Czy to jest jakiś żart?

[stoje_i_patrze]

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574401212809493056.html

jesli nie, to niesamowite. a LIBOR dla pozyczek dolarówych jest najtanszy i
wynosi 0,299, dla franka 0,307 a dla yena 0,33.

[bagracz]

Już się zaczął dziki carry trade?

[stoje_i_patrze]

It was published on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. It is
therefore, by definition, a joke.

[sevenseas]

Wszystko to dziwnie wyglada. Jestem bardzo podejrzliwy. Wolumen na
akcjach umiera , IBM , EXXON , JPM . Teraz ten dolar , oil i zloto.
Mam wrazenie ze bedzie jazda w dol wkrotce.

www.zerohedge.com/article/spy-volume-40-below-average

Chyba poleca eski na zlocie i dolcu. Jednak jestem kiepskim
traderem , wiec z ciekawoscia posluchalbym szutnika.

ps. swoja droga ten artykol wyglada jak zart.

Zarty sie skonczyly!

[polarbeer]

Gdy to przeczytalem na stronie internetowej WSJ, moja reakcja bylo
niedowierzenie... MUSIALEM wiec wyskoczyc i kupic dzisiejsza papierowa wersje,
zeby potwierdzic, ze ktos nas wszystkich nie wpuszcza w maliny. I rzeczywiscie

Chiny rzadaly od Obamy nowego szefa Fedu

[polarbeer]

Jim Willie pisal o tym zaraz po wizycie premiera Chin w Stanach

[dirloff]

Mam problem z tą stroną. Mógłby ktoś, przynajmniej tak z grubsza, streścić ten
artykuł?

Kopia z WSJ

[polarbeer]

Dear Esteemed Chairman and Savior of the World Economy:

On behalf of your many Chinese friends and all of the Chinese people, we wish to
congratulate you on your recent reappointment as Chairman of the American
Federal Reserve. We could not be more pleased to know that the man who saved the
value of our Fannie Mae mortgage-backed securities last year will be the Great
Monetary Helmsman for another four years.

We also note with satisfaction, and admiration, your many recent assurances, via
the Wall Street Journal and various eloquent speeches, that you and the Fed have
no intention of permitting a revival of dollar inflation. This is a source of
great reassurance to the Chinese people, not to mention the bureaucracy in
Beijing that made the decision to invest $1 trillion or more in
dollar-denominated securities.

As you can imagine, this has become a source of some political controversy
inside the government of the People's Republic, as we have also noted it has
become in the irresponsible American financial press. Fortunately, we don't have
the latter problem. But please know that we share your disdain for any voices in
the unpatriotic media who would question your resolve to maintain the value of
the world's reserve currency.

At the same time, and with the deepest respect, we also note with concern your
decision this year to purchase U.S. Treasurys, which directly monetizes the debt
built up by irresponsible democratic politicians. (This is one reason we Chinese
are so skeptical of democracy; it always leads to a welfare state!) We must
admit that that Treasury decision caught us by surprise, considering the many
lectures over the years from our American friends about the importance of an
independent central bank. Then again, the last year has seen America do many
things that we once thought a capitalist economy would never do, wouldn't you agree?

With this in mind, we have decided to hedge our dollar bets and buy gold, oil
and other commodities which will rise in value if the dollar falls. You may have
therefore noticed that oil has risen above $71 a barrel, despite slack global
demand, and in particular that gold has climbed this week above $1,000 an ounce.

Perhaps you have seen reports that we Chinese are doubling our reserves of gold
and buying other related metals. Please do not be alarmed. This is the normal
process of diversification that any trillion-dollar creditor would take, just in
case the Federal Reserve's definition of an "extended period" for monetary
easing turns out to be even more extended than we already assume it will be. We
will only be too happy to cease this flight from dollar assets when we observe
your determination to tighten money; surely this must be why President Obama
selected you over the distinguished White House economic adviser, Lawrence Summers.

Once again, on behalf of all of the Chinese people, our heartiest congratulations.

Sincerely,

Ministry of Finance

Beijing
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A22

[dirloff]

Czytam właśnie... To naprawdę jest państwowego, chińskiego autorstwa? To czasem
nie jest jakiś żart redakcji WSJ? Żadne światowe media tego nie komentują? Damn,
to jakby humorystyczne wypowiedzenie formy...

[polarbeer]

Dokladnie, Nie do wiary!

WSJ nie umie tak pisac.

[polarbeer]

W samej gazecie ponizej tego listu jest komentarz autostwa WSJ na temat grozby
Chin ze nie beda respektowac kontraktow derywatywow. Ten komentarz jest bez
humoru, jednostronne "how dare you" typowe dla szmaty reprezentujacej interesy WS.

[dirloff]

Nie mogę uwierzyć, aby sobie pozwolili na tak daleko posunięty sarkazm oraz
oficjalne, bezpośrednie i jawne dla szerokiej, czytelniczej publiczności,
wypowiedzenie "wojny walutowej"...

Szok

[polarbeer]

Tak to naprawde szokujace...

Ale, przeciez widac ze wszystkie inne, bardziej "taktowne' podejscia zupelnie
nie dzilaly.

Z drugiej strony, czy ktos kto dorwal sie do cudzej karty kredytowej*
kiedykolwiek poslucha "podszeptow"? Trzeba go walnoac pala w glowe zeby
zrozumial, ze to konec gadania i przekretow.

___________

*Na tym polega deficyt panswowy: Politycy dorwali sie do kredytu podatnikow
ktorzy nie sa w stanie sie obronic, ani nie sa w stanie splacic. W koncu dorarlo
to do kredytodawcy...

[dirloff]

Błąd. Zamiast "formy" powinno być "wojny"...

[wioocha]

To musi być sarkastyczny joke kogoś z lub z poza WSJ.
Trudno uwierzyć, że to autentyk przyglądając się podpisowi.
Nie podpisaliby "Ministry of Finance, Beijing", a np. Xie Xuren, Minister of
Finance of Popular Republic of China". Wydaje mi się to dość oczywiste.
Jest jeszcze taka ewentualność, że faktycznie dał to chiński rząd za sowitą
opłatą, a podpisano w ten sposób, by wyglądało na żart o ale jako ostrzeżenie i
wyraz niepokoju czy pewna deklaracja. W takiej lżejszej, zawoalowanej/dyskretnej
formie.

[jaerk]

Zezorro przetłumaczył
zezorro.blogspot.com/

opinia o tym

[stoje_i_patrze]

yellowroad.wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/?p=234

[pawel-l]

Zgadzam sięw 100% z tym artykułem.
Choć mam wątpliwości czy FED już zaakceptował krach systemu
kredytowego i że z deflacją nie wygra.
Dodam jeszcze, że dolar będzie się wzmacniał, a cena T-bondów szła w
górę (w odróżnieniu od całej reszty obligacji, akcji i surowców)

And this is why Ben secured his next term that early. He had to free
his hands, because the consequences will be painful. I think we may
have the second recession to start as soon as this winter and that
will likely make Obama one-termer. But there is nothing he can do
now. By the time Bernanke will be up for re-election next time Obama
will be gone already (and I’m afraid that his successor could be an
extremist of some kind).

You should never forget that the Federal reserve job is not to
prevent recessions but to protect the dollar franchise, which is
based on the long-term performance of the economy and the consensus
among stakeholders. If the next recession is unavoidable why spend
precious economic and political capital trying to prevent it?

dziwna opinia

[polarbeer]

Jezeli w ogole facet pisze o tym liscie... Tego listu po prostu nie da sie
czytac w ten sposob. Jako "listu zwyciestwa" a nie "ostrzezenia".

Moze ta opinia jest o czyms zupelnie innym

To tylko żart

[dorota_3]

Gorzki żart redakcji WSJ, ale trafia w sedno.

Jednak to napewno nie oświadczenie strony chińskiej, z dwóch
powodów : Chiny czują się (i są) mocarstwem i nie zniżyłyby się do
tego, żeby z władzami USA rozmawiać za pośrednictwem jakiejkolwiek
gazety, szczególnie amerykańskiej. Po drugie - Chińczycy są zbyt
mądrzy, żeby publicznie upokarzać przeciwnika.

Jest inne pytanie - po co redakcja WSJ takie gierki uprawia?
Spadający nakład?

Jezeli to zart, dlaczego wiec

[polarbeer]

w drukowanej gazecie ponizej "listu" jest ta opinia (Bez podpisu)

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400390175833498.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.353904:b27603088
Beijing needs to clarify whether a contract is a contract, and fast. Recent
suggestions that the government might allow or even encourage companies to
challenge derivatives contracts that went against them send a bad signal to
foreign companies and countries doing business with China.

The controversy stems from commodities hedges gone wrong. When fuel prices were
high, airlines like China Eastern, Air China and Shanghai Airlines and shippers
like China Ocean Shipping crafted derivatives contracts with foreign banks to
protect the companies from even higher fuel prices. Instead the price of oil has
fallen, leaving the companies on the hook for the downside risk of their hedge—a
total of about $2 billion for the airlines alone, by some counts.

The companies are crying foul, and several reportedly sent a letter to the banks
that sold them the derivatives suggesting they may be "void, invalid or
unenforceable." Worse, the government is getting into the act. The state-owned
Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, which oversees these
companies, on Monday posted a statement on its Web site suggesting that Beijing
might countenance efforts to sue to nullify the contracts.

China has been down this road before, pushing foreign counterparties several
times over the past decade to back down from derivatives contracts that had
turned against a Chinese company. In those cases, the companies or the
government variously argued that the firms had been illegally speculating or had
not understood the risks they were taking—or even that the people signing the
papers on behalf of the Chinese companies hadn't been authorized to do so. It's
hard to see how such arguments could apply to the kind of bread-and-butter fuel
hedging at issue here.

Policy makers might think the government holds a lot of cards in this case, and
in some respects it does. While the derivatives contracts would be tough to
wriggle out of legally since they're enforceable through courts in Hong Kong,
Singapore or Britain, it would be hard for the banks to collect on any judgment
unless they're willing to seize planes at Heathrow or Changi airports. The banks
would have strong incentives not to try, too. Regulators in Beijing decide
whether the foreign banks receive various business licenses, for instance, and
state-owned enterprises constitute some of the biggest bank clients. Especially
since the goal could only be to renegotiate the contracts instead of canceling
them, policy makers and executives might think the banks will be willing to pay
that price to continue doing business in China.

But this kind of bullying is not free. Most immediately, hedging is a
risk-management tool that many Chinese companies can't afford to live without.
It works on trust between counterparties that each side will hold up its end of
the bargain. Already banks reportedly are demanding higher collateral for
derivatives contracts like those at issue here to compensate for the loss of
trust. That's an added cost of doing business not faced by other airlines that
take their lumps when hedges go wrong. like Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific or
America's United.

This incident will leave foreign investors wondering where China stands on its
road to commercial rule of law. Following the arrests of Rio Tinto executives in
a dispute over ore prices, foreign businesses already have to wonder about their
physical safety if they run afoul of Chinese companies in contract negotiations.
Now it appears foreign companies can be in financial danger simply for ending up
on the "wrong" side of a standard off-the-shelf derivatives transaction.

Beijing officials may not realize the potential effects of this controversy on
Chinese companies investing abroad. Chinese mergers and acquisitions in
countries like America or Australia have been controversial in large part
because politicians in those countries have worried about a lack of transparency
within Chinese companies, and whether those companies would play by the rules
once they hit foreign shores. Politicians already predisposed to oppose Chinese
investment—and perhaps some who'd otherwise support allowing such
investments—will hardly take comfort from a sign that Chinese companies won't
play by the rules if it doesn't suit them. If Beijing is actively trying to
dissuade foreign investment, it's on the right track.

Beijing might be responding to a political storm over the notion Chinese
companies have been exploited by Western banks (one wag has called derivatives
"financial opium," a charged phrase in China). Or it could be trying to bail out
a few companies that made bad fuel-price bets. Or some other political
motivation could be at work. Whatever the cause, though, Beijing's only smart
way forward is to state clearly that a contract is a contract and that Chinese
companies must abide by theirs.

Schizofrenia WSJ

[polarbeer]

Wziete razem, te dwa teksty, jezeli pisane przez ta sama tozsamosc bylyby
znakiem calkowitego rozdwojenia. Jeden drwiacy z autrytetow Ameryki, a drugi
pelen pro-amerykanskiego patosu. Jeden podpisujacy sie jako kredytodawca, a
drugi ostrzegajacy ze "nikt w Chinach nie bedzie inwestowal".

To sa dwie zupelne przeciwstawne rzeczywistosci

[bromva]

moze autor listu mial na celu sprawdzenie reakcji czytelnikow, mediow,
blogerow itp. ?

[polarbeer]

Myslalem o tym, dlatego zaczalem googlowac szukajac czegokolwiek co sugerowaloby
ze byla to satyra, albo jakis hoax... Jak narazie nada, nic...

[robisc]

ktos ma gorzkie poczucie humoru; ale czyta sie dobrze, bo to w zasadzie ma sens;
SiP jak zwykle ma reke na pulsie