Broad Money vs Narrow Money

Narrow money is cash and whatever sits ready to spend on demand. Broad money is that plus everything one rung less liquid — savings, time deposits, money market securities. In the United States, narrow money (M1) ran at 85.6% of broad money (M2) as of June 2026 (FRED M1SL $19.83T, M2SL $23.16T). Both figures come from the same publisher, the Federal Reserve’s own H.6 release — the only way this ratio means anything. The two aggregates sit close for one reason: a May 2020 Fed redefinition moved savings deposits into M1. M2 already counted them, so only the narrow side moved. No new money changed hands.

The liquidity ladder, side by side

Every monetary aggregate is a rung on the same liquidity spectrum. Rungs are ordered by how fast an asset converts to spending. Narrow money sits at the bottom: cash and demand deposits, spendable without delay. Broad money is narrow money plus everything one or two rungs less liquid.

Both terms are defined everywhere on the web already. What’s missing is this table: which instrument sits where. The answer depends on which country’s ladder you’re reading. M1 and M2 get the full component breakdown on their own pages. This page exists for the comparison, not a second definition of either side.

Where the line sits differently by country

The same instrument crosses the narrow/broad line in different places depending on jurisdiction. That’s the part a bare definition never states. In the US, the Federal Reserve’s May 2020 redefinition moved savings deposits into M1, narrow money’s own territory. Before that date, savings deposits sat in M2 alone. The ECB draws its own line differently. Euro-area M1 holds currency and overnight deposits only — no savings deposits at all. The ECB’s own “broad” aggregate is M3, one rung past a genuinely intermediate M2. The OECD republishes that same euro-area figure as “OECD broad money (M3).” The Bank of England’s headline broad aggregate is a UK-specific tier called Bank of England M4, built from a different national component list entirely. The result: US M1 today is wider, definitionally, than the euro area’s M1 — the same label, two different ladders. Reading “M1” or “M2” as if it meant one fixed thing across countries is a common error in cross-country money-supply comparisons. We hold and rank only the broad tier for exactly this reason, at broad money across countries.

There’s a third rung most cross-country readers never see: our own dataset. We track broad money as the IMF’s harmonised aggregate (MFS_MA/BM_MAI), not any single country’s own headline release. For the United States that series reads $30.68T (2025-12, quarterly) — roughly $7.5T wider than the Fed’s own M2 (FRED M2SL, $23.16T, June 2026). The gap is instrument coverage, not an error: the IMF’s harmonised definition folds in a broader set of near-money instruments than the Fed currently counts under M2. It’s also not the same gap as the Fed’s retired M3: the one FRED series still labelled “M3 for the United States” (OECD, MABMM301USM189S) tracks the Fed’s own M2 level — $20.77T for 2023-11, not ours. Pair our $30.68T against a Fed M1 figure and the ratio is meaningless, because the two numbers don’t share a definition.

Which one actually moves when a central bank acts

Neither, directly — and that surprises most people who ask. A central bank’s own lever touches the monetary base instead. The base is currency plus the reserves banks hold at the central bank, one rung below narrow money on the ladder. Narrow and broad money both grow mostly through commercial bank lending, not through a central bank’s own balance sheet operations. The base exploded after 2008 quantitative easing. Broad money did not follow proportionally. That expansion sat in bank reserves, not new loans — the same money-multiplier breakdown we detail at monetary base. A rate change or a bond purchase moves the base first. Whether narrow or broad money moves at all, and by how much, depends on one behavioral step: whether banks choose to lend against that changed base. No aggregate on this ladder guarantees it.

The broad/narrow ratio, live

The current ratio is single-source and reproducible. FRED M1SL and M2SL both come from the Federal Reserve’s own H.6 release, so dividing one by the other measures the same thing on both sides. Across the five most recent monthly observations — February through June 2026 — the ratio barely moves: 85.7% in February, still 85.7% through May, and 85.6% in June. M1 and M2 are growing at close to the same pace right now. The 2020 redefinition happened once, six years ago; nothing here suggests it’s still moving the ratio.

That stability is recent, not historical. Before May 2020, the Fed counted savings deposits inside M2, not M1. Its own H.6 technical notes describe the switch: beginning May 2020, M1 absorbed “other liquid deposits” — savings deposits included — on top of currency and demand deposits. That added a whole deposit category to the narrow side and left the broad side unchanged, so the ratio jumped in one step. No new money was involved. We put no number on that step. An honest one needs a pre-2020 M1 and M2 from the same publisher. A Fed M1 divided by our own IMF broad money would only measure the distance between two definitions. The pre-2020 levels, series code by series code, are on M1 money supply.

That’s the exact reason a bare “M1 vs M2” ratio needs its date and its publisher stated every time it’s quoted. The country matters too: the same label means different things in the US and the euro area. It’s the same discipline we apply to every growth figure at money supply vs inflation. Full definitions for every rung on the ladder are at our glossary, and our sourcing is documented at methodology.

FAQ