<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: China&#8217;s new barbell portfolio: Treasuries and commodities?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:09:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Random Links LIV &#171; Random Musings of a Deranged Mind</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-131650</link>
		<dc:creator>Random Links LIV &#171; Random Musings of a Deranged Mind</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:16:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-131650</guid>
		<description>[...] the lie to those who think China can easily diversify out of dollars via gold stockpiles.  And, as Setser points out, other commodities have non-trivial risks, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the lie to those who think China can easily diversify out of dollars via gold stockpiles.  And, as Setser points out, other commodities have non-trivial risks, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: a</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130848</link>
		<dc:creator>a</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 10:58:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130848</guid>
		<description>&quot;you are right. the us didn’t want to do anything dramatic that china would consider an affront. like default on agencies.&quot;

Good move, usa!  See how badly the chinese take it if you default on Treasuries.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;you are right. the us didn’t want to do anything dramatic that china would consider an affront. like default on agencies.&#8221;</p>
<p>Good move, usa!  See how badly the chinese take it if you default on Treasuries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: purple</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130748</link>
		<dc:creator>purple</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 07:43:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130748</guid>
		<description>Stimulus does not represent a restructuring of an economy. Unless there is restructuring, it just buys time until the next leg down.

There are very little signs that any country is restructuring because it would involve the mass liquidation of their capacity, and depression level unemployment. They would prefer some other country liquidate - this perspective led to competitive devaluations during the Great Depression.

China&#039;s yuan swap measures seem defensive given the very real possibility of a dollar devaluation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stimulus does not represent a restructuring of an economy. Unless there is restructuring, it just buys time until the next leg down.</p>
<p>There are very little signs that any country is restructuring because it would involve the mass liquidation of their capacity, and depression level unemployment. They would prefer some other country liquidate &#8211; this perspective led to competitive devaluations during the Great Depression.</p>
<p>China&#8217;s yuan swap measures seem defensive given the very real possibility of a dollar devaluation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Albertf</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130743</link>
		<dc:creator>Albertf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 05:52:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130743</guid>
		<description>NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stock futures extended losses on Thursday as further labor market 

weakness fueled doubts about a quick economic recovery and Britain&#039;s reduced rating outlook 

signaled more fallout from the credit crisis. S&amp;P 500 futures fell 10 points and were below 

fair value, a formula that evaluates pricing by taking into account interest rates, 

dividends and time to expiration on the contract. Dow Jones industrial average futures shed 

90 points, and Nasdaq 100 futures dipped 15 points. 

&lt;a href=&quot;http://tr.im/lFjP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Keep buying the dips? Or dow 5000?&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW YORK (Reuters) &#8211; Stock futures extended losses on Thursday as further labor market </p>
<p>weakness fueled doubts about a quick economic recovery and Britain&#8217;s reduced rating outlook </p>
<p>signaled more fallout from the credit crisis. S&amp;P 500 futures fell 10 points and were below </p>
<p>fair value, a formula that evaluates pricing by taking into account interest rates, </p>
<p>dividends and time to expiration on the contract. Dow Jones industrial average futures shed </p>
<p>90 points, and Nasdaq 100 futures dipped 15 points. </p>
<p><a href="http://tr.im/lFjP" rel="nofollow">Keep buying the dips? Or dow 5000?</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bsetser</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130736</link>
		<dc:creator>bsetser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 02:21:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130736</guid>
		<description>don -- you are right.  the us didn&#039;t want to do anything dramatic that china would consider an affront.  like default on agencies.

but the us didn&#039;t protect reserve primary (which china had invested in) from the fall out of LEH, and i would be quite surprised if SAFE didn&#039;t hold some LEH and AIG bonds (LEH bonds weren&#039;t made whole, obviously).   The total amounts involved were small, but china in the crisis discovered that it is fundamentally loss adverse and the us gov didn&#039;t protect it from all credit losses.

and then there is a rumor (unconfirmed) that china (via SAFE) may have had some of the agencies preferred stock (or something in the capital structure between debt and equity) and was surprised when that wasn&#039;t protected.  just a rumor tho.

as far as i know SAFE has never tried to explain in public why it shifted into agencies or why it shifted out ...  nor has it said anything in public about its little foray into equities.  so i guess I am a bit less impressed by china&#039;s public policy statements than you are!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>don &#8212; you are right.  the us didn&#8217;t want to do anything dramatic that china would consider an affront.  like default on agencies.</p>
<p>but the us didn&#8217;t protect reserve primary (which china had invested in) from the fall out of LEH, and i would be quite surprised if SAFE didn&#8217;t hold some LEH and AIG bonds (LEH bonds weren&#8217;t made whole, obviously).   The total amounts involved were small, but china in the crisis discovered that it is fundamentally loss adverse and the us gov didn&#8217;t protect it from all credit losses.</p>
<p>and then there is a rumor (unconfirmed) that china (via SAFE) may have had some of the agencies preferred stock (or something in the capital structure between debt and equity) and was surprised when that wasn&#8217;t protected.  just a rumor tho.</p>
<p>as far as i know SAFE has never tried to explain in public why it shifted into agencies or why it shifted out &#8230;  nor has it said anything in public about its little foray into equities.  so i guess I am a bit less impressed by china&#8217;s public policy statements than you are!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WStroupe</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130732</link>
		<dc:creator>WStroupe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 23:49:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130732</guid>
		<description>Don the libertarian Democrat,

&quot;Unlike most people, I find the Chinese explanations for their actions, especially on their website, to make sense and appear forward looking, especially when you set them up against most other governments in this crisis.&quot;

and

FollowTheMoney,

&quot;The RMB/Yuan will eventually appreciate. Our standard of living will decline, a transfer of wealth from west to east....AAA downgrade in my opinion is around the corner. We’re only in the middle of the largest financial crisis, a scenario far worse than the great depression of the 1930’s unraveling....It’s going to be epic, it’s going to be historic, and it’s going to be spoken about for generations to come.&quot;

Very, very well said, by both of you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don the libertarian Democrat,</p>
<p>&#8220;Unlike most people, I find the Chinese explanations for their actions, especially on their website, to make sense and appear forward looking, especially when you set them up against most other governments in this crisis.&#8221;</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>FollowTheMoney,</p>
<p>&#8220;The RMB/Yuan will eventually appreciate. Our standard of living will decline, a transfer of wealth from west to east&#8230;.AAA downgrade in my opinion is around the corner. We’re only in the middle of the largest financial crisis, a scenario far worse than the great depression of the 1930’s unraveling&#8230;.It’s going to be epic, it’s going to be historic, and it’s going to be spoken about for generations to come.&#8221;</p>
<p>Very, very well said, by both of you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FollowTheMoney</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130731</link>
		<dc:creator>FollowTheMoney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 23:21:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130731</guid>
		<description>Rating agencies should already have downgraded both UK and US AAA debt. 

S&amp;P and MOODYS are behind, just like downgrades on the financial sector and the insurance sector.

The stage for currency crisis has been set.  China is simply trying to hedge itself for the &quot;FALL&quot;out...

I would not be surprised to see China add alot more GOLD to it&#039;s reserves in the coming weeks. In 5 years time, China is goin to have the world&#039;s most attractive global reserve. A country backed by commodities, hard workers and gigantic surplus with immense trade relationships.

The RMB/Yuan will eventually appreciate. Our standard of living will decline, a transfer of wealth from west to east.

But look in the mirror, did we have to invade Iraq? Did we have to build McMansions? Did we have to all drive giant SUV&#039;s? And then when the house of cards was on fire, shouldn&#039;t we just have let it burn instead of adding more cards in hopes the wood knock out the blaze?

AAA downgrade in my opinion is around the corner.  We&#039;re only in the middle of the largest financial crisis, a scenario far worse than the great depression of the 1930&#039;s unraveling.

It&#039;s going to be epic, it&#039;s going to be historic, and it&#039;s going to be spoken about for generations to come.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rating agencies should already have downgraded both UK and US AAA debt. </p>
<p>S&amp;P and MOODYS are behind, just like downgrades on the financial sector and the insurance sector.</p>
<p>The stage for currency crisis has been set.  China is simply trying to hedge itself for the &#8220;FALL&#8221;out&#8230;</p>
<p>I would not be surprised to see China add alot more GOLD to it&#8217;s reserves in the coming weeks. In 5 years time, China is goin to have the world&#8217;s most attractive global reserve. A country backed by commodities, hard workers and gigantic surplus with immense trade relationships.</p>
<p>The RMB/Yuan will eventually appreciate. Our standard of living will decline, a transfer of wealth from west to east.</p>
<p>But look in the mirror, did we have to invade Iraq? Did we have to build McMansions? Did we have to all drive giant SUV&#8217;s? And then when the house of cards was on fire, shouldn&#8217;t we just have let it burn instead of adding more cards in hopes the wood knock out the blaze?</p>
<p>AAA downgrade in my opinion is around the corner.  We&#8217;re only in the middle of the largest financial crisis, a scenario far worse than the great depression of the 1930&#8242;s unraveling.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s going to be epic, it&#8217;s going to be historic, and it&#8217;s going to be spoken about for generations to come.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: byoCarbon</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130729</link>
		<dc:creator>byoCarbon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 23:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130729</guid>
		<description>WStroupe writes, with regards to industrial metals, &quot;Of course, China gets somewhat of a hit because its buys move the market, thus increasing the prices on stuff it’s buying. But that price hit isn’t enough to negate the benefits of making the buys now, in a relative price trough.&quot;

Whether this is a price trough or not is the big question.  Commodities historically decrease in cost over time as technology, etc., lower their price of production.  One can find charts of copper prices declining, adjusted for inflation, fairly consistently over the last 40 years or even the last 100 years.  I would argue that we are still at prices above long term norms and norms 10 years from now should be even lower.

If this is a price trough, China wins.  If this is a return to the norm and commodity prices still have a way to fall now and in the long term, China loses.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WStroupe writes, with regards to industrial metals, &#8220;Of course, China gets somewhat of a hit because its buys move the market, thus increasing the prices on stuff it’s buying. But that price hit isn’t enough to negate the benefits of making the buys now, in a relative price trough.&#8221;</p>
<p>Whether this is a price trough or not is the big question.  Commodities historically decrease in cost over time as technology, etc., lower their price of production.  One can find charts of copper prices declining, adjusted for inflation, fairly consistently over the last 40 years or even the last 100 years.  I would argue that we are still at prices above long term norms and norms 10 years from now should be even lower.</p>
<p>If this is a price trough, China wins.  If this is a return to the norm and commodity prices still have a way to fall now and in the long term, China loses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: locococo</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130728</link>
		<dc:creator>locococo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 22:59:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130728</guid>
		<description>if only one could “synthesize” commodities (against payment and out of delivery)…

… we d be right back at the good old default swapping</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>if only one could “synthesize” commodities (against payment and out of delivery)…</p>
<p>… we d be right back at the good old default swapping</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don the libertarian Democrat</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130726</link>
		<dc:creator>Don the libertarian Democrat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 22:21:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/05/21/chinas-new-barbell-portfolio-treasuries-and-commodities/#comment-130726</guid>
		<description>&quot;Conversely, China doesn’t seem keen to take risk in the fixed income market. The old game of buying Agencies to get a bit more yield than Treasuries offer is over. And, I would guess — based on China’s comments about the importance of protecting the value of China’s investment in the US — that China also isn’t all that keen on the long-term bonds of large financial institutions. At least those that are not guaranteed by the FDIC.&quot;

I&#039;m still waiting for a good explanation of this. Even on the bonds of large financial institutions, it seems to me that the US didn&#039;t like the idea of giving a big haircut to China. 

Unlike most people, I find the Chinese explanations for their actions, especially on their website, to make sense and appear forward looking, especially when you set them up against most other governments in this crisis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Conversely, China doesn’t seem keen to take risk in the fixed income market. The old game of buying Agencies to get a bit more yield than Treasuries offer is over. And, I would guess — based on China’s comments about the importance of protecting the value of China’s investment in the US — that China also isn’t all that keen on the long-term bonds of large financial institutions. At least those that are not guaranteed by the FDIC.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m still waiting for a good explanation of this. Even on the bonds of large financial institutions, it seems to me that the US didn&#8217;t like the idea of giving a big haircut to China. </p>
<p>Unlike most people, I find the Chinese explanations for their actions, especially on their website, to make sense and appear forward looking, especially when you set them up against most other governments in this crisis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

