpetual in July 1720, but was
rescinded in 1730 when the Company returned the colony to the king.
17 This amounts to 26,600 shares. However, in 1724, Law stated that his initial stake amounted to 12,000
shares and was later increased to 20,000, or 10% of the IPO (Law 1934, 3:246); he may have been speculating,
or else buying for other parties.

14

Thus the 4mL was available to the Company for about 18 months before a payment was
due to the shareholders.
In practice, the subscription was slow, and the first annuity contract was not signed until
February 1718. Furthermore, the tax on whose income the annuities were assigned was a
sort of stamp tax (contrôle des actes), which was farmed out; but the farm’s revenue of 2mL
per year was already encumbered with other obligations. The only payment from that farm
in 1717 was 250,000L, on direct order of the Regent. In 1718, The regent added the tobacco
farm and the postal service farm as guarantees for the annuities due to the Company for
1mL each, and the tobacco farmers lent 1mL to pay for the interest of the year 1717 on
behalf of the stamp tax farm. Nevertheless, the prospects for 1718 were uncertain. Should
the subscription be filled, the Company would expect to receive in 1718 4mL for the previous
year and 4mL for the current year, when the three farms together were yielding at most
6mL per year (Giraud 1966, 3:39, 44–48; BN Joly de Fleury 566, fol. 254-61). This financial
uncertainty probably accounts for the slow take-up of the IPO.
The Company nevertheless immediately began its activities. As Giraud (1966) documents, it inherited some assets from the previous owner of the Louisiana concession, including one ship. Law hired competent and knowledgeable people as directors and they
proceeded to purchase, lease and build new ships, so that by December 1718 it had a dozen
ships at its disposal and had already made several voyages to Louisiana.

4.3

Mergers and acquisitions

From its creation, Law’s Company grew by a series of mergers and acquisitions, and extended
its activities from trade to tax collection:
• Aug. 1, 1718: the Company purchased the right to run the tobacco monopoly for
4.02mL per year.
• Dec. 4, 1718: it bought the Company of the Senegal for 1.6mL cash.
• May 1719: the Company bought the Company of the Indies and the Company of
China for its net worth (to be assessed; it turned out to be 1.5mL, Haudrère 1989,
102).
• Jul 1719: it received the Company of Africa’s privilege on trade with North Africa.
The price was 68,000L plus the value of assets (which turned out to be 150,000L,
Haudrère 129).
• Jul. 25, 1719: it purchased the right to run the royal mints. The company paid a
lump sum of 50mL to run the mints for nine years. (The sum was never paid in cash,
instead the Company retired an equivalent amount of government bonds.)
• Aug. 27, 1719: it bought the right to run the Fermes Générales (General Farms), which
collected most of the excise taxes in France and about 30% of government revenues.

15

10000
9000
8000
7000

livres

6000

share price (in notes)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000

share price (in constant silver)
0
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec1720 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec1721 Feb Mar

Figure 4:

Prices of shares in the Compagnie des Indes. From June 1720 to Feb. 1721, the series
is also shown converted into silver coin at 60L/marc. Source: see Appendix.

The lease was to run for 9 years, and be worth 52mL per year (instead of 48.5mL
previously). The same day, its charter and privileges were extended for 50 years.18
• late Aug 1719: it bought out the officers in charge of collecting all direct taxes (recettes
générales, about 55% of revenues).
• Feb 1720: it took over the Royal Bank.
• Sept. 1720: it bought out the Company of Santo Domingo and received the monopoly
on the slave trade in Guinea.
The difficulties that the Company encountered in getting the King to pay interest on his
debt explain the first takeover, that of the tobacco farm. Already in early 1718, the farmers
18 The General Farms were at the time under a lease begun in 1718. The King unilaterally broke the
existing lease and transferred it to Law’s Company. The previous holder was a syndicate led by the Paris
brothers, which was authorized in September 1718 to finance itself through a share issue: the shares were
sold in exchange for 100mL in 4% government bonds at face value. A 10% down-payment was required,
with the remainder due by September 1719 (Dutot 2000, 80). It appears (Archives Nationales, hereafter
AN, G/7/1176, letter of Paris to the Regent, Aug. 17, 1719) that the issue was nearly complete; its shares
were traded on the market (prices for July and November 1719 in BN NAF 22245, 294–96), and the Musée
Carnavalet in Paris has a copy of one dividend coupon (collection Fabre de Larche, GB 22). This company
came to be known as the “Anti-System,” although it was probably formed at Law’s instigation (Lüthy 1959,
1:313–15, Faure 1977, 151–53). After the lease was broken, the shares became part of the public debt.

16

had lent the king funds to pay the overdue interest for the previous year. Law proposed
to take over the tobacco lease for 4.02mL, so as to almost exactly cancel the 4mL annual
interest payment owed by the king. Law believed that he could run the monopoly better,
expecting to generate 6 to 8mL per year. And, by running the farm himself, he was sure of
being paid his interest. The same logic would be applied to the successive purchases of tax
farms.

4.4

Financing the expansion
10000
9000

daughters
grand−daughters
soumissions

8000

option price / pay−off

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000
6000
share price

7000

8000

9000

10000

Figure 5: Prices of the daughters, granddaughters, and soumissions (construed as options) plotted
against the price of the underlying share. The straight lines show the pay-off of each option. Source:
Appendix.
The Company purchased the tobacco farm with its billets d’État, but the later acquisitions were financed by successive issues of shares. Every time, the shares were payable in
monthly installments. The successive offered prices were increasingly high, although each
new share had equal standing with the older shares, and was in particular entitled to the
same dividend.
Here is the list of successive share issues of the Company from its inception to the end
of 1719:
1. June 1717-Dec 1718 (IPO): 200,000 shares at 500L each, payable in government bonds
(billets d’État) at face value

17

2. June 1719: 50,000 at 550L each in cash, 50L down and the rest payable in 20 monthly
installments
3. July 1719: 50,000 at 1,000L each in cash, payable in 20 monthly installments
4. Sep–Oct 1719: 300,000 at 5,000L each in cash, payable in 10 monthly installments
(the last 9 changed to 3 quarterly payments)
The second and third issues took the form of a rights offering: a subscriber to the June
issue had to own four original shares (which came to be known as the “mothers”, as opposed
to the July shares known as “daughters” ), and a subscriber to the July issue had to own
four mothers and one daughter to purchase one “granddaughter.” This requirement helped
turn the secondary market in the older shares into a frenzy. Law also demonstrated the
profits to be made in a bull market by introducing Parisians to options, buying call options
on shares of the Company in March–April 1719, and cashing in after the merger with the
Indies Company had helped boost the price of his Company.
After making a down-payment, a subscriber received a certificate that entitled him to a
share upon full payment of all the installments. By missing an installment he forfeited his
share, and all previous payments made. This feature, noted by Cochrane (2001), made the
certificates into options on shares rather than shares, with a strike price paid over time. It
also characterized the fourth issue, generally called “soumissions.” Figure 5 shows the prices
of the second, third and fourth issues, plotted against the price of the underlying share, that
is, of the first issue. The pay-off from the options is also plotted: since they had different
strike prices, the 45-degree lines do not coincide.19 As the Figure shows, the price of the
options tended to coincide with the pay-off as the share price rose, particularly for the first
two issues. The pattern is less clear for the last and largest issue, perhaps due to changing
beliefs about the future behavior of the share price. The option feature of the certificates
proved crucial in late 1719, as I will indicate.
The billets d’État received with the first issue (100mL at face value, bearing 4%) were
supposed to provide 4mL per year in cash-flow. But they were used to buy the tobacco
monopoly in August 1718. The other source of financing for the Company’s acquisitions
was note issues by the Bank, which was managed by the same people (and eventually merged
into the Company in February 1720). In December 1718, the General Bank’s note issue had
stood at 40mL; by July 1719, the Royal Bank’s issue stood at 400mL, and reached 1bnL in
January 1720. It appears that the Bank simply lent notes to the Company in exchange for
IOUs (récépissés) signed by the treasurer of the Company (see Harsin 1928, 310).
Figure 4 shows the price of shares in the Company for the period in which daily quotations are available. Prior to August 1719, we have only random indications of the price of
shares: 250L in May 1718, 240 in early June, 290L in late July and early August, 240L in
early October, 238L on Nov. 10, 180L on Dec. 12, 237.5L on Feb. 6, 1719, 500L on May 10,
19 The

successive strike prices are 500L for the second issue or daughters, 1000L for the third issue or
granddaughters, 4500L for the soumissions before the first payment was due in January 1720, and 3000L
after January. Interpreting the prices recorded in the contemporary sources is difficult; see the Appendix
for the details.

18

650 on June 17, 1000L by mid-July ((Lüthy 1:310, 312, 358; Dutot 2000, 90; Piossens 1749,
3:150, 4:70; Murphy 1997, 190). It thus appears that the successive share issues were offered
at close to market prices.

5

Law’s System (3): the apex

Law’s System reached its apex, and the price of the Company’s share peaked, at the beginning of 1720. Two main elements crowned the system. The first was a virtual takeover
of the French government, by which the Company substituted its liabilities (shares) for the
whole national debt. The second was the substitution of the Company’s other liabilities
(notes) for the metallic currency. At the end of the operation, the Company, owned by the
former creditors of the State, collected all taxes, owned or managed most overseas colonies,
monopolized all overseas trade, and freely issued fiat money which was sole legal tender. Its
CEO also became minister of finance on January 5, 1720.

5.1

Conversion of the national debt

The conversion of government debt into liabilities of the Company, which was decided jointly
with the takeover of the Fermes Générales, began on Aug. 27, 1719.
Formally, the conversion took place as follows. The Company offered the government a
perpetual loan of 1200mL (raised on Sept. 17 and Oct. 10 to 1600mL) at 3%.20 Between the
government and the Company, the loan took the form of a perpetual annuity at 3% owed by
the king to the Company, assigned on the revenues of the General Farms. The annual 36mL
payment (raised to 48mL) would in practice be deducted from the annual lease payment of
52mL that the Company owed for collecting the taxes of the General Farms.
The government was to use the 1600mL to buy out the funded government debt (that is,
the existing stock of perpetual annuities) and miscellaneous other debts, listed in Table 3.21
This buy-out was compulsory, but perfectly legal. Perpetual annuities and offices, by their
legal nature, included a call option: the creditor could never demand repayment of the
capital, but the debtor could reimburse at any time.22 Bondholders would receive drafts
from the Royal Treasury on the Company in the amount of their holdings, payable by the
Company’s treasurer in specie or bank notes at the bondholder’s option.
20 Of

this sum, 100mL corresponded to the Company’s original asset, the billets d’État, on which it agreed
to reduce the interest from 4% to 3% (AC of Sept. 17). This 3mL annuity remained as the Company’s main
asset after the collapse of the System, and it used it in 1723 to buy the tobacco monopoly in perpetuity.
21 The

debts listed in the AC of Aug. 27 include: all perpetual annuities; the shares in the General
Farms company, which were originally issued in exchange for perpetual annuities; the billets de la caisse
commune, short-term notes bearing 4% issued by the Receveurs généraux, the billets d’État, and all offices
and “charges” which had been abolished since 1711 or would be abolished, and whose reimbursement was
not yet funded.
22 The

king’s debt to the Company created by the operation, as well as the bonds to be issued by the
Company to raise funds, could not be called for at least 25 years.

19

capital
reimbursements ordered Aug 31 1719:
rentes on the Hôtel de Ville
961,731,525
offices (charges) eliminated∗
254,377,341
notes of the caisse commune
33,730,409
billets de l’Etat
250,000,000
actions of the Fermes générales†
[100,000,000]
total
1,499,839,275
other reimbursements ordered to Jul 1720:
other rentes
2,933,258
augmentations de gages
200,000,000
unpaid arrears (interest-bearing)
36,427,796
unpaid arrears (non interest-bearing)
237,919,732
total

1,977,120,061

interest
38,469,261
16,958,490
1,349,216
10,000,000
—
66,776,967
117,330
11,939,366
1,633,000
9,516,790∗∗
89,983,453

Table 3:

Reimbursement of debts from 1715 to 1720. Source: Etat général des dettes (1720).
Notes: ∗ only 160mL were liquidated by Sep. 1, 1720. †: these amounts are probably already
included in the total of rentes. ∗∗ : assuming a 4% rate of interest.

Of course, the company did not have on hand such a vast amount of cash, greater than
the money stock. To raise the funds, it was initially authorized to borrow the same amount
(1200mL) from the public by selling 3% bonds. But at some point the Company changed
its financing strategy and turned to equity. On August 26, before the repayment of the
debt was announced, the Company’s share stood at 3600L. By September 9, it had risen
to 5350L. Two days later, the Company asked the government permission to raise 500mL
by selling shares at 5000L in cash. The success of the share issue led to other share issues
at the same price (September 26, October 2) totalling another 1000mL. Moreover, shares
ceased to be sold for cash; instead, only drafts issued by the Treasury to bondholders and
other government bearer debt were accepted. In the end, the Company never issued the 3%
bonds.23
23 There

is some debate over what was offered to the public initially, a debate that matters for the
interpretation of Law’s intentions. The text of the AC of Aug. 27 authorized the company to sell either
actions rentières to the bearer or perpetual annuity contracts at 3%. The AC of Aug. 31, announcing the
reimbursement of the public debt, speaks of actions and actions rentières equivalently. Faure (1977) has
read both actions and actions rentières to mean annuity-like bearer securities, or bonds, emphasizing the
rentière aspect, and argued that the share issues of September and October were not part of the original
plan. For him, the Aug. 27–31 decrees represent a conversion of government bonds into Company bonds at
a lower interest (a “wise” plan), while the September share issues represent a radical shift to a “mad” plan.
Murphy (1997, 200) emphasizes the action aspect and reads both terms to mean shares; hence, for Murphy,
there is no change in policy, just imprecise wording. However, article 12 of the AC of Aug. 31 prohibits
the Company from amortizing the actions rentières for 25 years, a clause that is understandable for bonds,
but makes little sense for shares. Moreover, the Company later issued actions rentières (on Feb. 23, 1720),
which were bearer bonds paying a fixed interest but carrying no voting rights (see the Appendix for details).
There is no reason to think that the same term could mean shares in August 1719 and bonds in February
1720. The ambiguity stems from the use of the term action for a bond; the choice of words may be due to
the fact that bearer bonds were unknown at the time, and needed to be distinguished from ordinary annuity
contracts. In the end, I side with Faure in distinguishing two plans, one based on bonds and never carried
out, the other on shares.

20

g ≤ τ̄ − 90mL

τ

State

creditor

τ̄
“constant” = 90mL

Public

Collectors

Before

g ≤ τ̄ − 48mL

τ

State

τ̄ − 48mL
creditor

shareholder
Company

Public
variable dividend ≥ 48mL
After

Figure 6: French public finances before and after the System.

21

Trade

In other words, since government bonds were accepted in payment of the shares, the
operation was simply a gigantic swap of government bonds, bearing on average 4.5%, for
Company equity. The company’s profits came from the 3% interest it was owed by the
government, plus any profits on its commercial and tax-farming activities.
The end result of the process was that the company collected about 90% of taxes in
France, passed on a fixed nominal amount to the government, and distributed the rest as
dividends to its shareholders. Figure 6 illustrates the System. Prior to the System, taxes
τ were collected by various tax collectors and a fixed sum τ̄ was passed on to the State.
The State was in turn creditor for an annual payment of roughly 90mL, which I label as
“constant” between quotation marks because of the government’s unreliability; what is left
is spent on government purchases g. In the System, the Company has consolidated all tax
collection, and has also inserted itself between the State and its creditors. The Company
now owes a variable amount no less than 48mL to its shareholders, and the State has more
to spend on g.

5.2

Money: paper competes with metal

Over the same period of time, the Royal Bank continued to be managed by Law on behalf of
the Treasury. Little is known about its management during this period, until it was outright
merged with the Company in February 1720. It is likely that the Bank ceased to be a classic
private bank and just became a tool in the hands of Law. Under what conditions did it
issue notes is not clear: I suspect that it was freely lending to the Company.24
The notes issued by the Royal Bank became increasingly prominent, and quickly changed
from being the liabilities of a private bank, claims denominated in fixed amounts of silver,
to the status of sole legal tender, disconnected from any standard. This process was entirely
consistent with Law’s stated belief that metallic money was inferior and wasteful, and would
better be replaced by paper money or by a highly liquid, interest-bearing security.
A first step was taken on Jan 5, 1719, when new types of notes were issued, which
were not denominated in specific coins, but rather in units of account, in sizes of 10L,
100L and 1,000L.25 The smallest notes of the General Bank had been 60L; the new 10L
notes were in direct competition with silver coinage. The note stated: “The Bank promises
to pay on demand to the bearer 100 livres tournois in silver coins” without saying how
many coins. (See Figure 7). Then, in April 1719, a decree explained that the new issue of
écu-denominated notes had not been met by any demand, and that older écu-denominated
notes were increasingly turned in to be converted into the new livre-denominated notes.
It was therefore decided to abandon écu-based notes altogether and order the conversion
of the remaining ones into livres-based notes. The Bank’s liabilities were therefore only
denominated in units of account, although still payable on demand in silver.
24 The bank’s account drawn up in 1723 has an item of 1,857,588,347L “paid to the cashier of the Indies
Company”! (Harsin 1928, 310).
25 Notes

of 10,000L were authorized on Sept. 13, 1719.

22

Figure 7:

A 100L note of the Royal Bank issued Jan 1, 1720.

As we have seen, monetary reforms in which the face value of coins was increased benefited debtors who had coins. The holder of a note denominated in coins (as were the notes
before 1719) benefited to the same extent. With notes denominated in units of account, the
benefit disappeared. But in the case of a monetary reform decreasing the value of coins, the
holder of a note was protected against the loss in legal tender value. This was made clear
by a decree of April 22, 1719 which stated that livres-denominated coins were not subject
to changes in value in the case of a lowering of the value of coins. As if by coincidence,
two weeks later a decrease in the value of gold coins was announced, from 36L to 35L; it
was followed by further decreases from July to December, down to 32L. The silver coin was
also decreased from 6L to 5.8L, then 5.6L, over the same period. At the same time, the
king’s tax collectors were advised that, in case of currency alteration, they would be held
responsible for the capital loss on their specie holdings to the Treasury (a departure from
usual practice).
The legal tender status of notes changed as well.
• On Dec. 27 , 1718, transactions larger than 600L were to be made only in gold, or
in bank notes in cities which had branch offices of the Bank.26 The legal tender of
silver coins was thus limited to 600L. Notes tendered in payment could not be refused,
except if the local branch was not making payments in specie.
• From Jul. 25, 1719, creditors in towns with branch offices27 could refuse gold and silver
payments, and demand payment in notes instead. Gold and silver were thus losing
26 Those
27 At

were Paris, Lyon, La Rochelle, Tours, Orléans, Amiens.

the same time, branch offices were established in all cities in which a mint was located, about twenty.

23

their legal tender status.
• From Dec. 1, 1719, the Company itself would deal exclusively in notes, could demand
payment in notes (in particular for all the taxes it was collecting) , and would only
pay out notes. Its payments to the king would also be made in notes.
• On Dec. 21, 1719 it was announced that no payments could be made in silver for
more than 10L and in gold for more than 300L, effective immediately in Paris, from
March 1 in cities with branch offices of the Bank, from April 1 everywhere else. All
payments to the government made in cash were subject to a 5% surcharge. Bills of
foreign exchange were made payable in notes.
• On Jan. 22, 1720 the seigniorage tax was set to 0%.
• On Jan. 28, 1720 notes were given legal tender throughout France, and it was announced that the seigniorage rate would go up to 10% (this increase was repeatedly
postponed and then cancelled on Feb. 25).
• On Feb. 27, 1720 it was made illegal for anyone to own more than 500L in gold or
silver coins, and no payment above 100L could be made other than in notes.
• On Apr. 1, 1720 all gold and silver clauses in contracts were voided.
The growth of the outstanding paper money stock is shown in Table 4. Contemporary
estimates of the gold and silver specie stock in the late 17th-early 18th century are around
1200mL.28 Interestingly, the decree of Dec. 1, 1719 argues that the authorized issues of
640mL would be sufficient for “circulation and all operations of commerce.” Within three
months, the amount was tripled.

5.3

Money: paper replaces metal

The complete elimination of gold and silver was announced on March 11. After May 1,
it would be illegal for anyone but the heavily regulated goldsmiths to own gold in coin or
bullion. Silver coin and bullion was also made illegal, from Jan. 1 1721, except in the form
of the lower denominations of 1.5L and below. At the same time, a planned for revaluating
the livre in terms of silver was announced, whereby the 1L coin was progressively lowered
in value to 0.5L by January 1. All silver was to be carried to the mint, where it would be
purchased with a 20% seigniorage rate. All gold was also to be sold to the mint, at a rapidly
decreasing price, in exchange for notes.29 The Company would be the only one using gold
28 Dutot (2000, 5) estimates 600mL at 30.6L per marc in 1699, and 900–1000mL at 49.8 per marc in the
1730s; Forbonnais (1758, 4:98) estimates 500mL in 1683 at 26.75L per marc; Law (1934, 3:201) estimates
600mL at 28L per marc in September 1715. Converted in silver marcs, these estimates are in the 19–21m
marcs range, which would give 1200mL at 60L per marc (the standard from May 1718 to March 1720). The
AC of Feb. 27, 1720 states that there was currently about 1200mL in specie in France, based on minting
records.
29 Although

official texts are not clear, it is likely that the mints, run by the Company, only paid out notes
only since Dec. 1, 1719.

24

notes issued less notes burned
10,000L
1000L
100L
50L
10L

30 Apr
31 May
31 Jul
31 Aug
30 Sep
30 Nov
31 Dec
30 Jan
29 Feb
5 Mar
31 Mar
30 Apr
22 May
31 May
30 Jun
31 Jul
31 Aug
30 Sep
10 Oct
31 Oct
27 Nov
8 Jan

1719
1719
1719
1719
1719
1719
1719
1720
1720
1720
1720
1720
1720
1720
1720
1720
1720
1720
1720
1720
1720
1721

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
120.0
240.0
332.9
358.6
466.8
458.6
—
—
—
804.8
—
—
538.9
529.4
533.0
524.1
521.6
521.6

28.0
96.0
144.0
334.4
334.4
334.4
370.0
379.9
507.5
530.9
—
—
—
1158.5
—
—
1065.3
1001.9
1009.0
987.8
979.7
979.7

10.0
13.0
15.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
54.6
57.2
77.3
82.2
—
—
—
239.4
—
—
341.5
341.4
342.2
342.0
341.1
341.1

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
—
—
0.0
—
—
0.0
52.9
73.6
131.6
134.9
134.9

0.0
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.2
11.6
14.4
18.2
18.2
—
—
—
32.5
—
—
61.2
76.1
80.7
83.6
91.7
91.7

total
(1)
38.0
109.9
159.9
380.6
500.6
620.6
769.0
810.1
1069.7
1089.9
1261.5
2054.0
2116.5
2235.1
2359.0
2081.7
2006.8
2001.7
2038.4
2069.0
2069.1
2069.1

value of estimated circulation
nominal
silver livres
(current) (60L/mc)
(2)
(3)
(4)
38.0
109.9
159.9
380.6
517.9
642.0
769.0
810.1
1069.7
1089.9
841.0
1369.3
1539.3
1625.5
2289.0
1636.6
1190.3
1873.4
1030.3
515.2
1526.8
912.4
456.2
1250.0
372.3
248.2
1218.4
242.3
161.5
1128.2
236.0
157.4
973.0
120.4
80.3
673.8
58.2
46.6

Table 4:

Outstanding stock of notes, by denomination, and estimated circulation (in mL). Column (1) sums the previous columns and consists of notes issued less notes burned. Column (2)
adjusts for the fact that some notes had been retired but not burned. Column (3) converts into current silver livres at the market value of notes, while column (4) converts column (3) into constant
silver livres of 1719, at 60L per marc of silver. Sources: see Appendix.

and silver for foreign trade: import of gold and silver was made illegal. Silver would remain
as mere subsidiary coinage, which would not even be convertible into notes (decree of April
6), although notes remained convertible into silver, albeit subject, presumably, to the 500L
restriction.
The creation of a final silver coin was not without analogies with the earlier monetary
reforms. The Company had a particular interest in the high seigniorage rate, since it was
also running the mints, since July 25, 1719. In the original contract, the Company promised
to pay 50mL (from October 1719 to December 1720) in exchange for the profits of running
the mints for nine years. The king pledged to not raise coins or reduce their fineness at
any time during those nine years; and, should he lower the coins, he promised to lower the
mint price at the same time (leaving intact the seigniorage rate, which had stood at 20%
for silver and gold since October 1718). Both promises were to be broken repeatedly, two
days later in fact concerning gold (Dutot 107), but most strikingly in January 1720 when
seigniorage was set to 0. The March 1720 reform was a compensation for this lost income.

25

1
23
1
1
3
31
1
28
8
23

Date
Sep 1715
Dec 1715
Feb 1716
Jan 1717
Mar 1718
May 1718
Oct 1718
Sep 1719
Dec 1719
Jan 1720

MP
28
32
32
31.5
36
40
48
46.4
56
60

ME
28
40
40
40
40
60
60
58
60
60

6
1
1
29
1
16
31
1
16
1

Date
Mar 1720
Apr 1720
May 1720
May 1720
Jul 1720
Jul 1720
Jul 1720
Sep 1720
Sep 1720
Oct 1720

MP
80
70
65
82.5
75
67.5
120
105
90
78

ME
80
90
82.5
82.5
75
67.5
120
105
90
90

1
23
4
27
22
30
1
1
26
15

Dec
Aug
Feb
Mar
Sep
Sep
Jan
Feb
May
Jun

1720
1723
1724
1724
1724
1724
1726
1726
1726
1726

63
68
60.5
49
39.2
40.7
35.6
34
44
46.9

75
69
63
50
40
41.5
36.3
41.5
49.8
49.8

Table 5:

Mint prices and mint equivalents of the silver coinage,
in livres per marc of silver 11/12 fine. Sources: original decrees at
http://www.ordonnances.org/.

5.4

Money and Prices

There are two ways to measure the depreciation of the paper currency, denominated in units
of account. One is against its direct monetary competitor, namely silver coin. The other
is through a broad price index. For the latter, we have Hamilton’s price index, based on
commodities purchased by hospitals in Paris, shown in Figure 9. For the former, we have
foreign exchange data until September 1720, which can be converted into a price of paper
livres for silver (ignoring many things like transaction costs). From June 1720 we have direct
observations on the price of bank notes (by denomination) in Paris against coin, although
one must keep in mind that “coin” means “current silver livres” whose silver content changed
several times over the period. The result is shown in Figure 8.
Several features are worth noting in Figure 8. First is the coherence of the foreignexchange based series (until September 1720) and the bank-note based series (from June
1720). In the period for which the two overlap, they track each other closely.30 A second
point is that, until October 1719, the foreign exchange series remains close to the mint price,
that is, the silver import point.31 By late January 1720, the foreign exchange series rises
above the mint equivalent. But, as noted above, from January 1720 on, bills of exchange
in London on Paris were actually claims to bank notes rather than silver coins, since they
were payable in notes. The discrepancy thus measures indirectly the degree to which bank
notes are depreciating with respect to silver. In this light, the devaluations of March 1720
(25%), April 1720 (11%), and July 1720 (44%) appear as attempts to bring the silver livre
30 The foreign-exchange series is originally in the form of English pence sterling per “écu de change,” a
fictitious unit corresponding to three livres (units of account). It is normalized so as to represent French
livres per fixed quantity of silver, based on the official silver content of the English penny (62d per troy ounce
of silver 92.5% fine). The bank-note series is originally in the form of livres of specie per 100L note. To plot
the bank-note series on the same scale as the foreign-exchange series, the livres of specie are converted to
their silver content as defined at each point in time by the laws.
31 If

it were much lower, it would mean that French livres were overvalued in London, and that it would
be profitable to sell bills of exchange at the prevailing price in London and ship silver to Paris and have it
minted and redeem the bill in Paris.

26

1200
1000

livres per marc standard silver (log scale)

800
600

400

200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
1719

mint equivalent
mint price
Apr

Jul

Oct

1720

Apr

Jul

Oct

1721

Apr

Figure 8: Indices of the bank-note price of a marc of standard silver. The dots are (transformations of) the price of French livres in foreign exchange markets, January 1719 to September
1720; the stars are based on the specie price of bank-notes, June 1720 to March 1721. The mint
equivalents and mint prices for the French silver coinage are also shown. Source: Course of the
exchange (ESFDB database), Appendix
back into line with the paper livre.
Hamilton’s commodity price index presents a quite different picture when it is plotted
against the parameters of the silver coinage (Figure 9). The price index measures movements
in prices denominated in units of account per goods, and the mint equivalent and mint price
lines are in units of account per silver. The price level and the silver content of the livre
track each other quite well from 1711, when Hamilton’s series begin, to 1718 (all indices
are normalized to coincide in the year 1725, at the end of the graph), suggesting a constant
silver price of goods. The devaluation of 1718 does not have much of an immediate impact
on goods prices, however; but by late 1719 goods prices seem to have caught up with silver.
Indeed, the remarkable rise of the price level in January 1720 (+25% in one month) is what
brings about the catch-up. Hamilton’s index continues to rise through 1720, but much more
slowly, only 19% from January 1720 to the peak in August 1720. At the same time, the
quantity of money in circulation multiplied by a factor of 2.6 (Table 4). This increase in
paper money, which consisted overwhelmingly of large denominations, does not seem to show
in overall prices, although Faure (1977) presents considerable but anecdotal evidence from
throughout France of price increases, particularly in commodities markets, in the spring of
1720 (note that Hamilton’s data is drawn from hospital records). After the System, we can

27

350
300
250

index 1725=100 (log scale)

200

mint equivalent
mint price

150

100

50
1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726

Figure 9:

Commodity price index in Paris, monthly 1711–1726 (Hamilton 1936). The mint price
and mint equivalent are also shown for reference.

infer that the silver price of goods (the ratio of Hamilton’s index to the mint price) remains
relatively low until the revaluations of 1724.
The two measures of the value of money (paper money against silver, and money against
a commodity index) present different patterns. Figure 9 is not reminiscent of fiat money
inflations of later periods, but Figure 8 is, and we do know that Law monitored the latter
quite closely (Dutot 2000 uses foreign exchange throughout his book as an indicator of the
state of affairs). It was no doubt a growing source of concern to him in the spring of 1720.

6
6.1

Law’s System (4): Collapse and Clean-up
Seeds of disaster (to May 1720)

It was a crucial aspect of Law’s scheme that the share price remain high. The fact that
bonds were converted into highly priced shares is what made the conversion profitable:
as long as the PE ratio was higher than the comparable ratio on government bonds (22
according to Table 3), the result was a lowering of the government’s debt service. However,
the call-option feature of the subscriptions meant that bondholders could back out if the
price of shares fell too low for their liking and lead to the scheme’s unravelling.
There is later evidence that the former bondholders were not all in a hurry to convert
their bonds into shares (Lüthy 1:320): on January 12 they were given a deadline of April 1

28

Semester
1718:I
1718:II
1719:I
1719:II
1720:I
1720:I+II
1721:I+II
1721:I+II
1722:I
1722:II
1723:I

Dividend
10
10
10
10
60
200
360
0
100
100
150

Date
Announced

27 Mar 1719(?)
26
29
20
24
24
24
24

Jul 1719
Dec 1719
Jun 1720
Mar 1723
Mar 1723
Mar 1723
Mar 1723

Shares:
number price
200,000
200,000
200,000
250,000
600,000
200,000
56,000
56,000
56,000
56,000

PD
ratio

250(?)

25(?)

1960
9413
5216
1200
1200
1200
1200

33
47
14
12

Date
Paid
Jul 1718
Jan 1719
Jun 1719
Jan 1720
—
Jul 1720-Mar 1721
—
Apr 1723
Jul 1723
Jan 1724

Table 6: Semi-annual dividends announced and/or paid by the Compagnie des Indes, and number
of shares at the time of announcement. Source: Appendix.
to receive their reimbursement, and on February 6 a new deadline of July 1 after which the
interest on their bonds would be reduced to 2%. Since it appeared that some bondholders
preferred to keep a fixed income, the Company was authorized to issue up to 500mL in 2%
bonds (called, confusingly, actions rentières or “annuity shares”) in denominations of 1000L
and 10,000L, and bondholders were given the option to exchange their government bonds
for either shares or company bonds.
Law used a variety of means to shore up the price of shares. By the fall of 1719,
the Company was giving out low-interest loans against shares as collateral. It was also
intervening directly in the market and buying up shares. As early as October 5, 1719 the
Company had ordered its treasurer to buy any share offered at a price of 5000L (Dutot 2000,
129). This was the spot price at the time; it was also the subscription price for the current,
debt conversion share issue; the Company’s policy effectively guaranteed any bondholder
repayment of his bonds at par in notes, a first hint of the debt monetization that was to
come. Then, in late December 1719, an office was formally opened at which shares and
subscriptions could be bought and sold for prices determined each day by the Company.
The office functioned with some interruptions until mid-February (Faure 1977, 340), during
which time the Company bought 800mL worth of shares, or about 16% of its capitalization,
with a corresponding addition to the money supply.32
Law now needed to deal with shares and notes in order to manage the growing money
supply. Between late February and early March 1720, his policies were marked by inconsistencies and sudden reversals.
At first, Law tried to curb the growth in the money supply. On February 22, after a
general assembly of shareholders, the Bank was formally merged with the Company, limits
were placed on further issue of bank notes, and the Company was prohibited from lending to
the King; in return, however, the Company bought back from the King his 100,000 shares at
9000L each, payable 1/3 during 1720 and the rest over the course of 10 years. Also, the price
32 Hautchamp

(1743, 1:109). The stock consisted at the time of 300,000 original shares, which the Company
was buying at 9925L, and up to 300,000 subscriptions, valued at 6600L: a total capitalization of 4.96bnL.

29

support policy was officially halted. The effect on prices was immediate: from the support
price of 9925L the market price of shares fell to 8500L by March 1, while the subscriptions
fell from 6600L to 5450L (Dutot 2000, 225).
Law quickly reversed course on the price of shares and, on March 5, opened another
office for the buying and selling of shares at a fixed price of 9,000L. At the same time, the
outstanding subscriptions lost their option and were all converted into shares at a 2:3 ratio,
while reimbursements of the public debt continued to be made, but in bank notes. From
March to late May 1720, the company spent another 1213.5mL (Hautchamp 1743, 1:121)
to buy 27% of its stock, resulting in the increase in outstanding notes shown in Table 4.
The exchange rate between coin and note was also subject to reversals. On March 5, Law
effectively devalued the metallic livre by 1/3, changing the face value of the recently issued
silver coin from 1L to 1.5L. This was the first monetary manipulation since May 1718, and
was accompanied by a pledge that “the bank note is a form of money that is not subject to
any variation.”
Then, within days, Law reversed course and set forth the plan for the full replacement
of metal by paper described earlier. The plan included a gradual appreciation of the livre
relative to silver, above and beyond its previous level, since the 1-livre piece was scheduled
to be fall back from 1.5L to 0.5L by January 1721. Figure 8 suggests that the devaluation
of March 5, 1720 was merely ratifying the fall in the market exchange rate of the French
livre (which meant the Bank’s notes) relative to other metal-based currencies. If so, this
represented a powerful warning sign of inflation, which Law somehow expected to contain
by his demonetization plan. Indeed, he expected to engineer a serious deflation.

6.2

The devaluation of May 21, 1720

Law presumably realized the process by which shares were being replaced by legal tender
notes. On May 21, an arrêt was published that represented a major change in the System. The preamble, drafted by Law himself33 recites the achievements of the System, but
attributes to “ill-disposed individuals” attempts to undermine it, and presents the devaluation of March 5 as a means supporting the credit of the System by depreciating the coinage,
and the plan of March 11 as a means of restoring the proper foreign exchange rates. Such
measures, he wrote, would necessarily induce a deflation in the prices of all goods and assets, and consequently a similar deflation was necessary for the System’s liabilities. Thus,
abandoning the tenet of constancy of the paper money affirmed weeks earlier, Law devalued
both the shares and the notes by roughly equal amounts, in monthly stages, from 9000L to
5000L for the shares, and the shares down to a half of their face value by December 1. To
alleviate the burden on small noteholders, the notes remained legal tender at their original
face value in payment of taxes for the rest of the year 1720.
The Bank started paying its notes on demand in specie at the new parity, but within
days public outrage against the measures was growing; on May 27 the devaluation of May 21
was rescinded, and a few days later the planned demonetization of March 11 was halted, and
33 A

draft in his own hand is in AN G/7/1628-1629.

30

the freedom to hold and use specie returned. On May 28 Law was fired and placed under
house arrest, but within days he was freed and resumed his seat at the cabinet. Probably
the Regent understood that no one but him could save the System.

6.3

Saving the System (May–November 1720)

Law never gave up hope, and from his recall on June 1, he tried to save the System. The
primary goals were to reduce the quantity of notes in circulation and to save the Company
(and Bank) from bankruptcy. To this end, a series of measures aimed to withdraw notes from
circulation and convert them into other, mostly non-demand liabilities of the Bank or the
government: (1) life or perpetual annuities, (2) bank accounts, and (3) a new subscription of
Company shares (see Fig. 10 for a schematic representation of these conversion operations).
These three means were outlined in an Edict of July 1720 which reaffirmed and extended
the Company’s privileges. The bonds were expected to soak up 1000mL, the bank accounts
600mL, and the new shares 600mL. The thrust of the measures was to retire the highdenomination notes (1,000 and 10,000L), which represented 88% of the total issued by late
May.
The Company had already started issuing bonds in February 1720, and it began an issue
of life annuities in May 1720, which sold out by late June. These liabilities of the Company
only amounted to 150mL. In June, the government put on sale traditional perpetual annuities at 2.5%, for a face value of 1000mL, effectively reversing the conversion of the debt and
renationalizing it. Former bondholders who still had their bonds or their liquidation receipts
had priority to purchase the new bonds, which could otherwise be bought with notes. The
notes retired were to be burned publicly.34
One second outlet for the notes is of interest. The “bank accounts” (comptes en banque)
created on July 13 were proposed to Law by private bankers (according to du Hautchamp),
and modelled on the bank accounts of the public banks of Amsterdam and Hamburg, which
served to settle large transactions. Law gave his Bank’s accounts a monopoly as means to
settle all transactions greater than 500L, wholesale trade, bills of exchange, and they could
only be purchased by the deposit of high denomination notes.
Both outlets, bonds and bank accounts, were slow to take notes out of circulation. By
July 19, only 159mL of the government’s perpetual annuities had been subscribed (Faure
1977, 471). As for bank accounts, within three weeks of the opening of the accounts, only
100mL of notes had been withdrawn in this manner; the final figure would be 239mL.
The third way to retire notes was to convert them into shares. The first attempt was
at a capital call of 3000L per share announced on June 3. Those who made the payment
would receive a dividend of 360L per share; those who didn’t would only receive a fixed
coupon of 200L. Since the number of shares was set at 200,000, this capital call could
be expected to soak up 600mL in notes. It was clearly not successful, since on June 20
shareholders were authorized to pay in with shares instead of notes, each old share taken
34 In

August 1720, the king created a further 8mL (later reduced to 6mL) in perpetual annuities at 2%,
and 4mL in life annuities at 4%, with the explicit goal of exchanging them for high-denomination notes.

31

Date

Shares

Indies Bonds

Jan 1720

Notes

IPO

1717–18

Sep 1719

Govt Bonds

soumissions
primes
annuities

Mar 1720

Mar–May 1720

Jun 1720

new bonds

Jul 1720

soumissions

Sep 1720

1/10 shares

large

small

bank accounts

Oct 1720

demonetized

Nov 1720

demonetized

Dec 1720
demonetized

Jan 1721 (Visa)
Figure 10: Conversion operations between the various instruments of the System.

32

at a face value of 6000L: the operation simply amounted to a two-for-three reverse share
split, except that the promised dividend increase (from 600L for the three old shares to
720L for the two new ones) was more difficult to justify in the absence of any cash receipts.
Furthermore, with the renationalization of the debt, the Company’s loan to the government
was partially cancelled (1000mL in bonds were issued), and the corresponding interest of
30mL, a substantial fraction of the Company’s income, owed by the king could not be
counted on to support the promised dividends.
A second attempt at retiring notes with a new issue of shares was made on July 31
and August 14, again in the form of subscriptions: the price was 9000L, with 1000L downpayment in notes and the rest due over the course of six months. This appeared to have
some success, and 70,000 subscriptions were sold. On September 15, however, the subscription scheme was altered: the subscriptions, on which only one payment had been made,
were made convertible each into a tenth of share; this conversion was made mandatory on
November 1.
The bank could redeem or buy notes directly in exchange for coin. It did not do much
redeeming. The Bank’s window, closed during the events of late May, reopened on June 12
but only to convert large denominations into small denominations, while some local officials
in Paris converted small denominations into silver on a very limited basis. On July 9 the
Bank it started to redeem small amounts of notes in coin, but the ensuing melees led to an
indefinite suspension on July 17 (Faure 1977, 477–89). After the end of May, the Bank’s
notes were in effect inconvertible. There are indications, however, that the Bank bought
notes on the open market, in other words at a discount over face value (Faure 1977, 501;
see Figure 12 for the market value of notes).
After a very sharp devaluation of the silver currency failed to bring the notes more than
briefly back to par in early August, Law decided to jettison the note altogether. On August
15, the government announced its plans concerning their ultimate fate. The demonetization
of high-denomination notes was announced for October 1, and that of low-denomination
notes for May 1, 1721.35 The freedom to denominate contracts in gold and silver above
1000L was restored. Until October 1, the notes were still legal tender for debts and taxes
(a decree of September 15 limited the validity of both high and low denominations to 50%
of any payment except for existing debts). After October 1, the high denominations could
only purchase government bonds, bank accounts, or company shares. During the month of
October an additional outlet for notes was provided at the mints, where they were taken
along with old coins in exchange for new coins.
The bank note continued to depreciate, and the demonetization was brought forward.
On October 10, the government reckoned that about 700mL in notes had been retired and
burned, and another 730mL retired but not yet burned,36 leaving an outstanding stock of
1169mL, and it considered that there were enough options available for their conversion to
35 The

issue of low-denomination notes continued until October; 10% of the notes converted in bonds or
bank accounts were returned to the owner in the form of low-denomination notes.
36 The

arrêt of October 10 also mentions 90mL converted for specie by the Bank, but Dutot omits it.

33

3000
printed (nominal)
2500

millions livres

2000
circulating (nominal)
1500

circulating (constant silver)

1000

500

0
Apr 1719

Figure 11:

Jul

Oct

Jan 1720

Apr

Jul

Oct

Jan 1721

Net issue of notes, actual circulation (nominal and constant silver value). Source:

Table 4.

bring forward their demonetization to November 1 for all payments. The Company retained
the ability to make their payments for debt service, wages, and dividends, in notes until
January 1. The notes remained accepted at face value to purchase the government annuities
of June and August 1720.
The bank accounts had been intended to survive the notes. On September 15, Law
tried to recreate elements of the System, with the bank account in the role of the note.
He created a dual unit of account, one based on the metallic currency, the other on the
bank account. The nominal value of bank accounts was reduced by a factor of 4, and
the ability to buy them with notes apparently ended. But at the same time, he made it
possible to convert shares into bank account balances at a rate of 2000L per share, just as
the shares and notes had been convertible into each other in March. This created a nominal
exchange rate between bank accounts (which were called nouvelles écritures; Dutot 2000,
362) and paper currency of 4:1. On October 22, the aggregate amount of bank accounts was
limited to 100mL (presumably in bank-account units). They remained the official means of
payment for the large transactions detailed above, and foreign exchange was quoted in terms
of bank account balances. The dual-unit system was abandoned on December 26, when the
bank accounts were overnight demonetized, converted back to paper-currency units (i.e.,
multiplied by 4), and made exchangeable into government bonds. The bank accounts never
proved successful. A total of 407mL (in paper-currency units) had been created, consistent
with the 100mL limit; but of those, only 239mL had actually been issued, and 51mL were

34

100
90
80
70
current livres

livres

60
50

constant livres

40
30
20
10
0
Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

1721

Feb

Mar

Figure 12: Price of 100L note in current silver livres and in constant silver livres of June 1720
(82.5L / marc). Source: Appendix.
held by the Royal Treasury or the Company, so that only 188mL were in fact held by the
public (Paris-Duverney 1740, 2:258).

7

The Aftermath

Law left France in early December 1720. Cleaning up the System took several years. The
immediate problem was what to do with the wreckage of the System, namely, the various
instruments and securities (company shares, bank notes, bank accounts, government bonds
of 1720, company bonds, receipts from various treasurers). All instruments were submitted
to a liquidation called the “Visa,” managed by seasoned financiers and former rivals of Law,
the Paris brothers.37
The result of the Visa was a newly recreated national debt, in the form of perpetual
and life annuities. The Indies Company was put in receivership in April 1721 and emerged
again in April 1723; it continued as a trading company until 1769. I review the Visa itself
37 The

four Paris brothers, former wartime suppliers turned financiers, had been involved in the management of government finances in the 1716–18 period, among other things reforming accounting and tax
collection practices. In 1718 they organized at Law’s behest the short-lived publicly-held General Farms,
and later fell out with him. They remained in power from 1721 until May 1726. There exists no serious
study of their career and policies.

35

and the ensuing fate of the Company.38

7.1

The Visa of 1721

After Law left France, individuals were still able to purchase government bonds with the
instruments of the System, until Jan 6, 1721, when the government froze such conversions.
Three weeks later it ordered all the System’s instruments to be submitted to an agency
created for that purpose. The owners were required to list the instruments in their possession
and explain how they had acquired them. Anything not submitted to the Visa became
worthless. This first step was completed by August 1721.
The second step was to convert these claims into public debt, “based on the realm’s
abilities and on the rules of fairness”: that is, (a) to reduce the aggregate amount, and
(b) to treat the individual claims based on the information submitted. For the aggregate
amount, the government announced that it would accept a total debt capital of 1631mL,
and an annual interest payment of 40mL. To solve the allocation problem across individuals,
the government announced a matrix: the rows were the instruments, the columns were the
manner in which they had been acquired (from a reimbursement, from a sale of real estate
or personal estate, etc); the entries in the matrix were the coefficient by which the nominal
amount was to be reduced.39 The coefficient ranged from 100% (government bonds traced
to a reimbursement) to 5% (any security submitted without explanation).
Applying the matrix to all the claims took over a year, employed thousands of employees,
and cost 9mL (Dutot 1935, 2:266). The regulations governing their activities are intricate
and detailed (see Hautchamp). Fraud and corruption inevitably occurred, but was harshly
repressed. The work was completed in September 1722. Claimants were given certificates
of liquidation, which they could then convert into government bonds, either perpetual or
life annuities. For the purpose of redeeming the certificates, a total of 1700mL in capital,
47mL in perpetual annuities, were created from 1720 to January 1724, slightly more than
initially promised.40
What exactly had become of the notes?
Notes were either converted into other instruments (either bank accounts or bonds) or
38 We

have little information on the accounts of the System and the Visa. What we have comes mostly
from a controversy in the 1730s. In 1738 Dutot published his Réflexions politiques . . ., which contained in
passing a criticism of the Visa; this book prompted one of the Paris brothers, Paris-Duverney to reply in
1740 with an Examen du livre intitulé Réflexions politiques . . .; Dutot wrote a rejoinder but died before
publishing it; Harsin published it in 1935. The archives of the Visa were publicly burned in 1722, those of
the System were burned in 1727 (a 250-page manuscript inventory of the latter exists in AN V/7/235).
39 To check on the statements made by owners concerning the origin of their securities, the government
ordered notaries to submit all documents relating to reimbursement and other financial transaction since
September 1719.The information collected was then solemnly burned in September 1722 to protect “le secret
des familles.”
40 A few other outlets were also provided for these certificates, such as the purchase of some offices that
were recreated, the payment of tax arrears, or the purchase of new coins, since the monetary reform of
September 1720 continued until 1724.

36

(1) total notes printed
(2) burned Jun - Nov 1720
of which:
(2a) bank accounts submitted to Visa
(2b) bank accounts not submitted to Visa
(2c) bank accounts redeemed by Company
(2d) other
(3) not burned (1−2)
of which:
(3a) notes submitted to Visa Jan 1721
(3b) notes not submitted to Visa
(3c) other (=3−3a−3b)
(4) (2c+2d+3c)
(5) Bonds submitted to the Visa
Unaccounted for (4−5)
Total submitted to Visa (2a+3a+5)

2822.3
752.6
148.6
38.8
51.9
513.4
2069.7
645.4
28.4
1395.9
1961.1
1417.2
544.0
2211.2

Table 7:

Accounting for the notes of the Bank. Sources: Calculations based
on Paris-Duverney (1740) and Dutot (1935).

redeemed before the Visa, submitted to the Visa, or neither. Some of the notes converted or
redeemed were burned (in particular all those converted into bank accounts), others weren’t.
Table 7 collects existing information.
As Table 7 shows, most of the notes converted or redeemed into something other than
bank accounts (line 5) can be accounted for with the various government and Company
bonds which were themselves submitted to the Visa, but this leaves a remainder of 544mL
in notes not converted into bonds. There are two possibilities.
Some of the remainder probably consists in shares issued after June 1720 to reduce the
circulation of notes. We know that up to 70,000 subscriptions were issued in July 1720,
which accounts for 70mL, and which were converted into shares in Sept. 1720 at a rate of
1/8 share per subscription. Also, up to 500,000 tenths of shares were issued at 800L each in
September 1720, which would potentially account for up to 400mL. But we do not have any
information on the number of tenths of shares actually issued: we only know that there were
about 200,000 shares in July 1720, that a maximum number of 250,000 was set in September
1720, and that only half that amount was submitted to the Visa in January 1721. We can
only say that between 70mL and 470mL of the remainder could have been converted into
shares.
Another part of this remainder consists of notes exchanged for specie between June and
October 1720. Recall that Law had proceeded to buy back the metallic stock from March
to May 1720; Faure (1977, 378, 385) finds at least 221mL in notes issued for coins at 82.5L
per marc. After the July 31 devaluation, the same coins could buy back at par 320mL
in notes at par, or 550mL at market value. Marais (1863, 1:372) says that the Bank was
buying notes with specie on the market at a 25% discount over face value, and Dutot (2000,
323, 383) complains that 51mL in specie held by the mints in late August were all spent to
exchange the notes of well-connected owners, although he does not say at what price. Also,
in September 1720 new gold and silver coins were issued, which could be purchased with up

37

to 1/3 of the price in small denomination notes.
In summary, one can say that of the 2800mL of notes issued, 2200mL ended up in the
Visa liquidation and became government bonds, and of the remaining 600mL some was
redeemed in coin at varying rates, and the rest converted into shares of the Company.
The 2211.2mL of Table 7 submitted to the Visa were reduced in face value to 1700mL,
a 23.5% average reduction, but with much variation across individuals. The authors of the
Visa (Paris-Duverney 1740) insist that their goal was to bring back the debt to a sustainable
level while maintaining fairness, by which they meant a bias for small holders. No claim of
500L or less was reduced: these small claims represent half of the individuals and 40% of
the sums involved. This means that the remaining 60% of the sums were reduced by 39%
on average. The cash value of the liquidation certificates issued by the Visa was around
25% of face value on the open market in 1722 (Dutot 1935, 2:279). This means that the
average holder of a note ultimately got about 20% of face value in March 1722, which was
the market value as of early November 1720.
A supplementary tax on excessive profits from trading in the System was levied on about
two hundred individuals and reduced the debt by another 190mL. The rest, about 1500mL,
was converted into life annuities at 4% and perpetual annuities at 2%, the bulk of the latter
still in existence in 1789 (Marion 1914, 1:474).

7.2

Government finances during and after 1720

Table 8 summarizes what indications I have found about French finances from 1715 to
1726.41 The numbers are very approximative because, in contrast with numbers for the
period up to 1715, they come mostly from summary planning budgets rather than ex-post
accounts. For the year 1720 we do not have even such a summary document; and in 1721
the government had so little information that it used as a basis a plan made for 1717. The
numbers I have put in Table 8 would correspond to mid-1720, under the System.42
The Table shows clearly the general pattern of public finances during that period. In
1715, the debt burden is large. In 1716, exceptional seigniorage revenues allow the government to deal with the most pressing debts, but in 1717 political pressures force the
government to rescind wartime direct taxes In 1718 it had to resort to seigniorage again,
41 For revenues and expenditures: BN Fr. 7766, fol. 250-55; BN, Joly de Fleury 566, fol. 254-81; BN,
NAF 22245, fol. 365; Affaires Étrangères, M & D France 1258, fol. 150-1, 200-4. For direct taxes: Clamageran
3:198, 226-32, AN K885, 1, p. 40, AN K886, no 13. For indirect taxes: AN K885, 1, p. 51, 59, 2, p. 58; AN
G/7/1176; Dutot (1935, 2:214-19); BN, NAF 5010. The negative number for seigniorage in 1724 reflects
the cost to the government of capital losses on coins held by tax collectors during the revaluations of the
coinage in that year (BN, NAF 22245, fol. 365).
42 BN,

Joly de Fleury 566, fol 277. For 1720 I have done as follows. I have interpolated civil spending
from 1718 and 1721. I assumed 14mL for the navy (compared to 12mL in 1721); expenditures for the army
were 74mL in 1720 (BN Joly de Fleury 566, fol. 278). I put debt service at 36mL, the debt to the Company.
I assumed that direct revenues, miscellaneous revenues, and revenues from the post farm were unchanged
from 1719; revenues from the general farms were 27.4mL (BN NAF 5010) net of the 36mL payment to the
Company. I have set seigniorage revenues from the mints at 0, although from September 1720 on they were
positive.

38

direct
indirect
misc
seigniorage
total revenues

1715
101.7
59.9
3.9
0.0
165.6

1716
100.4
60.1
3.9
75.5
239.9

1717
75.3
59.8
3.9
12.7
151.6

1718
63.8
59.7
2.7
17.9
144.1

military
civil
total non-debt spending

71.5
46.3
117.8

50.7
26.1
76.8

50.7
25.2
75.9

47.8
86.7
28

163.1

75.7
93.7
40

primary surplus
debt service
livre index

Table 8:

40

1720
58.8
66.8
2.9
0.0
128.6

1721
66.9
76.7
3.6
24.0
171.3

45.8
36.6
82.3

88.0
35.0
123.0

61.8

5.6
58.6
82.5

60

1719
58.8
67.0
2.9
12.0
140.8

60

1722
78.7
90.9
3.9
20.0
193.5

1724
88.6
108.6
4.4
-33.5
168.0

1725
80.9
104.0
6.2
0.0
191.1

76.4
34.1
110.4

66.3
41.0
107.3

61.0
40.6
101.6

60.8

60.7
86.7
40

89.5

75

75

1723
87.7
103.1
4.1
0.0
195.0

75

Government finances, 1715–26. Sources: see text.

and it was still some ways from balance. More cuts in expenditures were planned for 1719,
and indirect tax collection was starting to improve. The System was accompanied by a number of tax cuts and an amnesty for overdue taxes, leading to a fall in revenues. Spending
had surged, meanwhile, because of the war with Spain in 1719. After the end of the System,
revenues increased, at first because of seigniorage, then because of increases in regular tax
revenues. This eventually allowed the government to reach balance by 1725 or 1726.
The primary deficit at the peak of the System was over 50mL, which is as large as it was
during the War of Spanish Succession. Law’s management of the traditional components of
government finances, cutting taxes in time of high expenditure, was good policy (and highly
unusual for France), but might seem less than prudent when undertaken at the same time as
his other radical reforms.43 It can be argued that the high level of spending in 1719 and 1720
was exceptional and temporary, and that revenues would soon improve as they did. It is
true that the improvement in revenues came in part from reversals of Law’s tax cuts in 1722
and further tax increases. In part they came from improved tax collection in the early 1720s,
which accrued to the government because the indirect taxes were not farmed but managed
on the government’s account (en régie). The same improvements would have accrued to
the Company and its shareholders, not to the government, at least for the remainder of the
lease on the farms (until 1724).
Faure (1977) castigated Law’s “good fairy policy.” If the deficit in 1719 (the war year)
was twice that of 1720, we can figure that about 150mL in deficits were financed by money
creation during the System.

7.3

The Indies Company

The Indies company survived the collapse of the System. The government decided on January 1721 to hold it accountable for the bank notes; the shareholders strenuously objected
43 Law

(1934, 3:38–76) intended to completely do away with existing taxes and replace them with a single
tax on land, an idea that would find partial implementation in 1791.

39

41.5

that the bank had been merged with the company against the latter’s will and had always
been a tool of government policy. The government progressively relented; and gave the
company the means to continue as a viable commercial enterprise, by absolving it of the
System and giving it new monopolies.44
The shares in the Indies Company were also submitted to the Visa. The number of shares
was 600,000 as of March 12, 1720, reduced to 200,000 by June 3 as a result of the Company’s
repurchase program and of the king’s gift of the 100,000 he owned to the Company as part
of the rescue effort in early June (Dutot 2000, 251, 260). These were converted into new
shares at a 2:3 ratio over the summer, leaving 133,000 new shares. An unknown number of
these failed to submit to the “second stamp” of October 1720 (see Appendix). In 1721, only
125,000 shares were presented to the Visa, and they were reduced to 55,735. The market
value of shares fluctuated quite a bit after the liquidation, but it averaged about 1000L
between March 1722 and August 1723 (Dutot 1935, 2:279). Assuming that the average
share was cut in half by the Visa, and taking into account changes in the unit of account
and the reverse share split of June 1720, this final value of the Indies share corresponds
to the market price of mid-November 1720 (about 300L), or of the spring of 1719 (about
270L).
3000

2500

livres

2000

1500

1000

500

1725

1730

1735

1740

1745

1750

1755

1760

1765

1770

Figure 13: Price of the Indies Company share: annual average and weekly observations where
available. Source: Morellet (1769) for the annual averages; newspapers (Gazette d’Amsterdam,
Affiches de Paris) for the observations; Dutot and Hautchamp for the early observations.
44 The

Company was lucky to count among its principal shareholders a royal prince, the duke of Bourbon,
who would succeed the duke of Orléans as prime minister after the latter’s death in December 1723.

40

Next, the Company was disentangled from the System. This involved some accounting
exercises between Company and government. The government had converted the Company’s
liabilities into its own bonds, making the Company a debtor of the government. The debt
was settled partly by offsetting it against the Company’s conversion of government debt
in 1719–20,45 partly by an write-off of 583mL. The Company emerged from receivership in
March 1723, and in June 1725 a series of edicts absolved it from any further liability for the
System, and confirmed its remaining privileges.
monopoly
Louisiana
Canadian beaver
tobacco
Senegal trade
India and China trade
North African trade
mints
General Farms
Recettes Gales
Haiti slave trade
Guinea trade
domaine d’Occident
coffee distribution
tobacco monopoly

acquired
Aug 1717
Aug 1717
Aug 1718
Dec 1718
May 1719
Jul 1719
Jul 1719
Aug 1719
Aug 1719
Sep 1720
Sep 1720
Mar 1723
Aug 1723
Sep 1723

lost
1731
1763
1721
1763
1769
1730
1721
1721
1721
1725
1767
1725
1727
Jul 1747∗
Jan
Feb
Jul
Feb
Aug
Nov
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jul
Jul

Table 9:

Privileges and monopolies of the Indies Company. ∗ : exchanged for a perpetual annuity of 9mL.
Sources: Morellet (1769), Haudrère (1989).

At the same time, the Company was placed under tighter government supervision, with
the finance minister sitting on the board, and made to focus on its “core competencies.” It
lost the lease on the General Farms and the mints, and the collection of the direct taxes,
in January 1721, and the lease on tobacco in July 1721. It initially retained all its trading
monopolies, but shed them one after the other as they proved unprofitable or unenforceable,
retaining only the monopoly on Canadian furs, the slave trade in Guinea and Senegal, and
the trade with India and China (see Table 9). The Company continued to operate until
the treaty of Paris of 1763 deprived France of its possessions in Canada and India, and the
company of its commercial viability. The Company was liquidated in 1770 and its shares
converted into government bonds (Velde and Weir 1992).
The Company share was traded on the market from the end of the Visa in 1722, and
quotations were reported in newspapers through the 18th century. As Figure 13 shows,
the price was quite volatile, both at high frequencies and at low frequencies. The main
disruptions are wars: Polish succession in 1733, Austrian succession in the 1740s, and the
Seven Years War in the 1750s. The Company was obligated to pay a fixed dividend, initially
150L per year, backed by the commercial profits, and by the tobacco monopoly which the
45 The

Edict of June 1725 mentions assignations sur le trésor royal acquittées par [la Compagnie] en 1719
et 1720 , which Giraud (1966, 3:70) interprets as the liquidation certificates converted into shares or notes
by the Company.

41

400
dividend
300
total net earnings

livres / share

200

100

0

earnings from trade

−100

−200
1725

1730

1735

1740

1745

1750

1755

1760

1765

1770

Figure 14:

Commercial earnings (profits on sales of merchandise less shipping costs), net total
earnings after interest, and dividend of the Indies Company (inclusive of the 1745 loan). Source:
Morellet (1769), Haudrère (1989).

king ceded in 1723 in payment of his debt of 100mL (representing the original billets d’État
brought by the subscribers of 1717–18). A first crisis brought about a suspension in the
payment of dividends in January 1745; the dividends of 1744 and 1745 were not paid in cash;
instead, the Company took the coupons (wroth 300L) along with a 200L cash payment, and
issued in exchange a 5%-bearing bond, which it endeavored to reimburse over 15 years.
When dividend payments resumed, they were set at 80L. A second crisis at the end of the
Seven Years War brought about in 1764 a capital call on shareholders in order to maintain
the same dividend, and an end to the repurchase of the 1745 bonds.
Figure 14 plots the actual dividend payments, with capital calls counted as negative
dividends. It also plots the commercial earnings on a per-share basis, and the total net
earnings after interest payments.46 The bulk of commercial revenues (90%) came from
trade beyond Cape Hope. Commercial earnings averaged 2.6mL from 1725 to 1769 (64L
per share), while total net earnings averaged 7.8mL (162L).
46 Commercial

earnings are calculated as the net revenue from sales of imported merchandise less shipping
costs (construction, maintenance and fitting of ships, provisions, wages of embarked personnel). Total
earnings adds revenues from the tobacco monopoly and deducts interest payments on annuities and on
the 1745 loan. Repayments on the 1745 loan are not deducted, as they are counted as (delayed) dividend
payments. I haven’t yet found data on other expenditures such as personnel and fixed investment in France
and the colonies, so the net earnings figure are an upper bound.

42

8
8.1

Six Short Questions about John Law
What did Law think he was doing?

Although, as Murphy (1997) emphasizes, Law was both a policymaker and a theorist, there
remains a disconnect between the two aspects of his life. His writings on economics in
general and schemes for banks in particular cease in 1715, shortly before his last pleas were
successful; and we have little direct testimony on what he thought he was doing when he
created the System, aside from a few apologetic pieces anonymously published in 1720, and
a lengthy self-justification sent to the duke of Orléans in 1723 (Law 1934, 3:98–190).
Law entered economics by way of adding to an existing literature on land banks. The
idea of replacing commodity money with a substitute had been around for decades, and
in England in particular a stream of proposals had been published since 1650, all centered
on the idea of a land bank. His first essay, published by Murphy in 1994, belonged to that
tradition, and his magnum opus, Money and Trade (1705) was an attempt to provide deeper
theoretical underpinnings for the proposal he would continue to put forth until 1710 or so.
The goal is essentially to replace commodity money with an alternative that better fulfills
the functions of money. Law emphasizes particularly stability and liquidity among the
desirable properties of money; the former leads him away from silver, whose value fluctuates
over the long term as demonstrated by the Price Revolution, and the latter toward financial
securities that he sees traded on the London market. He does not address in his writings the
fact that shares can be considerably more unstable in value than silver; in fact, this tension
is at the root of his fateful decision to fix the price of shares in term of notes in March 1720.
Money and Trade, however, places another consideration at the center of his proposal,
namely the elasticity of currency. Law wants to put under-utilized resources to work by
providing a source of loans to entrepreneurs, thereby stimulating employment, output, and
ultimately the demand for money, in a manner compatible with stable prices. He also sees
a lowering of interest rates as a desirable consequence of expanding the money supply. This
explains his insistence on achieving an interest rate of 2%, as indicated by the return on the
Indies shares, which justified in his opinion both the high valuation of the shares which he
sustained, and the massive debt conversion that he engineered.
Law’s writings, however, are close to silent on the centerpiece of the System, the debt
conversion and the takeover of all tax collection. No such idea appears in any of his pre-1715
writings, and he makes only vague hints at grandiose projects in his correspondence with
the Regent in late 1715. A few apologetic writings dating from March and May 1720 are
known, as well as some writings from 1723–24 to the Regent and to his successor as French
prime minister, but they shed little light on the rationale for the System.
At one level, it seemed natural for the government to enjoy the benefits of lower interest
rates that his Bank had seemingly brought about. In this sense, the debt conversion scheme
is a forerunner of the perfectly orthodox policies followed by Britain later in the 18th century,
of calling outstanding bonds at their face value and replacing them with less expensive debt
once market rates had fallen low enough.
Another idea (Law 1934, 3:88–89) is that government debt crowds out productive in-

43

vestment, and converting it into the equity of a trading firm allows to channel savings into
wealth-creating activities. But by stating that the Company could someday earn greater
returns than the 5% previously enjoyed by bondholders, he flatly contradicts his stated goal
of 2% dividends.
Another explanation given by Law in 1723 (Law 1934, 3:188) is political: he would have
left the Bank and the Company as they were in mid-1719, had it not been for the shaky
state of government finances. But, mindful of the difficulties he had met in 1718 in being
paid his interest by the king, he felt that his companies would inevitably be raided by the
government; lowering the interest on the debt, and thereby bringing the budget into balance,
was a way to prevent it.
His takeover of debt collection can be motivated as a tactical move, intended to put
out of business the class of financiers who had long profited from the government’s poor
handling of its finances and its inability to borrow from a capital market. Law’s System, as
a by-product, had imported into France the active securities markets that Amsterdam and
London already had. In the new rationalized system of public finances, the financiers were
deprived of their function as lenders, and likewise as tax collectors.
Lüthy (1:314-5) suggests another tactical reason for the takeover of the Farms: as a
consequence of the 1717 decree requiring tax collectors to accept the Bank’s notes as legal
tender for taxes, they were holding large amounts of notes, and this put them in a position
to run the bank at any time. Law’s buy-out was necessary in order to ward off this threat
from his enemies.
Finally, Law repeatedly (3:80, 87, 108, 156) argued that centralizing all fiscal functions
in a single entity gave the proper incentives to everyone, by aligning the King’s interests
with those of his creditors. The Bank, merged with the Company, was now a resource that
was vital to the government, and he could not afford to default on his commitments to the
Bank, and in particular manipulate the currency (see Greif, Milgrom and Weingast 1994 for
a similar argument about the Bank of England). The Company was an single independent
entity, controlled in principle by its shareholders and not by the King (notwithstanding the
fact that the King was its largest, albeit not majority, shareholder), and in a monopoly
position vis-a-vis an otherwise sovereign and unaccountable monarch. This was in some
ways an extension of the old principle behind government borrowing from tax collectors
(who held tax revenues as collateral for their loans), but also a radical experiment in quasidemocratic control of the crucial element of the State, its ability to collect revenues and
borrow.

8.2

Was the System a bubble?

This is an age-old question, one that has been asked in one form or another since 1720.
During the year 1718, the price of a share in the Company of the West stood around 250L.
After the Company’s restructuring in 1722, the share price was about the same, adjusting
for share splits and changes in the units of account. In-between, the price peaked at 10,000L
in January 1720 (see Figure 4). Can a 40-fold rise and fall in the price of an asset be justified
on the basis of reasonable beliefs about prospective returns on this asset?

44

8.2.1

Expected earnings

Law’s companies paid dividends twice a year, and dividends were announced in advance
(see Table 6). The dividend announced on Dec. 29, 1719, at the peak of the System, is of
particular significance. Could the dividend of 200L per share announced by Law justify the
market’s price of shares at 9000L?
Writing in 1723, Law (1935, 3:212–13) counted that he needed revenues of 80mL to
pay the 200L dividend to 400,000 shares, omitting 100,000 shares held by the Company
as collateral for loans, and a like amount owned by the King (which were ultimately given
for free to the Company in June 1720). He presented some estimates of likely earnings to
the general assembly, and Dutot presented slightly lower estimates (see Table 10). I now
evaluate those estimates.
Source
King’s debt
General Farms
Recettes Gales
Mints
Tobacco
Trade
Total

Law (1)
48
12
1
12
6
12
91

Law (2)
48
8
1
10
5
8
80

Dutot
48
15
1.5
4
2
10
80.5

revised
48
10
1
0
10
6.5
75.5

Table 10:

Expected revenues from the Company’s activities as of Dec. 1719.
Law’s first evaluation was presented in December 1719 to the shareholders; his
second evaluation was made in May 1723. Source: Harsin (1928, 174), and see
text.

The minting profit was obviously a one-time gain, which Law could not expect to make
on a continuous basis, especially given his plan to replace gold and silver with paper money.
Trade was overestimated, as the information presented above on the Indies company
after 1720 indicates. The average dividend paid per share, inclusive of repurchases of shares
in 1730–33, is 117L (at 60L/marc) or 6.5mL in aggregate, in 1719 livres.
The most difficult piece to estimate is the profit on the general farms. The price of Law’s
lease was 52mL, which was an increase over the previous lease of 1718 (48mL). Dutot (1935,
2:214) states that the revenues during the lease year 1720 were 90.4mL, but he does not
take into account the fact that the livre was on average at 80/marc during that period: at
60L/marc, this would amount to 67.6mL, or a 15.6mL profit; which is the profit claimed
by the Company after the fact, in April 1721 (Giraud 1966, 3:80). There is evidence that
profits would have increased over the next few years. The Farms were managed directly by
the government for the next few years, and, according to White (2001), the receipts rose
from 61mL in 1721 to 91.5mL in 1725 in that period. That would have yielded an average
profit of 22.8mL, but these would not have lasted. During the Carlier lease which followed
(1726–32), the average profit was 4.9mL (5.9mL in 1719 livres), but over a lease price of
80mL. That is, the government ratcheted up the lease price when the lease came up for
renewal. The experience of the 18th century suggests that the government might leave in
the 5–15mL range as profit to the Farms, or roughly 10% of gross receipts (Marion 1914,
1:145–46). Of course, had Law’s System continued in place, the government’s power and

45

incentives in its bargaining with the Company would have been quite different, knowing in
particular that part of the profit it was leaving to the Company would have been paid to
former bondholders.
There is better information on the tobacco monopoly: Table 11 reports information on
lease prices paid by successive farmers and, when known, the farmers’ profits. The average
revenue from 1724 to 1789 was about 25mL (at 60L/marc), from which a lease price must
be deducted to obtain the Company’s expected profits. In 1719, the Company paid 3mL
per year, but, as with the General Farms, the difficulty is in estimating what lease prices
would be negotiated in the future. Table 10 assumes a fairly generous 10mL average profit.
Year
1698–1714
1715–16
1717
1718–21
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729

Lease
1.5
2.0
2.2
4.0
1.2
1.8

Profit
?
?
?
2.4
?
?
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.9
7.1
6.8

Year
1730
1731–32
1733–38
1739–44
1745–50
1751–56
1757–62
1763–68
1769–74
1775–80
1781–86
1786–89

Lease
7.5
7.8
8.0
8.0
13.0
15.0
22.2
23.1
24.1
26
27–31

Profit
7.0
4.5
6.5
10.5
13.3
12.1
8.7
?
0.9
2.3
?
?

Table 11: Total revenues of the tobacco monopoly, broken down into lease
price and farmers’ profits, in current livres. Notes: the lease years run from
October 1 to September 30. The Company owned the monopoly from 1724
to 1747, and did not farm it from 1724 to 1730, hence there is no lease price
for those years. Sources: Dutot (1935, 2:222–26), Morellet (1769, 51), Marion
(1923, 525), Clamageran (3:254, 402, 444), Matthews (1958, 129–30).
As Table 10 shows, it is not too difficult to come up with an estimate within 10% of
Law’s projection,47 and one can perhaps justify a 200L dividend in steady state, with the
important caveat that, in steady state, Law could not expect to pay no dividends to the
king’s shares, or to those shares held as collateral for loans. Paying dividend on those
additional shares, based on the earnings estimate of Table 10, would bring the dividend
down to 125L.
Even granting the 200L dividend, can one accept a valuation of 9000L per share, a P/E
ratio of 45? Law clearly thought so, as he explicitly set a target interest rate of 2% for his
System.
8.2.2

Discount factor

As described above, there are several distinct components to the Company’s revenue stream.
The trade component (6.5mL) can be evaluated by looking at the Indies Company as it
survived after 1725. Its price was quoted on the market, and we see that the price-dividend
47 Harsin’s

estimate of 99mL (cited in Faure 1977, 304) is perhaps overly generous.

46

24
22
20

price−dividend ratio

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
1725

Figure 15:

1730

1735

1740

1745

1750

1755

1760

1765

1770

Price-dividend ratio on the Indies Company stock, 1723–69. Source: Morellet (1769).

ratio fluctuated widely between 4 and 24, and averaged about 15 (Figure 15). The fiscal
component (tobacco, general farms, collection of direct taxes, amounting to 21mL) was
probably subject to similar risks as the Indies trade, since (as shown in Figure 14) the main
source of risk were foreign wars. Not much growth could be expected to boost the ratio,
except perhaps in the tobacco monopoly, which shows 1.5% annual real revenues growth.
Overall fiscal revenues grew by about 0.6% annually in real terms from 1726 to 1789, slightly
above the estimated 0.5% GDP growth (Maddison 2001).
The largest component of revenues (almost two thirds) was the king’s debt. The market
price on 4% debt in 1718 was 50% of face value (Veron de Forbonnais 6:67; Law 1934, 3:199),
and after the Visa it was 20 to 27% on 2% debt (Dutot 1:343). Both figures suggest a PE
ratio of 12.5. Of course, these valuations of French government debt come from a time when
default risk was probably seen as fairly high. A market price of 8% on French debt is about
5% higher than the price on Dutch debt at the same time, or English debt around 1730.
8.2.3

The back of the envelope

Annual revenues of 75.5mL and a factor of 15 yields a valuation of 1132mL, or a share price
of 1875L, which is one fifth of the peak share price of 9000L, or overvaluation by a factor
of 5. This isn’t quite fair to Law, who would have argued that his System was bound to
reduce interest rates on government debt, both by making the debt more secure and by
lowering interest rates in an economy lacking in financial intermediation. He also argued

47

that his System would boost economic growth, and these claims taken at face value all tend
to raise the PE ratio. However, to justify the market valuation on the basis of 75mL in
earnings would require, say, Dutch interest rates of 3% and a growth rate of 1.5%, which
no European country enjoyed before the start of the industrial revolution. Assuming alone
that Law’s System would have brought interest rates to Dutch levels would leave overvalued
by a factor of 2; this seems to me as far as one can go on behalf of Law. It seems difficult
to avoid the conclusion that the Company was overvalued several times over.
8.2.4

A manipulated market

Overvaluation does not mean bubble or irrationality. It remains to note that the prices
which we see rising in late 1719 are not “pure” market prices. Law had been influencing, if
not manipulating, the price of his company’s shares for a long time (Lüthy 1:310, 319). As
early as May 1718 he was buying futures on the shares of his Company, as a way to publicize
his beliefs about future capital gains. But it is in the late fall 1719 that the Company became
an active participant: it lent 2500L against the security of a share (effectively putting a floor
on the share price), then on October 9 it decided to buy back shares from any shareholder at
5000L each (Dutot 2000, 127, 168), intervened directly in the market (for example selling for
30mL of shares in one week in November to keep down the price); finally, in late December
an office was set up to buy and sell shares at prices posted every day (Faure 307–308,
319, 340). The office operated intermittently until the price of shares was officially pegged
at 9000L on March 5; and when it stopped its operations, the share prices faltered. From
January 1720 at the latest, probably from November or December 1719, one cannot consider
the “market” price to represent anything but Law’s policies.
Price manipulation is not out of character for Law. His writings from during and after
the System are replete with justifications of coercion in the better interest of people, such as
the statement that “it was necessary to use authority and induce the people to contribute
to their own welfare” and a commentary on John 5:6 to the effect that “some sick men
refuse to heal” (Law 1934, 3:91, 170). Although he is commenting on the coercive measures
taken in early 1720 against gold and silver, he probably saw price manipulation as a way of
helping people help themselves in spite of themselves.
Ultimately, massive price manipulation, or price fixing, is what led to the expansion of
note issue in 1720. Although Law was probably acting in good faith and out of confidence
in his System’s prospects, the rise of 1719 is nothing but the preview of the price-pegging
of March 1720 and the subsequent monetization of the company’s equity.

8.3

Did the System make sense?

On a conceptual level, Law’s System involves a number of basic principles that are not
absurd. His debt conversion scheme relies on the idea that all government liabilities are
backed the same way, with future revenues that are either strictly fiscal (revenues from existing taxes) or quasi-fiscal (the ability to create monopolies). In fact, the French monarchy
had a long history of raising funds by selling claims to these revenues. Furthermore, that
backing is inherently stochastic. The debt conversion simply made explicit this stochastic

48

nature, by converting existing claims on a constant component of these revenues into claims
on the variable component. It also generalized an existing commitment device, whereby the
tax collector serviced the debt. The novelty was to do so at once, with a single entity, and
retroactively for the entire existing debt.
The other novelty of Law’s scheme was the replacement of specie with paper. This
was the more radical innovation, and one that stood in ill repute for much of subsequent
time. By the 1930s, of course, increasing experience with fiat money and the notion that
government policy (including monetary policy) could and should be used to stimulate the
economy resulted in a rise in Law’s reputation. History does not suggest, however, that the
first large-scale experiment with paper-based fiat money was likely to succeed (see Sargent
and Velde 2001 for earlier experiments with fiat money).
As noted earlier, the viability of the System depended in large part on the relations
that would exist between the King and the Company. Greif, Wilgrom and Weingast (1994)
suggest arguments why placing a monopolist vis-a-vis a sovereign without commitment
technology might be a good idea. The clean separation of the two actors did not obtain in
practice, however: the King was a major shareholder, Law was both the king’s minister and
the Company’s CEO, and ultimately the Company’s powers and monopolies derived from
the King’s will.
Quantitatively, the crucial aspect of Law’s System was the ability to justify a high
enough share price to carry out the debt conversion on profitable terms. To offer the king
better terms than he was paying on his debt, the PE ratio on the Company’s shares had
to be higher than 22. A dividend of 125L (based on the revenue estimate of Table 10) and
Dutch-like interest rates of 3% could bring valuation to about 5000L, the price at which
Law launched his debt conversion in September 1719. With the benefit of modern theory
and experience, and with a good dose of optimism, it is possible to accept that the System
could have worked.

8.4

Why did the System collapse?

The view that the System was driven by a stockmarket bubble takes care, in a slightly
vacuous way, of explaining the price rise of 1719, and leads into a search for an explanation
of the crash itself. There are naturally the usual conspiracies of powerful vested interests
threatened by Law’s reforms, which Law himself, Dutot, and Murphy blame generally.
Haudrère (1989, 1:78) claims that disappointing results in Louisiana were not known until
the second half of 1720 and that profit-taking was to blame for the downward pressure on
share prices. Law (1934, 3:110) himself, in March 1720, rails against people who try to cash
in on the high prices, without understanding that the shares are assets to be held for their
income like real estate: “men must put themselves in the same frame of mind with respect
to the shares as to their other assets; it seems that they have a hard time doing so on their
own.”
In my view, the rise itself was the result of covert and later overt price support, carried
out in part to entice the bondholders to submit willingly to the debt conversion. The
massive conversion of shares into notes in the first half of 1720 can be seen as profit taking,

49

or simply as the result of an asset being pegged at too high a value. The collapse was
stanched by Law’s ability to print notes and at the same time create demand for them
with the demonetization of gold and silver. But, aside from the openly coercive nature of
the procedure, the exchange rates were soon indicating that this would not be sufficient
to prevent inflation. Once Law started backtracking, in May 1720, no orderly retreat was
possible.
It is harder to understand why Law insisted on pegging the shares so high. Lüthy (1959,
319 n40) argues that early insiders had an interest in keeping share prices up until they
could reap their profits. Whether this was enough of a consideration to move Law in such
a dangerous direction is questionable. It seems more likely that he miscalculated the price
of shares (or, equivalently, the long-term interest rate) at which he thought the System was
sustainable.

8.5

Was the System a default or a swindle?

Whatever Law’s original intentions (and there is no evidence that he originally intended
to default on the debt), the debt conversion into a more or less compulsory monetization
into notes that were ultimately not convertible into silver.48 The point of the Visa was to
reverse this monetization by another forced conversion of notes into bonds. The reduction
from 2800mL in notes, or 2200mL in claims submitted, to 1500mL in bonds, is called by
Marion (1914, 1:112) “yet another default, following the reductions of 1713 and 1715, the
first visa [of 1716], the conversions of 1720, preceding the new violations of public faith by
Fleury, Terray, and many others, and perpetuating a tradition disastrous for creditors and
which would continue throughout the Old Regime.”
Yet a large part of this mass of notes was issued in exchange for shares, themselves
exchanged for bonds. The nominal amounts involved do not matter to the question: was
it a default? Table 2 shows that the debt burden was roughly the same in 1724, after the
System and the Visa, as it was in 1717 after the operations of the Noailles administration.
The debt was increased in the meantime (I estimated about 150mL), but not by a large
amount. If default there was, it was on the order of 5 or 10%, which is modest by the
standards of the Old Regime denounced by Marion. As for the Visa itself, it is hard to see
the deployment of so much bureaucratic talent as a default.
Was Law a swindler? His Company was not an empty shell, but immediately and
aggressively engaged in its trading and colonizing business, sending ships east and west,
founding New Orleans (named after the Regent). His reforms in tax collection and fiscal
administration were short-lived but Marion himself (1914, 1:105–07) recognizes their value.
Most strikingly, while Law initially grew rich with his System (as was surely his plan), he
invested his fortune (at least 9.5mL according to Marion 1914, 1:99) in French real estate,
not a good move for someone planning a quick getaway.
48 Faure’s book, titled “Law’s bankruptcy,” refers to the date of July 17, 1720, when the Bank suspended
payment.

50

8.6

What to make of the System?

This paper is about a single data point, a unique although hardly unknown experiment.
No theory will be proved or disproved by it. It is also a large-scale and extremely complex
experiment, involving aspects of finance, public finance, and macroeconomics, and carried
out at the scale of a country. The System is of interest, beyond its picturesque details, either
as an example or a point along a path of theory and experimentation. Law’s interest in
creating a fiat money that would serve as a tool for policy-making is almost anachronistic;
indeed, his critical fortunes did not revive until the 1930s, when such a notion became
orthodox. The other concept that emerges from the System, that of government equity, is
not one that has been formally reprised yet; Law may turn out to have been even more of
an anachronism than we think.

51

9

References

Bonney, Margaret, and Richard Bonney. Jean-Roland Malet, premier historien des finances de la monarchie
française. Paris: Ministère des Finances, 1993.
Brewer, John. The Sinews of Power : War, Money, and the English State, 1688–1783. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1989.
Buvat, Jean. Journal de la Régence (1715–1723). Paris: H. Plon, 1865.
Clamageran, Jean–Jules. Histoire de l’impôt en France. Paris: Guillaumin et Cie, 1867–76.
Cochrane, John H. “Book Review of ’Famous First Bubbles’ by Peter M. Garber.” Journal of Political
Economy 109 (October 2001): 1150–54.
Crafts, N. F. R. British Economic Growth During the Industrial Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
Deane, Phyllis, and William A. Cole. British Economic Growth, 1688–1959: Trends and Structure. London:
Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Dutot. Reflexions politiques sur les finances, et le commerce. Edited by Paul Harsin. Paris: E. Droz, 1935.
. Histoire du Systême de John Law (1716–1720). Edited by Antoin E. Murphy. Paris: Institut nationale d’études démographiques, 2000.
Faure, Edgar. La Banqueroute de Law. Paris: Gallimard, 1977.
Garber, Peter M. “Famous First Bubbles.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 4 (Spring 1990): 35–54.
. Famous First Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 2000.
Giraud, Marcel. Histoire de la Louisiane française. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1966.
Greif, Avner, Paul Milgrom and Barry R. Weingast. “Coordination, Commitment, and Enforcement: The
Case of the Merchant Guild.” Journal of Political Economy 102 (August 1994): 745–76.
Hamilton, Earl J. “Prices and Wages at Paris under John Law’s System.” Quarterly Journal of Economics
51 (November 1936): 42–70.
. “John Law of Lauriston: Banker, Gamester, Merchant, Thief?” American Economic Review 57
(May 1967): 273–282.
. “The Political Economy of France at the Time of John Law.” History of Political Economy 1
(January 1969): 123–49.
Harsin, Paul. Les doctrines monétaires et financières en France du XVIe au XVIIIe sic̀le. Paris: F. Alcan,
1928.
. Crédit public et banque d’état en France du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle. Paris: E. Droz, 1933.
Haudrère, Philippe. La Compagnie française des Indes au XVIIIème siècle (1719-1795). Paris: Librairie de
l’Inde, 1989.
Hautchamp, Barthélémy Marmont du. Histoire du Système des Finances sous la minorité de Louis XV. La
Haye: P. de Hondt, 1739.
. Histoire générale et particulière du Visa. La Haye: F. H. Scheurleer, 1743.
Hoffman, Philip T., Gilles Postel-Vinay, and Jean-Laurent Rosenthal. Priceless markets : the political
economy of credit in Paris, 1660-1870. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

52

Lafaurie, Jean. Les Assignats et les Papiers-monnaies émis par l’État au XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Le Léopard
d’Or, 1981.
Law, John. Œuvres complètes. Edited by Paul Harsin. Paris: Librairie du recueil Sirey, 193.
Lévy, Claude-Frédéric. Capitalistes et pouvoir au siècle des Lumières, vol. 3. Paris: Mouton, 1980.
Lüthy, Herbert. La Banque Protestante en France de la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes à la Révolution
(vol. 1). Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1959.
Marais, Mathieu. Journal et Mémoires. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1863–68.
Marion, Marcel. Histoire financière de la France (vol. 1). Paris: Arthur Rousseau, 1914.
McCusker, John J. Money and Exchange in Europe and America, 1600–1775: A Handbook. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1975.
Mitchell, Brian R. British Historical Statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Murphy, Antoin E. John Law: Economic Theorist and Policy-Maker. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Neal, Larry. The Rise of Financial Capitalism: International Capital Markets in the Age of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Piossens, chevalier de. Mémoires de la Régence. Amsterdam: no publisher, 1749.
Price, Jacob M. France and the Chesapeake; a history of the French tobacco monopoly, 1674-1791, and of its
relationship to the British and American tobacco trades. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
1973.
Riley, James C. “French Finances, 1727–1768.” Journal of Modern History 59 (June 1987): 209–243.
Riley, James C., and John J. McCusker. “Money Supply, Economic Growth, and the Quantity Theory of
Money: France, 1650–1788.” Explorations in Economic History 2 (July 1983): 274–293.
Sargent, Thomas J. and François R. Velde. “Macroeconomic Features of the French Revolution.” Journal of
Political Economy 103 (June 1995): 474-518.
. The Big Problem of Small Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Sims, Christopher A. “Fiscal Consequences for Mexico of Adopting the Dollar.” Journal of Money, Credit,
and Banking 33–2 (May 2001): 597–616.
Velde, François R., and David R. Weir. “The Financial Market and Government Debt Policy in France,
1746–1793.” Journal of Economic History 52 (March 1992): 1–39.
Vührer, Alphonse. Histoire de la dette publique en France. Paris: Berger-Levrault & Cie, 1886.

53

Working Paper Series
A series of research studies on regional economic issues relating to the Seventh Federal
Reserve District, and on financial and economic topics.
Dynamic Monetary Equilibrium in a Random-Matching Economy
Edward J. Green and Ruilin Zhou

WP-00-1

The Effects of Health, Wealth, and Wages on Labor Supply and Retirement Behavior
Eric French

WP-00-2

Market Discipline in the Governance of U.S. Bank Holding Companies:
Monitoring vs. Influencing
Robert R. Bliss and Mark J. Flannery

WP-00-3

Using Market Valuation to Assess the Importance and Efficiency
of Public School Spending
Lisa Barrow and Cecilia Elena Rouse
Employment Flows, Capital Mobility, and Policy Analysis
Marcelo Veracierto
Does the Community Reinvestment Act Influence Lending? An Analysis
of Changes in Bank Low-Income Mortgage Activity
Drew Dahl, Douglas D. Evanoff and Michael F. Spivey

WP-00-4

WP-00-5

WP-00-6

Subordinated Debt and Bank Capital Reform
Douglas D. Evanoff and Larry D. Wall

WP-00-7

The Labor Supply Response To (Mismeasured But) Predictable Wage Changes
Eric French

WP-00-8

For How Long Are Newly Chartered Banks Financially Fragile?
Robert DeYoung

WP-00-9

Bank Capital Regulation With and Without State-Contingent Penalties
David A. Marshall and Edward S. Prescott

WP-00-10

Why Is Productivity Procyclical? Why Do We Care?
Susanto Basu and John Fernald

WP-00-11

Oligopoly Banking and Capital Accumulation
Nicola Cetorelli and Pietro F. Peretto

WP-00-12

Puzzles in the Chinese Stock Market
John Fernald and John H. Rogers

WP-00-13

The Effects of Geographic Expansion on Bank Efficiency
Allen N. Berger and Robert DeYoung

WP-00-14

Idiosyncratic Risk and Aggregate Employment Dynamics
Jeffrey R. Campbell and Jonas D.M. Fisher

WP-00-15

1

Working Paper Series (continued)
Post-Resolution Treatment of Depositors at Failed Banks: Implications for the Severity
of Banking Crises, Systemic Risk, and Too-Big-To-Fail
George G. Kaufman and Steven A. Seelig

WP-00-16

The Double Play: Simultaneous Speculative Attacks on Currency and Equity Markets
Sujit Chakravorti and Subir Lall

WP-00-17

Capital Requirements and Competition in the Banking Industry
Peter J.G. Vlaar

WP-00-18

Financial-Intermediation Regime and Efficiency in a Boyd-Prescott Economy
Yeong-Yuh Chiang and Edward J. Green

WP-00-19

How Do Retail Prices React to Minimum Wage Increases?
James M. MacDonald and Daniel Aaronson

WP-00-20

Financial Signal Processing: A Self Calibrating Model
Robert J. Elliott, William C. Hunter and Barbara M. Jamieson

WP-00-21

An Empirical Examination of the Price-Dividend Relation with Dividend Management
Lucy F. Ackert and William C. Hunter

WP-00-22

Savings of Young Parents
Annamaria Lusardi, Ricardo Cossa, and Erin L. Krupka

WP-00-23

The Pitfalls in Inferring Risk from Financial Market Data
Robert R. Bliss

WP-00-24

What Can Account for Fluctuations in the Terms of Trade?
Marianne Baxter and Michael A. Kouparitsas

WP-00-25

Data Revisions and the Identification of Monetary Policy Shocks
Dean Croushore and Charles L. Evans

WP-00-26

Recent Evidence on the Relationship Between Unemployment and Wage Growth
Daniel Aaronson and Daniel Sullivan

WP-00-27

Supplier Relationships and Small Business Use of Trade Credit
Daniel Aaronson, Raphael Bostic, Paul Huck and Robert Townsend

WP-00-28

What are the Short-Run Effects of Increasing Labor Market Flexibility?
Marcelo Veracierto

WP-00-29

Equilibrium Lending Mechanism and Aggregate Activity
Cheng Wang and Ruilin Zhou

WP-00-30

Impact of Independent Directors and the Regulatory Environment on Bank Merger Prices:
Evidence from Takeover Activity in the 1990s
Elijah Brewer III, William E. Jackson III, and Julapa A. Jagtiani
Does Bank Concentration Lead to Concentration in Industrial Sectors?
Nicola Cetorelli

WP-00-31

WP-01-01

2

Working Paper Series (continued)
On the Fiscal Implications of Twin Crises
Craig Burnside, Martin Eichenbaum and Sergio Rebelo

WP-01-02

Sub-Debt Yield Spreads as Bank Risk Measures
Douglas D. Evanoff and Larry D. Wall

WP-01-03

Productivity Growth in the 1990s: Technology, Utilization, or Adjustment?
Susanto Basu, John G. Fernald and Matthew D. Shapiro

WP-01-04

Do Regulators Search for the Quiet Life? The Relationship Between Regulators and
The Regulated in Banking
Richard J. Rosen
Learning-by-Doing, Scale Efficiencies, and Financial Performance at Internet-Only Banks
Robert DeYoung
The Role of Real Wages, Productivity, and Fiscal Policy in Germany’s
Great Depression 1928-37
Jonas D. M. Fisher and Andreas Hornstein

WP-01-05

WP-01-06

WP-01-07

Nominal Rigidities and the Dynamic Effects of a Shock to Monetary Policy
Lawrence J. Christiano, Martin Eichenbaum and Charles L. Evans

WP-01-08

Outsourcing Business Service and the Scope of Local Markets
Yukako Ono

WP-01-09

The Effect of Market Size Structure on Competition: The Case of Small Business Lending
Allen N. Berger, Richard J. Rosen and Gregory F. Udell

WP-01-10

Deregulation, the Internet, and the Competitive Viability of Large Banks
and Community Banks
Robert DeYoung and William C. Hunter

WP-01-11

Price Ceilings as Focal Points for Tacit Collusion: Evidence from Credit Cards
Christopher R. Knittel and Victor Stango

WP-01-12

Gaps and Triangles
Bernardino Adão, Isabel Correia and Pedro Teles

WP-01-13

A Real Explanation for Heterogeneous Investment Dynamics
Jonas D.M. Fisher

WP-01-14

Recovering Risk Aversion from Options
Robert R. Bliss and Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou

WP-01-15

Economic Determinants of the Nominal Treasury Yield Curve
Charles L. Evans and David Marshall

WP-01-16

Price Level Uniformity in a Random Matching Model with Perfectly Patient Traders
Edward J. Green and Ruilin Zhou

WP-01-17

Earnings Mobility in the US: A New Look at Intergenerational Inequality
Bhashkar Mazumder

WP-01-18

3

Working Paper Series (continued)
The Effects of Health Insurance and Self-Insurance on Retirement Behavior
Eric French and John Bailey Jones

WP-01-19

The Effect of Part-Time Work on Wages: Evidence from the Social Security Rules
Daniel Aaronson and Eric French

WP-01-20

Antidumping Policy Under Imperfect Competition
Meredith A. Crowley

WP-01-21

Is the United States an Optimum Currency Area?
An Empirical Analysis of Regional Business Cycles
Michael A. Kouparitsas

WP-01-22

A Note on the Estimation of Linear Regression Models with Heteroskedastic
Measurement Errors
Daniel G. Sullivan

WP-01-23

The Mis-Measurement of Permanent Earnings: New Evidence from Social
Security Earnings Data
Bhashkar Mazumder

WP-01-24

Pricing IPOs of Mutual Thrift Conversions: The Joint Effect of Regulation
and Market Discipline
Elijah Brewer III, Douglas D. Evanoff and Jacky So

WP-01-25

Opportunity Cost and Prudentiality: An Analysis of Collateral Decisions in
Bilateral and Multilateral Settings
Herbert L. Baer, Virginia G. France and James T. Moser

WP-01-26

Outsourcing Business Services and the Role of Central Administrative Offices
Yukako Ono

WP-02-01

Strategic Responses to Regulatory Threat in the Credit Card Market*
Victor Stango

WP-02-02

The Optimal Mix of Taxes on Money, Consumption and Income
Fiorella De Fiore and Pedro Teles

WP-02-03

Expectation Traps and Monetary Policy
Stefania Albanesi, V. V. Chari and Lawrence J. Christiano

WP-02-04

Monetary Policy in a Financial Crisis
Lawrence J. Christiano, Christopher Gust and Jorge Roldos

WP-02-05

Regulatory Incentives and Consolidation: The Case of Commercial Bank Mergers
and the Community Reinvestment Act
Raphael Bostic, Hamid Mehran, Anna Paulson and Marc Saidenberg
Technological Progress and the Geographic Expansion of the Banking Industry
Allen N. Berger and Robert DeYoung

WP-02-06

WP-02-07

4

Working Paper Series (continued)
Choosing the Right Parents: Changes in the Intergenerational Transmission
of Inequality  Between 1980 and the Early 1990s
David I. Levine and Bhashkar Mazumder

WP-02-08

The Immediacy Implications of Exchange Organization
James T. Moser

WP-02-09

Maternal Employment and Overweight Children
Patricia M. Anderson, Kristin F. Butcher and Phillip B. Levine

WP-02-10

The Costs and Benefits of Moral Suasion: Evidence from the Rescue of
Long-Term Capital Management
Craig Furfine

WP-02-11

On the Cyclical Behavior of Employment, Unemployment and Labor Force Participation
Marcelo Veracierto

WP-02-12

Do Safeguard Tariffs and Antidumping Duties Open or Close Technology Gaps?
Meredith A. Crowley

WP-02-13

Technology Shocks Matter
Jonas D. M. Fisher

WP-02-14

Money as a Mechanism in a Bewley Economy
Edward J. Green and Ruilin Zhou

WP-02-15

Optimal Fiscal and Monetary Policy: Equivalence Results
Isabel Correia, Juan Pablo Nicolini and Pedro Teles

WP-02-16

Real Exchange Rate Fluctuations and the Dynamics of Retail Trade Industries
on the U.S.-Canada Border
Jeffrey R. Campbell and Beverly Lapham

WP-02-17

Bank Procyclicality, Credit Crunches, and Asymmetric Monetary Policy Effects:
A Unifying Model
Robert R. Bliss and George G. Kaufman

WP-02-18

Location of Headquarter Growth During the 90s
Thomas H. Klier

WP-02-19

The Value of Banking Relationships During a Financial Crisis:
Evidence from Failures of Japanese Banks
Elijah Brewer III, Hesna Genay, William Curt Hunter and George G. Kaufman

WP-02-20

On the Distribution and Dynamics of Health Costs
Eric French and John Bailey Jones

WP-02-21

The Effects of Progressive Taxation on Labor Supply when Hours and Wages are
Jointly Determined
Daniel Aaronson and Eric French

WP-02-22

5

Working Paper Series (continued)
Inter-industry Contagion and the Competitive Effects of Financial Distress Announcements:
Evidence from Commercial Banks and Life Insurance Companies
Elijah Brewer III and William E. Jackson III

WP-02-23

State-Contingent Bank Regulation With Unobserved Action and
Unobserved Characteristics
David A. Marshall and Edward Simpson Prescott

WP-02-24

Local Market Consolidation and Bank Productive Efficiency
Douglas D. Evanoff and Evren Örs

WP-02-25

Life-Cycle Dynamics in Industrial Sectors. The Role of Banking Market Structure
Nicola Cetorelli

WP-02-26

Private School Location and Neighborhood Characteristics
Lisa Barrow

WP-02-27

Teachers and Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools
Daniel Aaronson, Lisa Barrow and William Sander

WP-02-28

The Crime of 1873: Back to the Scene
François R. Velde

WP-02-29

Trade Structure, Industrial Structure, and International Business Cycles
Marianne Baxter and Michael A. Kouparitsas

WP-02-30

Estimating the Returns to Community College Schooling for Displaced Workers
Louis Jacobson, Robert LaLonde and Daniel G. Sullivan

WP-02-31

A Proposal for Efficiently Resolving Out-of-the-Money Swap Positions
at Large Insolvent Banks
George G. Kaufman

WP-03-01

Depositor Liquidity and Loss-Sharing in Bank Failure Resolutions
George G. Kaufman

WP-03-02

Subordinated Debt and Prompt Corrective Regulatory Action
Douglas D. Evanoff and Larry D. Wall

WP-03-03

When is Inter-Transaction Time Informative?
Craig Furfine

WP-03-04

Tenure Choice with Location Selection: The Case of Hispanic Neighborhoods
in Chicago
Maude Toussaint-Comeau and Sherrie L.W. Rhine

WP-03-05

Distinguishing Limited Commitment from Moral Hazard in Models of
Growth with Inequality*
Anna L. Paulson and Robert Townsend

WP-03-06

Resolving Large Complex Financial Organizations
Robert R. Bliss

WP-03-07

6

Working Paper Series (continued)
The Case of the Missing Productivity Growth:
Or, Does information technology explain why productivity accelerated in the United States
but not the United Kingdom?
Susanto Basu, John G. Fernald, Nicholas Oulton and Sylaja Srinivasan

WP-03-08

Inside-Outside Money Competition
Ramon Marimon, Juan Pablo Nicolini and Pedro Teles

WP-03-09

The Importance of Check-Cashing Businesses to the Unbanked: Racial/Ethnic Differences
William H. Greene, Sherrie L.W. Rhine and Maude Toussaint-Comeau

WP-03-10

A Structural Empirical Model of Firm Growth, Learning, and Survival
Jaap H. Abbring and Jeffrey R. Campbell

WP-03-11

Market Size Matters
Jeffrey R. Campbell and Hugo A. Hopenhayn

WP-03-12

The Cost of Business Cycles under Endogenous Growth
Gadi Barlevy

WP-03-13

The Past, Present, and Probable Future for Community Banks
Robert DeYoung, William C. Hunter and Gregory F. Udell

WP-03-14

Measuring Productivity Growth in Asia: Do Market Imperfections Matter?
John Fernald and Brent Neiman

WP-03-15

Revised Estimates of Intergenerational Income Mobility in the United States
Bhashkar Mazumder

WP-03-16

Product Market Evidence on the Employment Effects of the Minimum Wage
Daniel Aaronson and Eric French

WP-03-17

Estimating Models of On-the-Job Search using Record Statistics
Gadi Barlevy

WP-03-18

Banking Market Conditions and Deposit Interest Rates
Richard J. Rosen

WP-03-19

Creating a National State Rainy Day Fund: A Modest Proposal to Improve Future
State Fiscal Performance
Richard Mattoon

WP-03-20

Managerial Incentive and Financial Contagion
Sujit Chakravorti, Anna Llyina and Subir Lall

WP-03-21

Women and the Phillips Curve: Do Women’s and Men’s Labor Market Outcomes
Differentially Affect Real Wage Growth and Inflation?
Katharine Anderson, Lisa Barrow and Kristin F. Butcher

WP-03-22

Evaluating the Calvo Model of Sticky Prices
Martin Eichenbaum and Jonas D.M. Fisher

WP-03-23

7

Working Paper Series (continued)
The Growing Importance of Family and Community: An Analysis of Changes in the
Sibling Correlation in Earnings
Bhashkar Mazumder and David I. Levine

WP-03-24

Should We Teach Old Dogs New Tricks? The Impact of Community College Retraining
on Older Displaced Workers
Louis Jacobson, Robert J. LaLonde and Daniel Sullivan

WP-03-25

Trade Deflection and Trade Depression
Chad P. Brown and Meredith A. Crowley

WP-03-26

China and Emerging Asia: Comrades or Competitors?
Alan G. Ahearne, John G. Fernald, Prakash Loungani and John W. Schindler

WP-03-27

International Business Cycles Under Fixed and Flexible Exchange Rate Regimes
Michael A. Kouparitsas

WP-03-28

Firing Costs and Business Cycle Fluctuations
Marcelo Veracierto

WP-03-29

Spatial Organization of Firms
Yukako Ono

WP-03-30

Government Equity and Money: John Law’s System in 1720 France
François R. Velde

WP-03-31

8